Going Down With the Ship
November 8, 2008 by Andrew Safer 
Print This Post
Opinion
Much communication has been taking place lately across the electronic airwaves about the state of the Shambhala community. This exchange of views is a good thing.
I believe much of the “problem” is structural. A particular mandala set-up organically grew up around Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche. The mandala that developed was a mutual creation of his, his students, the mahakalas, dralas, and other non-theistic entities Rinpoche was/is connected with. As the Vidyadhara (crazy wisdom holder), he was inscrutable in the way he occupied the space at the centre. One could say that the centre of the mandala was empty, or one could say that the centre was like an axis which exists according to some universal principle, but does not exist in any tangible way. For the most part, the Vidyadhara was in the background, hidden by the hustle and bustle of what was going on…the activity of the mandala itself. (He’s still in the background, but, for me, it has gotten harder and harder to see the relationship between him and the current mandala.)
When Trungpa Rinpoche was the central mandala figure, sometimes he was in the foreground. When he taught, he was “the man”. The spotlight was on him. The rest of the time, because he showed us how to meditate and work with our mind, because he empowered us to take our seat and be who we are, we were the actors in the ongoing movie, or, more often than not, the unfolding drama–and he was in the background.
Lots of things went right, and some things went wrong. When they went wrong, typically, he didn’t fix them. My understanding of this–and this is pure conjecture on my part–is that he had faith in the intelligence of the mandala, he knew karma would take its course, and, generally speaking, he had no inclination to step in to “save the day” in any case!
From a theistic point of view, this is hardly acceptable. The person in charge should right the ship when it’s listing, dammit! But in our case, when things start to go south, there is no Superman. There is no magician to pull a rabbit out of a hat. It’s up to us.
But we do know one thing. When things get rough–when there’s a lot of pain, confusion, and divisiveness–one thing we can do is practice tonglen, and go from there.
Quite a few years ago, in the question period at a seminar, I asked Trungpa Rinpoche about tonglen. (I don’t recall which seminar it was, but judging from his response, he was probably not teaching Hinayaya or Mahayana.)
”If you’re doing tonglen for someone who has cancer,” I asked, “and you’re doing it properly, does that mean that you won’t get the cancer?”
”No,” he said. “You get cancer.”
”So, you go down with the ship?”
”Yes.” (I believe he was smiling at this point!) ”You go down with the ship!”
This exchange has always stuck with me because it’s so unsettling. Recently, I was reading “Crazy Wisdom” in The Collected Works of Chogyam Trungpa, Volume Five, and came across the following passage which gave me a bit of a clue as to what Trungpa Rinpoche was talking about [my emphasis]:
There still seems to be some kind of timidity in our general approach. We are timid in the sense that, no matter how subtle or obvious the teachings may be, we are still not reconciled to the notion that “pain and pleasure alike are ornaments which it is pleasant to wear.” We might read it, we might say it, but still we find it magnificent to twist the twist and feel that misery or negativity is good: “We have to work with it. Okay, I’ve been doing that. Lately I’ve been finding all kinds of rough and rugged things going on in my mind and in my life. It’s not particularly pleasant, but all in all it’s interesting for me.” There is some tinge of hope. The idea of finding the negativity “interesting” is that somehow as we go along we will be saved. The unspoken implication is that finally the whole thing is going to be good and pleasurable. It’s very subtle. It is almost as though there’s an unspoken agreement that in the end all roads lead to Rome.
Ego is always trying to come out on top. We hope/expect that we will end up smelling like a rose. Trungpa Rinpoche’s message to us was, simply: Good luck, sir (or madam)!
Regarding our current situation, along with the mantle he has assumed as leader of the Shambhala community, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche has inherited the Vidyadhara’s mandala set-up. On the face of it, it makes perfect sense that we would keep the mandala intact–if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it–and pass it along from Sakyong to Sakyong. I’d go so far as to say that this happened without so much as a thought that it could be otherwise.
When the Sawang became Sakyong, it was as if we, as a community, figured that–suddenly–the training wheels could come off the bicycle. I was far from the centre of the action at the time, so I’m going to speculate as to why we did this. Perhaps the Sawang-turned-Sakyong was eager to start riding on his own, but we were also very keen for him to take his ‘bicycle seat’ at the centre of the mandala. We longed, even ached for this because we had been living for so long with the gap that Trungpa Rinpoche had left behind. This absence was painful. The notion of waiting any longer–if it had occurred to us that this was even an option–would have been quickly squelched by our desire for the new Sakyong to lead the community, fully fledged. That way, the uncomfortable gap would go away. (Hindsight is 20/20!)
So, the Sakyong took his seat at the centre and gradually began to “grow into” that spot. It was as if, on receiving the Sakyong empowerment, he emerged fully hatched, like a garuda.
Now, a dozen years later, we find that there’s an elephant in the living room. Ignoring it is not helpful. There’s a difference between a vidyadhara occupying the centre of the mandala, and someone who is still on the path occupying that same spot. The latter is in a vulnerable position because checks and balances and training wheels were not built into the Vidyadhara’s mandala. In the Shambhala International mandala, there is no authority to whom Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche must listen and pay heed. Technically, the Board of Directors can step in to create a boundary but to my knowledge, this seldom happens.
We know from history that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe this can and will happen to anyone who is still on the path–anyone who has not dissolved the last vestiges of ego–who finds him/herself in the centre of the Vidyadhara’s mandala .
The first time there was serious divisiveness in the sangha the Regent was the leader. Much pain and handwringing took place over that messy situation over a period of years, and deep schisms roiled the sangha. While there are significant differences between the Regent and Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, what is similar is that they were both put in positions with unchecked power and authority. Now, in retrospect, we can see the consequences.
There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, but making the same mistake twice can have severe repercussions.
I submit that whenever someone who is still on the path occupies the Vidyadhara’s position in the mandala there will be problems, because only egolessness can “survive” that particular spot unscathed. As a result, if we fast-forward to today, we see that decisions have been made that are creating a great deal of discord in the sangha. Among them are the following:
- In the path that Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche has recently articulated for his students, the practices of Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara have become optional after completion of the Scorpion Seal retreat. When the Vidyadhara transmitted these crown jewels of the Mahamudra tradition and teachings to his senior students, indeed, there was (and is) nothing ’optional’ about them! This is just one example of key teachings and practices that have either lost their priority or been altered to fit a new agenda.
- If I wanted to join the Shambhala community today, I wouldn’t be able to because, as it says in the St. John’s Shambhala Meditation Group Membership document, I cannot make a “personal commitment to the path of Shambhala Buddhism” because this view is not in accord with my training. My understanding is that the Shambhala and Buddhist paths are closely related, but separate. This is one of a number of reasons why a significant number of senior students have either dropped out or been terminated from membership, due to non-payment of dues.
- Discussions are underway to transfer the ownership of Kalapa Valley, The Great Stupa of Dharmakaya (!), and Trungpa Rinpoche’s copyrights to an entity that exists outside the purview of Shambhala International. Some of us are disturbed by this.
- There is a “need” for the current Sakyong to have multiple expensive residences. At the moment, there’s Halifax, Boulder, and Cologne. There is also talk about building a Gesar Palace at Shambhala Mountain Center, which would include a residence for the Sakyong. Does this consumption and display of wealth really reflect Shambhala values?
I think it’s time to roll up our sleeves, practice tonglen–and go down with the ship.
Since this article is subtitled “Opinion”, I’ve read this regularly prefaced with “In my opinion…” and “It is my opinion that…” instead of accepting your suppositions as fact, and what strikes me is that i appreciate your sharing your opinion and i also disagree with the suppositions. However, if I did agree with those suppositions, I can see how I could draw similar conclusions.
For example, I personally would find power and leadership in this mandala a heavy burden – for me and my ego at least. So I’m not sure how we can really presuppose that having the role of Sakyong is something anyone would desire or yearn for, or seek benefit of – from an ego point of view – even if they were theoretically still on a path and / or corruptible by power. Perhaps some would aspire to it, I don’t know, but I haven’t met anyone and I certainly don’t think it is a given since I’m a counter example. Would you desire that role if so offered? Even if your father had asked you to take such a role?
I appreciate Davee’s generous reading of and gracious remarks about this and other pieces on this blogsite.
Generally, I have found the allegations, accusation or aspersions expressed on this site to be extremely negative and extremely presumptuous, without demonstrating investigation in developing or rigor in evaluating their own positions. To state such extreme positions without such investigation or rigor strikes me as reckless or irresponsible, especially when having to do with our lineage and its holders.
Andrew, in your opinion piece, you assert that the Sakyong is “on the path” and is not a Vidyadhara.
How do you know for yourself? Do you know how and by whom it is supposed to be determined according to the teachings and traditions of our lineages whether or not someone is a Vidyadhara? How would you reconcile your assertion with the confidence placed in the Sakyong and the recognition given to him by great lineage figures such as H.H. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, H.H. Penor Rinpoche and many others? How would you reconcile your assertion that, as someone who is not a Vidyadhara, the Sakyong’s leadership of Shambhala should actually be overseen by the more ordinary beings involved in the governance of Shambhala with (a) his having been empowered by H.H. Penor Rinpoche as Sakyong to lead Shambhala and (b) the acceptance of his role as Sakyong by the ordinary beings who actually are involved in governance? Perhaps you should consider answering questions such as these for yourself before posting negative remarks about any Rinpoche.
Have you attended teachings and empowerments by the Sakyong? What was your experience of those?
For me, attending the Sadhana of Mahamudra empowerment at Karme Choling in 1993 made it quite clear that the Sakyong is indeed a powerful Vidyadhara and Vajra Master. Attending the Sakyong Enthronement, the Shambhala Dzogchen teachings and the Rigden Abisheka have only emphasized and furthered my sense of him as a great teacher.
It seems to me, as I said in my comments on the post about His Eminence Namkha Drimed Rinpoche, that the principal contributors to this blogsite just don’t feel the same kind of connection to Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche that they felt to the Vidyadhara Trungpa Rinpoche. Based on that kind of connection, they accepted the leadership of Trungpa Rinpoche and also the assignment of extraordinary titles, accomplishments and abilities to him, and allowed that he should have the freedoms, rights, privileges and responsibilities of an enlightened ruler, appropriate to those titles, accomplishments and abilities. This is as it should be.
However, there is a basic problem of evidentiary logic afflicting all of the negative posts on this blogsite: lack of evidence for something does not constitute evidence against it. Lack of Dharmic connection with a teacher, even when exposed to that teacher, does not mean that the teacher is not Dharmic.
The principal contributors to this site are no doubt genuinely devoted to the Vidyadhara Trungpa Rinpoche, and recognized him as far as possible as a Vidyadhara and Vajra Master, and as King of Shambhala. Why is it that they have not so recognized the current Sakyong?
For all of us, this is ultimately a matter of individual karma and connection, but a good friend of mine once made an observation that I believe may be relevant. She reminded me that there are 3 classes of yidam: wisdom deities, compassion deities, and power deities. Yidams of different classes have very different energies, qualities, styles and manifestations. Dorje Trolo is a power deity; Manjushri, a wisdom deity. If you expect a wisdom deity to manifest as a power deity, you might not recognize its manifestation. You would then have to rely on your own, independent ability to rest completely in the ground awareness of the Dharmakaya and to directly observe from there a Vidyadhara’s manifestation through the Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya. (Andrew, is this the method of recognition that you have applied?)
I would like to say that I have also experienced the Sakyong in very powerful and impressive manifestations, during the events I mentioned. Many of my sangha friends have too. But these were Vajrayana events with audiences who came together through tendril, and even then perhaps not everyone felt the same way; this was so during Trungpa Rinpoche’s time too.
In my post about His Eminence Namkha Drimed Rinpoche, I said that I was sympathetic to people who may not have experienced the same kind of connection with the current Sakyong as they did with the Vidyadhara Trungpa Rinpoche. But, I asked, what should one do with this lack of connection, and the lack of confidence, doubt, disappointment and bewilderment that can arise from it? I think the answer is the same for all of us: practice, ask the advice of our gurus, and follow it wholeheartedly. Andrew, have you asked the Sakyong, His Eminence, or gurus with whom you feel a close connection, directly about your experiences, feelings, concerns and frustrations with the Sakyong and Shambhala, as you have expressed them on this blogsite? What have they said to you? I would very much doubt that they would support your assertion that the Sakyong is not a Vidyadhara and needs oversight, because every Rinpoche I have spoken with about the Sakyong and my involvement with Shambhala has been very clearly and fully supportive of him as throne-holder.
Saying that Shambhaleans are “going down with the ship” seems ridiculous in a time when such an abundance of teachings and the full unfolding of the Shambhala path by the second Sakyong are manifesting. It seems instead that that the ship has fully unfurled its sails and clearly set its course.
I can understand questions and concerns about the Kagyu path, but it does not seem really to have been excluded at all. It seems up to us, as recipients of its transmissions and its senior students, to help support it within the mandala.
I can also understand questions about “Shambhala Buddhism”, but I also see presumption instead of consideration or investigation about it on this blogsite. In a sense, “Buddhism” before the initial establishment of the Shambhala path by the Druk Sakyong just meant the Buddhist lineages of the Hina, Maha and Vajrayanas. Was the initial establishment of the Shambhala path different from these? Yes, it was different in language and symbolism, and in ultimate origin. It was nearly identical in its introductory practice, supporting the experience of that language and symbolism. Of course, in advanced practices, there were apparent differences. But if we consider the more extensive advanced practices, what are those? Those are sadhanas, very similar, in elements, forms and meaning, to Vajrayana Buddhist sadhanas. And who was the original teacher of what gave rise to Shambhala and its practices? The Buddha! With what spiritual teachings and principles do these teachings have the most comparative affinity? Buddhist! What two spiritual traditions are based on egolessness? And who are the great holders of the lineage of Shambhala in this world? Aren’t they all also great holders of the Tibetan Buddhist lineages? So I think in saying either that the Shambhala teachings are different from the Buddhist teachings as we have understood them before the introduction of the Shambhala path, or that Shambhala is a form of Buddhism, we are using the flexibility of language to convey difference or similarity, and there are bases and advantages for both. The term “buddhism” would carry different emphases and meanings in these cases. Some advantages of “Shambhala Buddhism” is that it is perhaps easier to get people to expect to have to count mantras in doing sadhana practice and then to do retreat practices, and perhaps easier to remain incorporated as a religious non-profit! (that’s a joke).
On that note, I’ll end, and go practice!
Carl
While your spirited defense of all things SI is admirable from the devotional aspect, you seem to have avoided all the very real questions about control of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings(including copyrights!) relics and legacy.
Plus I don’t think you got the teaching in the central story at all.
Samaya is not an asset that is inheritable. If you had it with Trungpa Rinpoche perhaps you would understand why these questions had to arise given the twists and turns of the organization.
On more remark RE “Shambhala Buddhism”, continuing my remarks above.
I said that there were ways in which the flexibility of language could be used to indicate differences between Shambhala and Buddhism as it existed before the introduction of the Shambhala path by the Druk Sakyong, or to indicate many basic and potent similarities, with Shambhala considered as a type or furtherance of Buddhism based on those.
A quote from Michael Chender in turn quoting H.H. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche is cited on the FAQ-Shambhala page to suggest that the differences are inherent:
“I put the direct question myself to HH Khyentse Rinpoche, on behalf of the Shambhala Training leadership of the time after the Vidhyadhara’s parinirvana in 1987, “Do Shambhala Training students have to become Buddhists at some point to continue?” He said, “No, Shambhala Training is a complete path to enlightenment–it has view, meditation, action.” ”
This is not inconsistent with “Shambhala Buddhism”, and does not indicate that Shambhala cannot in any way be regarded as a type or furtherance of Buddhism.
Saying that Shambhala offers its own complete path does not mean that it cannot be regarded on some clear and definite bases as a type of Buddhism. We could also interpret “becoming Buddhists” in this quote as meaning, likely in accord with Michael’s semantic intention, “becoming Kagyu or Nyingma Buddhists”, the types of Buddhism then well-known and -established, which wouldn’t mean that Shambhala is not Buddhism. And according to the Shambhala path as completed by the current Sakyong, becoming a Shambhala Buddhist indeed doesn’t mean becoming a Kagyu and Nyingma Buddhist – although it does mean doing your sadhana practices – ones introduced by the Druk Saykong!
Many of the bases of similarity for applying the name “Buddhism” to Shambhala practices are covered in the Shambhala-Dzogchen retreat or Vajra Garchen. Attending these teachings, one can become well-versed in both similarities and differences, and the similarities in basis of Shambhala practices to ultimate Maha Ati and Mahamudru practices are quite astounding. Still, as His Holiness said, it is a complete path with view, meditation and action – all of these having enough similarity to advanced Buddhist practices that the use of the “Shambhala Buddhist” does not seem unwarranted.
If we are talking instead about removing an attitude of “religiousity” or “piety”, then we need to do this both in traditional Buddhism and in Shambhala.
Cheers.
“It is important is to get beyond the pattern of mental concepts which we have formed. That does not mean that we have to create a new pattern or try to be particularly unconventional and always go without lunch or what-have-you . . . . .That would not particularly solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem is by examining it thoroughly. . . . .One must learn to be a skilful scientist and not accept anything at all. Everything must be seen through one’s own microscope and one has to reach one’s own conclusions in one’s own way. Until we do that, there is no savior, no guru, no blessings, and no guidance which could be of any help”.
From “The Life and Example of Buddha,” in Meditation in Action, page13. 1970 edition. CTR.
Just came up spontaneously on the Chronicles site. Thought I would cut and paste.
From the beginning of his “reign” the Sakyong’s tenure has been about not questioning, not asking, not seeing. It has been about going along, getting with the program, or being marginalized if you didn’t. If you questioned things about the direction the Sakyong was taking things you were sometimes treated violently by Sakyong devotees in those days. I was actually thrown off a sofa and punched by a drunken Sakyong-devotee because I wouldn’t say I thought he was enlightened. There were other horror stories about the new cultlike , non questioning era. So believe me it was passionate in those early days.
I actually now, in retrospect am grateful for all that, and , as I have said before, if it had not been for those experiences in the mandala for the past decade plus with the Sakyong’s manifestation, many of us would not have reached that important crucible where one has to really wake up, not rehearse it for ever ,planning for some future date, and actually investigate and decide for oneself what is genuine, what is essential, what is provisional and eventually irrelevant.
May we all be so blessed along this path.
People on this site who are investigating things are actually keeping their samaya with CTR, its as simple as that.
Michael, I do have samaya with Trungpa Rinpoche. Just another negative presumption on the part of a principal contributor to this site.
Plus, I am not making a “spirited defense of all things SI”. I believe there is room for improvement, but I also know there is openness to constructive approaches.
I am making very specific arguments about the logic, evidence and character of the negative remarks on this blogsite about the Sakyong and His Eminence Namkha Drimed Rinpoche. Why don’t you make a substantive response to those arguments?
Also, the Druk Sakyong Wangmo is part and fully in support of the establishment of a system that supports the lineage of the Sakyongs in the inheritance of the teachings and the properties of previous Sakyongs. That is what the establishment of Kalapa entities is about, which seems consistent with the establishment of Shambhala, and which is also intended to avoid certain problems that arose in the succession from the Druk Sakyong. Why don’t you speak with her directly about this? It doesn’t seem that you or anyone else responsible for this blogsite, despite your devotion, has any more legitimate claim than the Druk Sakyong Wangmo or the Jampal Sakyong. Why don’t you consider these purposes, and the problems they avoid? Why not something that involves investigation, consideration, realism and communication, rather than presumptuous negative remarks?
Your concern about the inheritance of the Druk Sakyong presumes that the Jampal Sakyong is not the real Sakyong or Dharma heir, and not a Vidyadhara or Vajra Master or realized being. You are just denying based on your lack of connection the bases of his leadership and inheritance, and your lack of connection is not a valid basis for such denials.
Chris, that’s really awful. I have to join you in condemning any violent behavior – drunken or not – and more generally any attitude that does not accommodate a diversity of views and opinions. I’ve never experienced any kind of “non-questioning” point of view in my time in the community over the last ten years, on the contrary I’ve seen a conscious effort to encourage diversity of views and paths and not present only one path, including different takes on how one might relate to the Sakyong, vajrayana, mandala, yidam choice, or path generally. I’ve done a lot of questioning personally, and was never discouraged nor criticized for it. I really would not have been able to enter otherwise, given my karma. The hands off approach that I experienced really was a major reason I’m in the Shambhala community.
Yes, I agree with Davee. Sorry Chris, that you had to experience such abuse. I think one of the pitfalls of faith and devotion is solidifying, fixating and aggressing against what is perceived to be the opposite. I think we’re all working with some perhaps less violent degree of that in posts on this blogsite. Also, I know that similar craziness transpired during Trungpa Rinpoche’s time. I’ve even witnessed drunken brawls in the middle of the night on dirt roads at RMDC between people who AGREE on their guru, but disagree on minute details what might be properly representative of him.
Personally, like Davee, I’ve never felt discouraged from questioning or not accomodated in whatever state of confusion by the current leadership. I have been, however, been accused by very old dogs of “breaking samaya” with Trungpa Rinpoche for recommending what I felt were realistic and practical strategies for growing a center (i.e. raising funds within the sangha and moving it). This was a very disconcerting experience, but one that was ultimately about two individuals, myself and my accuser, and our communication styles, more than anything else. But it’s still amazing to me that people can feel compelled invoke “samaya” as justification for this vs. that.
Carl –
Sorry — i don’t know you, and don’t know whether you had direct contact and transmission with CTR. The apologia for all the changes wrought by the Sakyong led me to assume that his particular view — rather than the teachings of CTR — is where your loyalty lies. I read what you wrote about how the Sakyong’s teaching has had such a profound effect on you but no mention of of the same regarding your contact with CTR, so I assumed you never met him. Sorry if I was wrong.
I think there is a difference between the teachings and their container, – the container being provisional and arising because of conditions To this admitted (now) outsider, it appears that the Sakyong has changed not only the container but also the teachings.
I am not a major contributor to this site, just a kibitzer, an old-timer who bailed long ago but has always kept CTR’s picture on my shrine and his image in my mind – along with all my other teachers – when I do guruyoga.
Thank you, Michael.
Yes, I feel completely connected and devoted to VCTR, forever.
But my experience has been one of strong continuity and further unfolding from the Druk Saykong to the Jampal Sakyong. I feel a continuity of that connection and devotion, so much so that they do not feel separate.
My sense is also that, while there is strong continuity and further unfolding, there are some changes but also further emphasis, establishment and availability of what the Druk Sakyong brought to us. An example of the latter would be the emphasis of the Shambhala path and the availability of the Scorpion Seal, and of the former, changes in shamatha instruction, counting of ngondro, and optionality of the Kagyu path.
I feel that the changes are in response to needful situations, and are quite reasonable and understandable as such – and also mostly relatively minor (e.g. following the outbreath). I can understand the Kagyu path becoming optional as feeling quite major to those on it – but I think the situation is that it was first accomodated as one of the three gates during the time of the “Shambhala umbrella” approach, but then on the one hand there wasn’t quite the groundswell of independent support for it from students that might have led it to be continued, and on the other hand there were quite well-anticipated needs (e.g. by HHDKR and VCTR) for the Shambhala path, requiring, especially given the situation with resources in our sangha, a concerted focus. In any case, I don’t see the Kagyu path as being excluded, so if someone wanted to form a Kagyu “action committee” or “support group” to help people who would like to continue with it, perhaps that could happen.
I think Trungpa Rinpoche made lots of big, sometimes incomprehensible and upsetting changes in his lifetime, too, and it was just faith and devotion that took many people through them.
I suppose I am wanting other people to be able to feel the way I do about the Sakyong and his teachings, to sense the continuity and unfolding. And I keep thinking that if other people who don’t feel that way could just spend some serious time with him – attend the Shambhala Dzogchen teachings, receive the Rigden Abisheka, etc. – their issues and resistance would dissolve. These things are awesome, and they are just waiting for anyone who is open and interested (and who does the preparations, as always).
I don’t think there is a trace of spiritual materialism, or the abandonment of an always-fresh approach to Dharma from the basis of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, plus there is just a lot of good, genuine warmth and presence within the Mukpo-Ripa family that really comes across even in brief encounters with them.
I think one hard part for everyone – the Sakyong included! – is having a sangha that is relatively enormous, and perhaps not getting the amount of one-on-one, in-person attention that one might have been used to in the early days of the Vajradhatu sangha. But I don’t think this diminishes the blessings of the lineage that are available in teachings situations and practices. Hooray for that!
“having a sangha that is relatively enormous, and perhaps not getting the amount of one-on-one, in-person attention that one might have been used to in the early days of the Vajradhatu sangha”
Enormous? Relative to what? From what I understand, the membership worldwide is about the same as it was in Boulder in the 70s. I don’t think it’s because of that. I think there are many reasons. I think one main reason is because the current Sakyong likes his privacy, and the sangha, senior and otherwise, help him maintain it.
I just wanted to chime in on the term “Vidyadhara”.
From my understanding of it, the term is intended to designate a level of attainment that is on the order of once in a generation/century/other big unit of time: a mahasiddha. It’s a very separate issue from recognizing someone, the Sakyong, as the very legitimate central teacher within a mandala who can change and set policy as he sees fit.
Here is a link to an excerpt of an interview that I did with Tenga Rinpoche in Nepal a couple of years ago where he describes why Trungpa Rinpoche was given the title of Vidyadhara and the significance of the term:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3093989027126834948&hl=en
Regards,
Gregg Eller
Dear All:
The person who hit me , punched me in the arm, and pushed me off the couch was a woman. I didn’t want to leave the impression that it was worse than it was. I should have clarified.
I am sure it is not as fanatical now as it was then, in the transition period from the Vidhyadhara’s mandala to the Sakyong’s. But it was a very crazy time.
It was also very enlightening to see a mirror reflection, in this person, of all our misunderstandings, fanaticism, past and present, in that person, and to make a determined effort from that experience to seek out clarity about what was a genuine relationship with a teacher, and sangha? I consider that person to have been a very helpful phenomenon along the way to see my own delusional projections onto teachers, sangha etc.
It enabled me to find a teacher who despite being more popular( at least as many students as SMR) than the Sakyong, makes time to see all his students who want face to face contact , because he understands that samaya goes both ways. That it has to be “face to face” and intimate at some point along one’s path.
My concern about senior students enabling the Sakyong’s privacy issues is that they have stunted the possibillities for students and the Sakyong, and that students may go their whole dharma lives thinking that it is normal to have a nonrelationship with their teacher. It is not. But people have different needs and it has much to do with where one is along the path. Many people are happy to stay at the fantasy level with a teacher, They can project what they want, and aren’t really challenged because they don’t have intimate connections. That is o.k. But to progress along the vajrayana path, there is no way to do so, unless one has a real lving relationship. Murmuring chants in front of a picture of a lama just doesn’t do it. Hearing and seeing streaming video is not the same. It simply protects the teacher and the students from any real challenges .
Chris
I feel very sheepish about this question, and I apologize in advance if I have missed something obvious,
but I guess after reading the article, I was confused about the real meaning of “going down with the ship.” I can understand it in terms of serious tonglen practice, and willingness to get involved totally with the suffering of others, willingness to really face suffering for what it is, etc….
But am not sure how to practice tonglen in this situation. Does it mean the willingness to totally face the pain of the possible loss of Trungpa’s legacy and all that implies?? Sorry, I’m not clear on it.
On a related note, the Lamen Mitchell Levy weighs in on growth in the sangha, the Kalapa council, the Tibetan-ness of our inlaws, loyalty, what challenges the Sakyong has, and other related topics in his recent podcast at the Chronicles Project on November 1st. I recommend it as related to recent discussions here. http://www.chronicleproject.com/chroniclesradio_dispatches/index_dispatches.html
Gregg, thanks for the amazing clip of Tenga Rinpoche speaking about H.H. Karmapa XVI and his giving the name “Vajra-Vidyadhara” to Trungpa Rinpoche.
The term “Vidyadhara” and its Tibetan translation “Rigzen” mean “awareness-holder”. The awareness held is the ground or primordial
awareness of the Dharmakaya, “Rigpa” or “Vidya”. There is no more full or basic awareness in the three kayas. It is further regarded that the awareness-holder manifests in nirmanakaya form from the ground awareness for the benefit of beings. So this is truly extraordinary and complete accomplishment.
His Holiness may have meant something further by prefixing “Vajra” to the term “Vidyadhara”, although this is mere speculation on my part. While the primordial awareness already IS vajra in the sense of its indestructibility and primordialness, this might be a further reference to the 11th bhumi, the “vajra-like samadhi” or to abiding in Vajradhatu, which I gather is not the same as the kayas. I cannot elaborate on the differences at this point.
While it does seem quite special that the Karmapa chose to give this designation to Trungpa Rinpoche in a public ceremony, to call him a great master and to speak about his past lives and accomplishment, it is not the case that there is only one Vidyadhara at any time or in any generation or other unit of time; many of other lineage holders are indeed vidyadharas. This is not any detraction from Trungpa Rinpoche, who has been greatly revered and extolled by other lineage holders and for whose special role, abilities and accomplishments there may not be a special name, but an indication of the true power of the our teachings and lineages in producing realized masters and offering the teachings to the rest of us through them.
There is plenty of evidence of the existence of many vidyadharas in the literature. Lineage chants mention “the vidyadharas of India and Tibet”. Namtars of great teachers describe them as vidyadharas. The 25 closest disciples of Padmasambhava and the 30 ministers of King Gesar are regarded as vidyadharas. The masters from whom Padmasambhava received teachings are known as the Eight Vidyadharas. Somewhere, I believe in a supplication by Trungpa Rinpoche, Shechen Kongtrul Padma Trime is described as a “trainer of vidyadharas” and one himself.
There does seem to be at this point in Tibetan Buddhism a recognition and ceremonial step involved in actually using such a designation.
But I think that it was perhaps the rarity of both such a ceremony and such a term in the West – combined with an implied exclusive sense of the article “the” in the full name, “The Vidyadhara, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche” – that led Western students to believe that Trungpa Rinpoche was the only vidyadhara, or the vidyadhara for his generation or time. That, plus lots of devotion, and the feeling of how special it really was to have met Trungpa Rinpoche! I remember that it was the same with “Rinpoche”; in our first days coming to the Dharma, myself and others believed that Trungpa Rinpoche was the only Rinpoche, which of course we know now is not the case.
Well, we are blessed by the richness of many Rinpoches and the power of the Vidyadhara lineage, something that the Vidyadhara Trungpa Rinpoche established for us.
Ginny:
Thanks for asking. For me, it means, first of all, opening to the reality of the situation. There is much that is unknown at this point, so it’s about hanging out in the uncertainty. You’re right, we don’t know what’s going to happen with the Vidyadhara’s legacy. At the same time, we know that there is divisiveness in the sangha. That’s painful. So, again, for me, it’s about opening to that pain–not shying away from it. And, at the same time, not trying to “come out on top”, or having the right answer. There’s an interdependence that’s happening here. It’s easy to feel like we’re taking sides in this discussion, but there’s a bigger context. This is a huge experiment and no one knows how it’s going to turn out. So, “going down with the ship” is being part of this painful reality–not walling oneself off or solidifying one’s position–while, hopefully, contributing some strength and clarity.
Carl,
Your distinctions are well taken. I forgot that Tenga Rinpoche specified “Vajra Vidyadhara.”
I think people use the phrase “The Vidyadhara” as a special term of distinction when referring to Trungpa Rinpche as opposed to it being a category. At least that’s the emotional hit I get when hearing it used.
I’d have to agree with your earlier point that if someone has a real issue that’s bothering them to seek the counsel of someone they trust and really evaluate what teaching situation they will be most receptive in. This isn’t a democratic situation or one that lends itself to petitions and such. Teachers I’ve spoken to find it very interesting when students dictate to them what should be taught and how it should be conducted.
Gregg
Hi Everybody
I’m surprised this commentary received so many commentaries in such a short period of time it must of pushed a button for many people.
I never planned on having The Sakyong being my Buddhist guru, and never was told or made to feel it’s wrong until only the last few years. I have always kept my mind open to it though. I have always assumed the Sakyong would be our Shambhala leader. That is about the only obligation I felt that the older (and perhaps newer) Shambhala sangha had. It wasn’t until many changes were made concerning our Buddhist protocol that I wondered how obliged I was to the current Shambhala International. We aren’t just light shitches that can be turned off and on. I’m sure mant curraent Sakyong students would be all that happy if the next Sakyong made radical changes in our Shambhala Buddhist doctrine. Maybe he (or she) may want to seperate Shambhala from Buddhism again. I hope the newer students can understand why some of the older students are perplexped about Shambhala International, and where it’s heading. It’s not a sign of subordination , as some people have unfairly suggested.
At risk of getting clobbered, I would like to add that I re-read the Scorpion Seal Retreat letter. In it, the Sakyong has said that Shambhala Buddhism was, in part, created to preserve the Mahamudra and Nyngma traditions. I’d like to see more evidence of this. My feeling has been that since the inception of Shambhala Buddhism in 2000, the opposite has been happening in our lineage. If you can prove me wrong in a positive manner, you can respond here.
This might serve as a temporary group encounter on this site, but the only possible helpful or freeing resolution of engagimg in this exchange is for all of us to realize that : whether we are having “good thoughts” about something, or any thoughts at all, they are just thoughts which are just the expression of natural awareness. They have no right or wrong answer that they will lead us to , except that they dissolve , over and over.
Waves of the ocean.
Maybe we could simultaneously dissolve our reference points of “Shambhala”, “Sakyong”, “Chogyam Trunpa Rinpoche” etc. etc etc.
realization that they are just conceptual references points and have nothing to do with anything at all. We have all just gotten distracted, regardless of what position we take, its the same distraction.
Chris
Maybe we could also dignify the fact that legitimate and pretty mature discussion about charged issues has been going on and hold off on parental reminders about the conceptual this or that.
By virtue of using words, this communication has a conceptual dimension. That’s a good thing and it has it’s place. Call it the exercise of prajna if we need to revert to a Tibetan playbook.
And when you have a group of people that communicate from the same templates (after X number of expressed opinions, the self-appointed arbiter inserts “Well it’s a matter of practice” or labeling the discussion as “conceptual” ) and buzzwords (sowhaddyathink etc), things can seem a little curious and inauthentic.
Gregg
Oh gee, thanks Greg for making sure that nothing “dharmic” gets inserted in these discussions. Since that seems to be the general direction the current Shambhala mandala is heading, i.e. as nondharmic as it can be, caught up in total distraction, I think that your response is “right on.”
As for parental, I was talking to myself mostly about this being distraction. Certainly not talking down to anyone as you just did. I have jumped in conceptually as much as anyone else in this discussion.
And there is nothing wrong with conceptual distraction it is very entertaining , as long as we dont’ think we are going to resolve anything with it, or take ourselves too seriously.
.
I like it as much as the rest but try to remain aware that it is just that:
“entertainment.”
Sure thing. There are also a lot of ways to have “dharmic” discussions without being so predictable. Or something like that.
Gregg
Going down with which ship?
Friend – ship’s a vehicle to travel in the 10 directions and the 3 times
Warrior bodhisattvas who inherit [legacy of unlimited friendship] don’t have to protect – or fear if they don’t use it, they lose it”
Baby baby baby you ARE it
Diversity – Long lineage – magicians, saints, beggars, kings, royal hedonists, cowherds, weavers, master thief, master of lies, gamblers, snobs, epicures, Indrabhuti [enlightened king] Mahasiddas all – ‘Kalapa’ handsome madman, Santideva lazy monk, all types – model wife, lotus child.
Darikpa was slave King of a temple whore, Saraha was a Brahmin, Santipa an Academic; count in Nagarjuna, Tilopa, Naropa -
there is the black ugly one garlands in his hair Virupa; ‘gave up’ notion of ‘attaining’ -
threw his mala into a latrine and took to drinking; drank the taverns dry,
stopped the passage of the sun, named by Vajra Varahi ‘child of happiness’. Mind transmission guru. Connect with YOUR Joy. The Sakyong is doing his ‘play’ if you don’t want to audition to be cast in that drama, let him be, wish him well and make your own. [We inhabit a world of our projections - remember?] . Certainly the Tibetans are roiled in their agonistes, the Dalai Lama’s dilemma with his Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. [See http://www.dorjeshugden.com sectarian divisiveness – politics, polytricks. Play.
Offered with tongue in your cheek as it is impossible to ’speak’ one’s mind. Have looked and looked and can’t find one! ha ha ha
“To realize the nature of mind is to re ‘cognize’ its emptiness:
- takes place in the realm of direct experience and cannot be expressed.”
Cheerfully hopeless.
The sentiment expressed above – “The Sakyong is doing his ‘play’ if you don’t want to audition to be cast in that drama, let him be, wish him well and make your own.” is reasonable on the face of things, and would be fine — except for the Sakyong and SI’s ability and apparent willingness to control access to teachings, practice materials, relics etc. via copyright laws and mutating financial structures. So “make your own” would also mean “make your own without the teachings you received from CTR”. The irony is that I’m sure all of this is done in a perfectly legal manner after consultation with attorneys and accountants.
My post upthread mentioned that samaya isn’t a transferable asset. I believe it is purely between teacher and student, and not between student and organization, even though I am sure that some higher up in many organizational ecologies might encourage people to think otherwise.
At the end of the day, it is up to CTR’s students to do the practice, get realization and then pass it on. the question is whether SI needs to validate their parking in order for that to be “real”….. or, actually, whether SI gets to determine whether or not they can use the Sadhana of Mahamudra when they pass it on.
There are problems like the one Michael just mentioned. Considering the copyright issue, how will Trungpa Rinpoche’s students have access to texts so that they can be passed on? But before we (both sides) can make any headway with this, I’m thinking the two sides of this coin (pro Sakyong and critical of Sakyong) need to stand on end–even for a moment.
Part of the quote above reads:
“The idea of finding the negativity ‘interesting’ is that somehow as we go along we will be saved. The unspoken implication is that finally the whole thing is going to be good and pleasurable. ”
If we could even just agree that everything is not wonderful, that would be an excellent start. Instead, what we’ve been doing is taking positions in our foxholes and beating the drum of conventionality. Attack and defend. Sometimes the artillery seems like it’s never going to stop; the logic goes on and on.
The irritation, frustration, insolubility, pride and wounded pride, disrespect, and all the rest of it is so rich! I say let’s relate to it directly. Go down with the ship, and see what happens.
Miriam Makeba songbird of Africa has passed on – knowing why the caged bird sings, because it has a song. Her mother was a Sangoma
Technician of the Sacred = Healer and since 1950’s Miriam was exiled for over 35 years from apartheid SA yet kept the language and culture alive – alight. Dearly Beloved am a listening post here with broken-heartedness, cherishing the voices particularly of the WOmen – these things which we so much discuss, too much explain. The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you. They are unique manifestations, Africa is framed in such negative and derisive terms! My first spiritual friend and guide was my Mother [indeed needed no other] to TRUST life, karmic laws, auspicious coincidence, impermanence and the wisdom – nothing to gain or lose on this journey of exploration and discovery. Can only offer first person witness that before learning of ‘buddha’ or ‘books ‘ am supported by a tradition of oral instruction – epigrams, stories -reminders how ‘No one has to show a Child the sky”; far from being the wretched of the earth, as animists revere as sacred the interconnection with the animate and inanimate world, that ‘primordial awareness’ is our nature. Chi the life force animates our bodies which are Masks – we wear them.. ‘Naked Mind needs no protection’ resonates with the stanza in SOMM ‘The kingdom of no dharma free from concepts is discovered within the heart, here there is no hierarchy of different stages as the mind returns to its naked state’. The term ‘Ashe’ is used by us to ’signify’ command long before CTR introduced stroke practice. When a child is born it comes with a ‘day name’ [mine Aba signifies female born on Thursday] outdoored on the 8th day after birth the infant is ‘outdoored’ placded on the earth, water and then alcohol is offerered on the lips, signifying discriminate between them i,e tell the truth, and elders interrogate ‘Who are you? ‘Why have you come? What gifts do you bring?’ reminders for contemplation for the rest of life’s journey. Ritual practices a neonate cannot consciously recollect! The notion of rebirth is recognized; children with exceptional characteristics are honored – addresed with respect as ‘Nana’ an ancestor returning, often socialized by being positively reinforced by reminders of their qualities and actions in previous incarnations [including their imperfections].
Having committed to memory invocations of the Kagyu Nyingma dharmapalas and protectors, Sadhana of Mahamudra,etc – like the Lotsawa Marpa who lost his precious texts and could only transmit what he internaized am inspired to follow such example. Yes we can. Resting in Nowness, why concern for the future. Cheer up and celebrate your good fortune of Precious Human Birth.
A Question:
Making the invisible Visible – Do you think Africans and people of the African diaspora have any wisdom to share with Tibetans, so called ‘Westerners’ y’all?
A little candle alight offering unlimited friendship softly singing joy, can eat shit, piss and gore if it will exhaust the suffering of beings in all realms, have signed on for it.. Not a dissident disaffected. BIG WORLD.
Take a look:-)
The apparently endless discussion of what should become of Trungpa Rinpoche’s students in the era of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche seems to completely ignore the existence of transmission. I liked “going down with the ship,” as a metaphor. To me, it means keeping the commitment I made and staying true to the transmission I received. The fact that people think that they can define that for me, after the fact, only further convinces me that they do not understand what they are talking about
What the Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche does or does not do with his own teachings, teachers, students, and organization is entirely up to him. He is entitled to define his own sangha, programs, fees, finances, all of it. He is also entitled to kick anybody out whom he does not want to have around. He has, in fact, done so, indirectly of course and with plausible deniablity. In return, those who do not feel a sense of connection to the Sakyong’s direction are fully entitled to leave. Up to 80 percent of Trungpa Rinpoche’s direct students have done so, according to some people on this blog.
But here is the question: how does all of that entitlement apply to the recorded and printed teachings, especially the terma teachings, of the current Sakyong’s father? Michael put his finger on it in this exchange with Aba: ” ‘The Sakyong is doing his ‘play’ if you don’t want to audition to be cast in that drama, let him be, wish him well and make your own,’ is reasonable on the face of things, and would be fine — except for the Sakyong and SI’s ability and apparent willingness to control access to teachings, practice materials, relics etc. via copyright laws and mutating financial structures. So ‘make your own’ would also mean ‘make your own without the teachings you received from CTR’. ”
Those of us who have moved on are left with a major concern–that pesky vow to make realization possible for all beings. Shambhala exerts control over Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings. In Aba’s terms, those teachings are part of the current Sakyong’s “play.” As he has done already, he considers himself entitled to change those teachings in fundamental ways.
But, there is a sizable community of practitioners who received those transmissions from Trungpa Rinpoche directly, and who hold his teachings in body (i.e. the books) and mind. Transmission is real. As long as those people continue to practice straightforwardly the teachings they have received, no-one can take them back. And no one can stop those people from transmitting what they have learned. So no one really has to do without the teachings of CTR, no matter what Shambhala International thinks it can do.
Zer-me
Zer-me
As individual practitioners we are of course free to practice what we have received.
As is evidenced by Reggie Ray’s experience, if you want to start teaching CTR’s teachings, access to the root texts for students to study becomes an issue. That is what I meant in the previous post.
There is also the option of going samizdat style – photocopying etc. But that leaves a door wide open for legal recriminations.
US copyright laws are outdated and need revision in my opinion. That said, I think Lady Diana owns most of the copyrights actually and not SI. Perhaps just ask her for permission? I’m not so sure about the Nalanda Translation Committee works though, if they’re owned by the organization or the individual translators. On a related note, I notice the satdharma folks in ojai use the term “shambhala” even though SI holds a trademark on the term now. they refer to “shambhala education” on their website though instead of shambhala training. perhaps SI would not oppose someone else using the term shambhala in similar ways.
Actually it’s a service mark, not a trademark. Here’s the footer from the Shambhala Int website:
Here’s what Alex Halpern, the Shambhala International lawyer, had to say about this in 2004:
That last sentence is key, with meaning depending on how you see the integrity of those teachings and practices being protected.
Regarding the copyrights, my understanding is that the Copyright to Chögyam Trungpa’s works is to Diana J Mukpo, but that Shambhala International (which aka legal entity is actually Vajradhatu) owns the actual texts, tapes, etc.
Shambhala tried to shut Reginald Ray down by telling him he couldn’t use Shambhala’s texts. So, when he needed a ngondro text for his own students, having practiced more than one ngondro himself, Dr. Ray just wrote one. That’s what I mean by the power of transmission. It is not really possible to bottle up something with copyrights when it is freely available to anyone willing to put in the effort.
In the old days, before most people were literate, people memorized great swathes of text. How much of the Sadhana of Mahamudra can you recite from memory? Can they copyright that?
As for those copyrights, in Barbara’s finance article, someone put forth the notion that the copyrights would pass from the Druk Sakyong Wangmo to “Kalapa” when she dies.
Zer-me
Dear Ngakma Zer-me
Getting REAL
Beyond metaphor – the ship that delights – is FRIEND ship. No wish to destroy the genuine trust and respect which SMR inspires in the younger generation. Perceive the support he receives from eg Adam Lobel [beautiful mind whose impact as a teacher is impressive.
Having said that, notice a similar issue concerning 'control' and challenge to the Dalai Lama's 'authority'. Sad. He is regarded as spiritual head of the Gelupa School but also recognised as political leader of the Tibetan 'nation' [presumably includes Bonpo's, Muslims, Hindus, etc - a speculation on my part]. We seldom acknowledge that not all Tibetans are buddhists! In the Rime tradition he is honored and respected by the older transmission schools [Nyingma/Kagyu/Sakya] in the interest of healing sectarian schisms. However he is alleged to have decreed an end to the Protector practice of Shugden [one of the Oracles consulted before fleeing into exile - securing his safety]. Some of his Lamas still have trust in this Dharmapala, and since he cannot ’stop’ their practice, recommends those who continue, not be invited to receive further abishekas from him. An exception is made for Kyabje Trijang Rimpoche, whose previous incarnation was DL’s tutor and holds the Shugden terma. [Parallels with SMR's instructions concerning Reggie Ray's students?].
Complex political implications, involves high drama, intrigue, violence, propaganda, exploited by myriad interests!
Find the situation instructive in the ‘vast view’ and if you have the inclination and interest recommend with Open Mind investigate the site which expounds the issues: http://www.dorjeshugden.com
Some time ago ‘restricted’ vajrayana transcripts from ‘74 ‘75 CTR seminary were offered on eBay being bid for by a Zen bookstore – collector’s item high $$ bids and Carolyn G intervened to stop the transaction. Rather high handed I thought. If you remember they are numbered when issued so should be possible to ascertain ‘who’ put it for sale. Contacted the Zen guy who seemed a mature practitioner and ‘valued’ having access to such material. Suggested to CG the possibility of ‘auspicious coincidence’ no accidents – perhaps he was intended to have them! Never learned who offered it for public sale but was curious as I knew of a sangha friend who died alone while I was in retreat and her effects were donated to the Salvation Army or some such charity – occured to me as the kind of circumstance which could result restricted material going public.
The issue of copyright: would it obtain if stuff is reproduced for private use, not for sale? Is’nt the concern about ‘royalties’ [no pun intended]. I mean how would anybody know? Should’nt dharma be offered ‘free’? As for protecting the brand ’shambhala’ in the world wide web [metaphor for our interdependent connections] find youtube videos of myriad performing groups named variously shambhala, shambhala warriors, african shambhala, kalapa, mahamudra, karmapa – vast inexhaustible!
Have enormous appreciation for the material available ‘The Chronicles of Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche’, the availability of Videos on youtube FREE, = how the new technologies facilitate ORAL transmission; the extensive corpus of his books in University and Public Libraries, on sale in bookstores all over the world in several languages.
A response to Bill who claims Dr. Reginald Ray declared himself a Vajra Master conferring abishekas with no ‘authority’ from the Lineage.
How do you know? What we invoke are their BLESSINGS! Not authority or necessarily ‘confirmation’. The Yidam sadhana texts provide for ’self abishekas’ as well as for ‘conferring abishekas’ on others. If one has thoroughly engaged these practices and has confidence and devotion in Root Guru – we are holders of the tradition. Connected to the energy can follow guru’s example – wasn’t that what we commit to? compassionate bodhisattva action for the sake of all sentient beings? using any means necessary to inspire wild awakenings. Without pure perception how can you we anybody ‘judge’? For puritanical folk, remember the Mahasiddhas
manifesting to conventional minds as thieves, liars, drunkards:-) Lighten up:-) Its Sacred World.
It is a serious downfall to discourage trust and confidence in teachers and the Dharma.
Ashe with Joy and aspirations that confusions be clarified.
Dorje Shugden is a worldly protector invoked by some Gelugpa practitioners to increase their power as a lineage, and specifically against the Nyingma. The practice has been widely denounced by the heads of all the schools. One of my teachers referred to the practice almost in terms of addiction – you get some small benefit at the onset, but at a terrible price, and in the end you go crazy.
The New Kadampa organization run by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the driving force behind Shugden practice. If you have ever seen any of their monks protesting at an event for HHDL, you can see they are pretty much total brainwashed wack-jobs.
To compare that situation with the CTR/SMR/SI situation is just wrong.
Also, the copyright issue is not one of royalties – I’m sure anyone would be happy to pay for the materials – but rather an issue of CONTROL.
ohon avaojfgfnnf2jt4o narjvanvafai503
Maybe you’re all bored with this topic by now. Still, also for myself, I like to write something down.
Although I wonder if any ship is sinking or just going ahead, I agree with many of the points raised in article:
Like doubt about the expensive courts. Somewhat in agreement. Although I also think, if one can have the best, why take less. Plus, the other option after not having a house fro the Sakyong when he comes, is hotels or other places from sanga people, which take also a lot of money and in the last case a tremendous clean up and resettle job every time. And that will not the same place for every visit either. (in Köln the Sakyong spend six or so weeks per year, so from maybe five up to eight visits there is this work of finding a place, paying or cleaning, resettling, and so on)
In Marburg there was an enormous Rigden house Years ago. Very expensive and was made possible by a very small sanga. The Vidhyadhara was there only once. In the mean time the ambassador lived there. But it was wonderfull that we did have the place at the time. It was indeed the best we could have. So again why take less?
You talk like such money is thrown away, but that’s not so in my opinion. If you own these places, you own them. If they’re sold, you have the money again. Or am I missing something?
Unless they cannot be afforded of course, but that would become clear soon enough, won’t it.
I have a lot of doubt about everything, but I learned that they do not have to be resolved right away. Like the issue of the practices, that I received from the Vidyadhara and value like my own heart and which brought me a certain amount of realization even, now becoming optional in the Shambhala curriculum. This is a hard one to take at first sight.
But, on the other hand, if they then Are practiced optionally, so when you get nothing in return (like higher initiations, further credentials or anything) my idea is that they will work very well. (Especially after first having gone the whole shambhala path up untill the scorpion seal retreat.) And the Sakyong still gives VY and CS abishekas, and there are people present there.
Can I judge how these changes will work out? No. Can SMR? I don’t know. I can’t know what he knows. Only what he says. From that my guess is that he just does it one thing at the time, keeping the larger vision around it in mind.
What I do know is: a short time ago I heard that some Chinese high politicians when asked to say if the French Revolution worked out well in their opinion, answered that it was too soon to tell.
(meantime every chinese seems to find that Mao’s revolution put China back 30 years in economy, development, etc., they can even say it aloud, but with this they would probably also say it’s hard to tell if that’s a good thing or a bad thing)
I think the whole comparison between Vidhyadhara and Sakyong is useless if you don’t have them together. And you don’t. You only have what’s happening now. If your involved enough with the Sakyong and Shambhala you can judge from your own experience. If you’re not so involved or not at all, you will be looking at it from the outside. That can obviously not be so acute in term of your own experience or accurate as the former one.
If 80 % of Trungpa’s students are not involved anymore, which was mentioned in this forum, than they all look at it from the outside. Apart from the fact that I don’t believe this 80% at all, why don’t they step outside some more and don’t be bothered further? Is that out of guilt?
Because you have to be IN a certain amount at least to know what is happening and what your experiences are and if that’s good for you or not. You can’t do much about it just writing comments in places like this.
In Europe it’s only a few %, I believe, and most of these are gone for other reasons than not agreeing with the Sakyong’s way of keeping this ship afloat.
Besides, just comparison for fun, how do you know the Vidyadhara was not even on any path anymore, and the Sakyong is still somewhere struggling along some lesser path? If that’s what you’re saying, it sounds rediculous to me. Who knows, he (SMR) may even be on a higher bhumi then his father ever was, very realized, only more inscrutable about it? Don’t you know that a buddha in the first parts of his life pretends to go through confusions and difficulties just like other beings, later to arise as what he or she really is. I myself certainly don’t know about any of these levels, and I think neither do you. (Apart from the fact that I think levels of realization only exist for those who believe in their existence.) Still, if these differences exist, the higher realized being can judge a lesser realized one, I would say. The other way around doesn’t work, that’s logical.
I think the title going down with the ship is very negative. It comes from the tong len example, but in what is written, the tong len part is only a side-streak. It’s about SI and it’s hard not to think that SI is meant with this ship. You don’t seem to want to really be on this ship if you give it this title. Or do you hope it goes down so your criticism is proved right? And than hope that your old nostalgic boat will keep going on its own? (I’m exaggerating an opposition here.)
Tong len is going well if you’re actually willing to take the cancer and have the other person walk away cancer free, even laughing, not saying thank you. So worse then going down with the ship, you had the complete willingness, so your tong len went right, and thus you go down alone and the ship goes on. So I like to set the record worse than the Vidyadhara. It’s complete exchange, not the comfort of going down together. The Vidhyadhara just liked the statement, is my guess, but tong len does mean exchange.
While going down, before you’re finished you could think, aha, I saved them, but next, you don’t exist anymore and neither those you saved. What ship?
What I mean is, with this title you give a certain direction, downward that is, and thus the issues, get presented in that light. But the exact same points can be seen in a very different light, depending on the sense of direction of the reader. This is more difficult with this title.
Didn’t the Sakyong save this whole mandala from falling apart in small separate groups, some with different teachers, some beginning for themselves, who don’t need each other, and most of which, by the lack of enough realization, charisma, inspiration and energy input, willingness to work non-profit, etc., might have fallen apart already by now?
Ofcourse you could wonder if there is a need for a larger SI network….
But I’m happy that it exists, with a Sakyong and subjects
I’m a Trungpa student, Dingo Kyentse Student, Thrangu Rinpoche student, etc…. and Sakyong student. The last since 2000, exactly when he started the Shambhala/Buddhist controversy I became his student. I heard him explain that whole point, and the reasons, and it made perfect sense. Maybe I’m naive, that’s possible, but it still makes perfect sense now. And those who think otherwise have up to now not been able to convince me. Although I’m open for it. But Shambhala and Buddhism are neither the same nor different. It’s as simple as that. At that time SMR also said that he was willing to be Sakyong if people were willing to be subjects. You know: It’s a job, being Sakyong. It’s a job, being subject. Doing your job makes it happen. If you don’t, niente. If you think it’s not done right by other subjects or sakyong and you cant’t convince them, you stop being subject. If we all do that, automatically he stops being Sakyong. But most subjects op till now are very stubborn, still just as stubborn as with the first sakyong. And the sakyong himself is master stubborn, I believe.
The question is not do I want to go down with this ship. Just do you want to be on it or not. Nobody cares if it goes down until it starts to. I don’t see any signs.
Bye bye,
Frans
I have been meaning to reply to some of Mr.Castro’s earlier questions re: “Shambhala Buddhism” but I wanted to reference the Question & Answer period of the 2003 Shambhala Congress, which I just found on the web. I made the same point there that I made in “Going Down With the Ship”–that Buddhism and Shambhala are closely related, but separate–and Sakyong Mipham gave a lengthy reply.
Shambhala Congress
(Select 2003 Congress, Q&A with Sakyong Mipham, and scroll down to page 17. This Q&A runs to page 20.)
Sakyong Mipham made a few points I would like to comment on:
- “At the root, these two traditions come together, are inseparable and the same….At the source of the whole thing, where’s that light coming from?” To the extent that they are the same, I would suggest that the same could also be said of all religions, but that doesn’t make them inseparable. The Druk Sakyong said that Shambhala has its own independent basis, is secular, and non-sectarian. To me, that doesn’t sound like they’re the same.
- He said that the Werma Sadhana is Buddhist because there’s refuge, bochicitta, and visualization. In one form or another, all of these elements are present in many practices, both religious and otherwise. There’s visualization in Hinduism, for example, but that doesn’t make it Buddhist.
- Later on, he referenced a form of competition between Buddhism and Christianity, noting that people showing up for Shambhala Training would say: ” ‘Those are the Buddhists’, implying there was something wrong with being Buddhist. All of a sudden, it became better to be a Christian. I’m saying there’s nothing wrong with being Buddhist.” This sort of internecine warfare between religions is so far from what the Shambhala path is about! It also suggests that there was a need to somehow secure our ground, as Buddhists, to keep control of Shambhala. This contrasts with the big view of the Druk Sakyong.
- Sakyong Mipham suggested that since Shambhala was discovered by Trungpa Rinpoche, who was a Buddhist teacher, that’s another indication that Shambhala and Buddhism are the same at the root. For me, that doesn’t ring true. When the Shambhala teachings came through Trungpa Rinpoche, my sense is that he was not operating in an environment that had a reference point–Buddhism or otherwise. He was beyond that.
- I is now five years since this Q&A and, so far, I haven’t seen any reason to mistrust my earlier instincts on this issue.
Another point raised by Mr. Castro is that so much on this site is negative. I’m not sure I would use the same word, but even if we do, is that a bad thing? In Transcending Madness (p. 99 of the Collected Works of Chogyam Trungpa, Vol. Six), Trungpa Rinpoche says, “Both positive and negative are the path, the general pattern. Any negative experience which occurs is an invitation or vanguard of positive experiences, as well. It just happens that way.”
He also asked if I had consulted with a teacher before writing “Going Down With the Ship”. The answer is “No”. As is stated in bold at the top, this is my opinion. I see no reason to seek an external reference point when expressing my opinion. As we know, Trungpa Rinpoche’s path is a “lonely journey”.
When I used the term, “the Vidyadhara”, I was referring to Trungpa Rinpoche. I was surprised to hear that this was confusing because I’ve never heard Sakyong Mipham referred to as “the Vidyadhara”. Of course, I realize that there have been other vidyadharas, but in the context of our sangha, this refers to Trungpa Rinpoche, unless I’ve missed something along the way.
Finally, I would like to ask Mr. Castro if he acknowledges that there is a problem here, that a number of senior students of Trungpa Rinpoche’s do not feel that his teachings are being perpetuated in the current regime, and need to find a way to ensure their survival. I am not asking whether he agrees with what we are saying. Does he acknowledge that there’s a problem here that needs to be addressed?
Requesting evidence:
Was the Sawang selected to be holder of the Vidyadhara’s Shambhala teachings? If so, were there other candidates for the position? Did the Vidyadhara seek anyone’s advice or opinion before making this decision?
Or, was the Sawang not selected? Did the Vidyadhara declare the Sawang would be the holder of the Shambhala Teachings? If this is the case, can we assume that the fact of the Sawang/Sakyang Mipham arose from the same source as the other terma?
Did the Vidyadhara select Lady Diana to be the copyright holder for his recorded teachings? Or is her role in this regard a coincidence of our legal system? Is it possible for her to give away the copyrights? Could she give it to multiple persons? Has anyone ever asked her to do so?
We don’t want to bring things to a painful point, but must we still must go down with the ship?
-Ed
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/16/eggheads/
Bird Brains or Egg Heads?
Song of the Garuda [adapted from some DWP]
‘I sing as one who on a tilted deck sings
To keep your courage up
Though a wave hangs that shall shut out [your] SUN
As shuttlecocks sing flinging thier natural answer in the wind’s teeth
And care not if it is waste of breath
Or birth-carol of Spring.
Singing [may you be at peace]
Outside the ring
For sorrow finds a swift release in SONG
and Pride its Poise”
An invitation to join together in PRAISE song – at least those who think they are going down with the [friend] Ship will go down SINGING
singing, going home!!.
But, there is a sizable community of practitioners who received those transmissions from Trungpa Rinpoche directly, and who hold his teachings in body (i.e. the books) and mind. Transmission is real. As long as those people continue to practice straightforwardly the teachings they have received, no-one can take them back. And no one can stop those people from transmitting what they have learned. So no one really has to do without the teachings of CTR, no matter what Shambhala International thinks it can do.
Zer-me
What I just for the life of me don’t get, is that someone would actually get litigious on the non-orthodox use of the materials they were transmitted. Is that the surmise of what Alex is saying? Really? That can’t be. It would be like maybe one of the Shanpa Kagyu going after Jamgon Kongtrol Lodro Thaye for misappropriation of the use of their texts.
How can anyone with a straight face try to tell someone that they are going to drag their dharmic asses into court if they use those texts? Is Alex really saying that? Or just that they don’t want anyone else calling themselves Shambhala Training?
If it’s some kind of general literal proprietary grab of the texts of the second Padmasambhava, it is one of the great tragedies to befall Buddhadharma since Lang Darma drove Nyingma out of Tibet 1200 years ago. Surely the Buddhas of the three times would show their disapproval.
I will ask Alex directly.
Lee
Re being a subject of a monarch- in the Uk theres no way you can not be a subject ………..you are one of Her Majesties citizens………..but that also allows for disagreement…………for example some MPs do not attend the Queens speech because they think it is pompuous and outdated -many Labour MPs just sit in the Commons when the speech occurs. ……dont think this really intervenes in the role of the monarch tho……….I dont think we will ever get ride of the monarch in the UK…………but the question is really what is a good shambhala citizen……….one that doesn’t criticise or offer up advice to the monarch……………or one that does………the present Queen meets all kinds of people from ambassadors to cleaning ladies…..so she is receiving advice from everyone…………….and as a constitutional monarch she has a subtle influence on Prime MInsters merely by the breadth of her knowledge. Being somewhat a socialist myself ………..I still have conceptions of monarchy in my mind due to the mere fact of living in the Uk, knowing its history and studying Shakespeare which revolves about kings and queens lives…………….I would say that the relationship between monarch and subject if it really works well is a symbiotic one -it’s inseperable…………a true monarch would take heed of advice from his/her subjects, be totally commited to their peope and let all kinds of disagreement take place…………as is the case at the UK at the present time………..you can be loyal but not subservient………….even Karl Marx found refuge in the UK when he was kicked out of Europe…….a constitutional monarchy is good in this respect in that it allows all sorts of views to expressed without fear of suppression…………….so I believe a Sakyong must also take on his detractors…………that is part of what a Sakyong should do…………perhaps he should also invite more vigorous debate by having such detractors within his own circle as Trungpa Rinpoche did aswell…………
……………..best
Rita Ashworth
Simply put, SMR is not a Vidyadhara because he has not been recognized as one. The Tibetians seem to give out recognitions for different reasons and to differing degrees. No one has recognized Reggie Ray, for example, as a Vajra Master…but a number of teachers have expressed their admiration for his work…similar with Patrick Sweeny.
A lot of it seems to be politics. Some of it seems to be to draw attention to the best teachers. To argue who’s enlightened and who isn’t is ridiculous. Shantideva was nearly kicked out of his monastery
for appearing lazy and noaccount until he flew into the air and delivered the Bodhisattvacharyatara.
It’s up to the individual who is their teacher and to
whom they have devotion. Why so many of VCTR’s students have left Shambhala.org can be rationalized
in any number of ways. Lack of connection to SMR
and the direction of Shambhala.org these days seems to be the obvious explanation…but many other reasons are offered including negative ones…
lack of devotion, for example. Trusting one’s own judgement seems to be the best path to take, But
judging other’s for having a different view seems to
be a familiar story in the history of Buddhism, and
just causes headaches without resolution….like the headaches I see here …like the one I had since I decided that Shambhala.org was no longer for me,
until the point that I realized that that was ok. It doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the Vidyadhara’s
legacy. I don’t think all criticism is bad. I also don’t think it makes much difference in how things are
shaking out at Shambhala.org. I’m glad I’m able to practice to the point where I don’t feel a need to belong to an organization. Venerable Khandro
Rinpoche’s organization…the westerners…seem to have difficulties (power trips…territorialities) similar
to the ones that have always been a part of
Vajradhatu/Shambhala. Maybe that is a cultural thing and points to the process of Buddhism entering
a new society. We, in the USA, are not yet a Buddhist culture…that likely will take generations.
I’m happy I have a practice and a connection to a
powerful, true lineage. I hope the same for others.
re John Tischers comment above – he makes some interesting points about people leaving Shambhala and connecting with other teachers – such as not having devotion to SMR………….what concerns me tho is the way things are held to account in Shambhala. I have mentioned the National Assembly that Trungpa talks about in his will several times but people have not discussed it on this site. I quote from Trungpas comments on his will:
David Rome: Last point mentioned in the will is the national assembly. Is national assembly outgrowth of dekyong council?
V: Yes.
DR: At the point where we are dealing with very large numbers of people, could representatives be selected by vote?
V: Fine.
DR: So the people should have an opportunity to express themselves?
V: Yes.
DR: So the committee approach described in Court Vision would still apply for a transitional time following your death?
V: Yes.
DR: What should we do with this will?
V: Clear up any confusion.
DR: It seems pretty clear, if we just add some points from what we have just discussed.
V: Fine.
DR: Shall I share this conversation with Privy Council now?
V: Would be good.
DR: How long are you going to live?
V: Quite awhile.
so voting for representatives is definately mentioned – whereas SMR seems to be against voting………..I think voting is an essential part of any
Buddhist/Shambhalian society – indeed the Dalai Lama has recently allowed elections by Tibetans-the Sakyong included in this of course, for a Tibetan government in exile…………and now the Dalai Lama is only the spiritual head of the Gelugpas…………I am really trying to understand how the Vidyadhara would have gone forward with the voting aspect in an enlightened society ……..would be great if we could get some more information on this aspect of Shambhalian/Buddhist politics…………..
………..obviously a lot of people are against the way SMR has changed the teachings in SI but to me what matters most is the way things are governed so that all views are represented in an open way…………even in a monarchy there has to be give and take between the monarch and the subject…………..re this thorny subject of monarchs and government people may want to watch the Devils Whore on channel4.com which is a drama about the English civil war which also raises questions about the monarchs power and the subjects duties. Of course I know the conception of the King in Shambhala has a cosmic significance……….but then in countries that have always been monarchies you can get some inkling of the concept of King and Queen. Also I believe there was a Christian group some time in English history that held similar concepts of the King and Queen theme in our religious lives………..would welcome any info on this if any one has some………….think it was banned by Catholic church tho…………….and then of course there is the Xtian concept of the Kingdom of God……….would be interesting if we could hear some Xtian Shambhalians discuss this on this site.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Dear Greg,
thank you very much for posting the clip of Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche. Actually the translator mixes something up what Rinpoche refers to is when HH gave the title of Dorje Dzinpa Chenpo to CTR, this is Maha Vajradrik in Sankrit and from then on CTR was know as the the Vajracarya. The title Vidyadhara is NOT what Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche is talking about here.
Tashi
Tashi,
That’s interesting… from what I understand, Trungpa Rinpoche was referred to as the “Vajracarya” prior to Karmapa’s visit. This is what Judy Lief told me and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen materials copyrighted prior to 1974 with the title Vajracarya. most of my dharma books are in storage right now so I can’t look up those references.
Lama Wangchuk translated for me in Nepal and he’d been Tenga Rinpoche’s attendant for about fifteen years prior to that meeting.
I’ll follow up with some scholars that I know that can make a definitive call for me. Thanks for raising the issue,
Gregg
Dear Gregg,
I know Sherab Wangchuk for nearly 30 years and he is a fine translator and a good friend but in this case he just doesnt translate what Rinpoche says. What Rinpoche says is Karma Tenzin Thinley Namgyal Dorje Dzinpa Chenpo meaning roughly Karma Dharmaholder of Victourious Activity Great Vajra Holder. Vidyadhara in tibetan is Rigdzin.
Also Jeremy Hayward in his biographie states that the title Vidyadhara was used from 1985 on the recomondation of Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oFKM49xRwZwC&pg=PA360&vq=vidyadhara&dq=vidyadhara+shambhala&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0
I think also in the book about Trungpa Rinpoche by Midal Mr. Mermelstein is quoted to the same effect as Mr. Hayward.
Also Sherab was not travelling with his Holiness and Rinpoche when the event occured that Rinpoche is referring to, but he was in Boulder with Rinpoche when Rinpoche recommended to call CTR the Vidyadhara so maybe that is why he mixes it up.
The event of the bostowing of the title by HH is also mentioned in one of the early Garuda magazine issues.
All the best and thank you for your efforts
Tashi
And here is what Mr. Hayward says about the event mentioned by Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche
http://books.google.com/books?id=oFKM49xRwZwC&pg=PA119&vq=vajracharya&dq=vidyadhara+shambhala&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0
Hello everyone-best for the new year……….
Just wanted to start a new thread on the concept of loyalty………seen this concept coming up in brush paintings by the Sakyong and also in the following film by Zhang Yimou ‘Curse of the Golden Flower’ about the corruption of a Chinese Court a thousand years ago in China (you can find it on utube -reference given below. ) The translation of the chinese characters stresses loyalty and family values……….How do people see the concept of loyalty in the terms of Shambhala teachings – has it been imported from Chinese philosophy or is it inherent in the Tibetan/Indian teachings ———–and of course how do we relate to this concept in the West-
Got the dvd -because capitalism is collapsing over here somewhat……..a firm, Woolworths with over 30,000 employees has just gone bust…..its as if Zellers or Canadian tyre disappeared from Canuckland (or have they disappeared already?!)……….definately people feeling weirded out about the collapse of banks etc in GB -what does this bode for the Shambhala teachings………..hope people can check the reference to the film below …..Zhang Yimou is very expressive about how the Chinese see the world…………..(now got the film Mongol -will have to look in to that too)
Best
Rita Ashworth
Added
09:46[TRANSLATED] Curse of The Golden Flower – Pt.8
Curse of The Golden Flower – Pt.8
[TRANSLATED] Curse of The Golden Flower – Pt.8
English Dubbed Gong Li, Chow Yun Fat, Jay Chou …
video lang: getattr(, ‘lang’, ”)
Translate
View original
(Translation disabled)
1 year ago 65,543 views janisjai
Tashi,
As I mentioned earlier, I’ll do more research to fact check the matter. You brought up a legitimate point on the matter of accurate translation.
I didn’t realize you knew Sherab Wangchuk so long. It was a privilege for me to have his assistance. However, that he was not present at an event does not indicate that he would not have knowledge of it.
From what I see in the 1985 chapter of Jeremy’s book, there are no references to Tenga Rinpoche or the use of the term “Vajracarya”. Using that term did *not* begin in 1985.
Here is a link to a letter written by Osel Tendzin in 1980 looking back on events in the early 1970s where he describes Trungpa Rinpoche as Vajracarya:
http://www.chronicleproject.com/stories_1.html
(”I met the Vajracarya on a Sunday afternoon at his home in Four Mile Canyon. I was wearing a red ruffled shirt and red velvet pants, a la L.A., and I was sporting long hair and a beard.”)
Other first hand participants have told me about using the term prior to Karmapa’s 1974 visit.
Thanks again,
Gregg
Dear Greg,
it was really not the my intention to get into a scholastic debate or anything I just tried to make clear that what Rinpoche said.
Maybe we dont understand each other due to me not being a native speaker.
So the first link is about 1985 and mentions how Tenga Rinpoche recommends to call CTR the Vidyadhara. page359-360 of the book warrior king of shambhala.
The second link is about 1974 and is the event described by Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche from wich on CTR was known as the Vajracharya(the proclamation of HH the 16th Karmapa) page119.
As I said I didnt want to say anything against Sherab Wangchuk who is a immense help for Rinpoche and a good translator nor against your work wich I find very inspiring.
All the best
Tashi
p.s: That the regent refers to CTR in a letter from the eighties as Vajracharya doesnt refute that CTR was called the Vajracharya from only 1974 nor does it refute the fact the CTR was called the Vidyadhara from 1985.
But of course I could be completely wrong . So if you find out more about it please let me know.
Talking about Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche,
I would like to ask all of you who are connected to Rinpoche to join in accumulating 10.000.000 Tara Mantras for the long life and the flourishing of the activity foe all beings of Kyabje ´Tenga Rinpoche.
Here is a link with further info
http://benchen.org/benchen-phuntsok-ling/news/95-tara-mantras.html
Sarva Mangalam
Tashi
Hi all,
This was a thread I missed when I was away. Interesting to read this all in the light of this summers teachings by the Sakyong.
I liked what Frans had to say – sincere and touching on a lot of topics.
It really isn’t fair to either the Vidyadhara or the current Sakyong to compare them. They did arise at different times.
I had no idea the sangha supported a large house in Europe for the Druk Sakyong that he went to only once. Was this as debated as the Sakyongs house in halifax getting a reno? (he is there many months of each year)
Andrew – I liked what you said about how the Vidyadhara wouldn’t fix things that went wrong. hmm – food for thought…
I loved the info on the term – Vidyadhara – this is a good forum for discussion – thank you organizers.
I don’t feel like we are going down with the ship – but I do feel like those who don’t want to continue the study of the Shambhala teachings are free to not to that.
Membership is growing albeit slowly. People are more clear about what that entails and are encouraged to make that choice carefully.
these ‘optional’ practices are still practiced and practiced well. Just look at the land centres which are committed to offering group practices of chakrasmava, four roots and vajrayogini, mahamudra and even Vajrakilaya. In halifax we have regularly 4 or 5 feasts a month. All qualified practitioners are ALWAYS welcome to come and practice these regular practices.
the debate about buddhism/shambhala aside. I do feel like we are creating a ‘community’ a society. One that can support many views and is open to criticism. and is truly becoming the culture that the shambhala teachings encouraged – neither a tibetan remake nor a monastic enclave but the unique western blend that is Mukpo and all of you are family.
here is another optional practice.
http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/07/02/scorpion-seal-opens/
but we may have missed the boat.
ki ki so so