Self-Improvement, Windhorse, and Spiritual Materialism
January 2, 2009 by Andrew Safer 
Print This Post
Commentary by Andrew Safer
It’s normal to have ambitions, goals, and expectations when one enters the spiritual path. At 15, I was fortunate to go on a family vacation with my mother and sister to Tassajara Zen Mountain Center where I met Shunryu Suzuki Roshi. I was immediately struck by him. Whatever he had–composure, equanimity, fathomlessness, big mind–I wanted it. Later, when I was in university, I sat zazen with Kobun Chino Sensei and Jiyu Kennett Roshi.
Zen training was uncompromising. I soon found out that what I was hoping to achieve was beside the point. What kept coming back was: just sit! When I started studying with Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, the practice environment was less severe, but the message was the same. The sitting practice of meditation was always paramount. What I was striving for—my version of enlightenment—was, well, hardly the point. Over time, I started to learn that there was a great distance between what I wanted, and reality.
My sense is that the same is true of any authentic spiritual path: it’s not about what the practitioner wants. It’s about the practice itself, contacting a bigger world, and dedicating oneself to others.
When I recently read Ruling Your World by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche I found much of the book instructive, but I was also concerned because there are many instances where the four dignities and the practices are spoken about in terms of the result: if you do A, then B will happen. While this approach will interest the beginner who is achievement-oriented, I’m concerned that it is sending the wrong message to that same person who rereads the book once they’ve entered the path, and to everyone else who reads it.
My reference points are my early teachers and my root guru, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. In Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind, Suzuki Roshi says (emphasis mine):
Especially for young people, it is necessary to try very hard to achieve something. You must stretch out your arms and legs as wide as they will go. Form is form. You must be true to your own way until at last you actually come to the point where you see it is necessary to forget all about yourself. Until you come to this point, it is completely mistaken to think that whatever you do is Zen or that it does not matter whether you practice or not. But if you make your best effort just to continue your practice with your whole mind and body, without gaining ideas, then whatever you do will be true practice. Just to continue should be your purpose. [p 43]
It is therefore a bit jarring to read, in the chapter in Ruling Your World on “The Confidence of Equanimity”: “We realize in an outrageous moment that if we approach all beings with kindness, appreciation and love, we can be happy anytime, anywhere.” [p 138]
As Suzuki Roshi said, “just to continue should be your purpose.” When one’s own happiness is brought about by an act of kindness, this seems to be a different kettle of fish entirely. (This theme was also explored in Not About Happiness.)
When we take the bodhisattva vow, we vow to liberate all sentient beings before ourself. Even though it’s impossible, we vow to do so. This is not only the height of magnanimity, it’s also pragmatic, because it sidetracks the practitioner from thinking of himself. Pragmatic, because this way, he doesn’t waste any time thinking about, or catering to, his ego—which, as we eventually discover, in fact, doesn’t exist.
The theme of killing two birds with one stone—serving oneself while serving others—reappears throughout the book. In the chapter on ”The Confidence of Delight in Helping Others”:
We may be sitting there contemplating others, and in the back of our mind thinking: “I need to do more for myself.” By thinking of others, we are doing more for ourselves. Generating joy by helping others is a secret way—and the best way—of helping ourselves. Every time we think of someone else’s happiness, we are taking a vacation from the “me” plan. It’s like getting physically fit by helping our neighbour shovel the snow from the driveway. [p 116]
In the era of new-age this and new-age that, perhaps it’s fitting that the Buddhadharma and Shambhala teachings have been repackaged in a way that appeals to “the marketplace.” One could argue that this represents a skillful means, that in this way, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is making the teachings accessible to many more people. This may indeed be the case, but at what cost?
On the topic of self-improvement and the achievement of goals, Trungpa Rinpoche said (emphasis mine):
Trust and compassion for oneself bring inspiration to dance with life, to communicate with the energies of the world. Lacking this kind of inspiration and openness, the spiritual path becomes the samsaric path of desire. One remains trapped in the desire to improve onself, the desire to achieve imagined goals. [Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism: p 98]
Windhorse (lungta in Tibetan)—the self-existing energy of basic goodness that has been described as “the breeze of delight”—is an important theme in Ruling Your World. Once again, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche breaks new ground in the way he discusses this key Shambhalian principle. “We are not afraid of the power of windhorse, which brings worldly and spiritual success.” [p 179]
Clearly, this is a description that will appeal to the self-improvement types. But even in the context of a new-age version of windhorse which is all about “what’s in it for me?”, this description is one-sided. Consider this passage by Trungpa Rinpoche from Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior:
The warrior who experiences windhorse feels the joy and sorrow of love in everything he does. He feels hot and cold, sweet and sour simultaneously. Whether things go well or things go badly, whether there is success or failure, he feels sad and delighted at once. [p 85]
In the last pages of Ruling Your World, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche expands on the outcomes of windhorse:
Windhorse brings spiritual and worldly success—personal power, harmony with others, strong life force, and material prosperity. [pp 192-193]
The notion that spirituality can be used to attain one’s personal goals was anathema to Trungpa Rinpoche. He made this quite clear in his ground-breaking book, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, which was published in 1973.
It would be foolish to study more advanced subjects before we are familiar with the starting point, the nature of ego. Speculations about the goal become mere fantasy. These speculations may take the form of advanced ideas and descriptions of spiritual experiences, but they only exploit the weaker aspects of human nature, our expectations and desires to see and hear something colorful, something extraordinary. If we begin our study with these dreams of extraordinary, “enlightening”, and dramatic experiences, then we will build up our expectations and preconceptions so that later, when we are actually working on the path, our minds will be occupied largely with what will be rather than with what is. It is destructive and not fair to people to play on their weaknesses, their expectations and dreams, rather than to present the realistic starting point of what they are. It is necessary, therefore, to start on what we are and why we are searching. [pp 121-122]
The results-based orientation of the Sakyong’s teachings and his appeal to the self-help market are key characteristics that distinguish him from Trungpa Rinpoche.
Having coined the phrase ”spiritual materialism,” Trungpa Rinpoche defined it in this way:
There are numerous sidetracks which lead to a distorted ego-centered version of spirituality; we can deceive ourselves into thinking we are developing spiritually when instead we are strengthening our egocentricity through spiritual techniques. [p 3]
He was particularly diligent in pointing out the pitfall of self-deception so that the practitioner can be aware of it and recognize it when it rears its ugly head.
Ego is very professional, overwhelmingly efficient in its own way. When we think that we are working on the forward-moving process of attempting to empty ourselves out, we find ourselves going backwards, trying to secure ourselves, filling ourselves up. [p 56]
”Self-deception is a constant problem as we progress along a spiritual path,” continues Trungpa Rinpoche. “Ego is always trying to achieve spirituality. It is rather like wanting to witness your own funeral.” [p 63]
Reading further in Ruling Your World, in addition to happiness, personal power, and worldy and spiritual success, luck is also identified as an outcome for those who practice the path of virtue. This is articulated in the following two passages:
As the golfer Ben Hogan once said, “The more I practice, the luckier I get.” In Tibet, this luck is known as tashi tendrel—auspicious coincidence. [pp 158-159]
By acting virtuously, exerting ourselves in service to others, we are blessed in return by harmony and good luck. [p 160]
From a conventional point of view, there’s no argument here! But is it dharma?
Again, in Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, Trungpa Rinpoche comments on this orientation towards results (emphasis mine).
So the point we come back to is that some kind of real gift or sacrifice is needed if we are to open ourselves completely. This gift may take any form. But in order for it to be meaningful, it must entail giving up our hope of getting something in return. It does not matter how many titles we have, nor how many suits of exotic clothes we have worn through, nor how many philosophies, commitments and sacramental ceremonies we have participated in. We must give up our ambition to get something in return for our gift. That is the really hard way. [p 80]
This passage echoes a well-known line in Trungpa Rinpoche’s Sadhana of Mahamudra : “I make these offerings without expecting anything in return, and without hope of gaining merit.”
The contrast between the teachings of father and son is extreme. Of course, it is Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche’s prerogative to teach as he sees fit. But the fact that the apple has fallen so far from the tree is worth noting, in the interests of helping to preserve the legacy of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche for both present and future generations.
Photograph of Lohan by Robert Newman. The Karme-Chöling shrine room has a series of Lohan images.
The market-orientation of the Sakyong’s book is pretty much obvious from the title on down. This was slotted as a crossover book. If it did indeed cross over, the Sakyong makes serious bank, and the organization is in a great position to grow exponentially. That kind of thinking was evident in the street-team style encouragement for members to synchronize their purchase in order to look better on the book charts
I don’t think that was the case with Trungpa Rinpoche’s books – especially the early ones that catalyzed the whole “scene”. They were underground sensations marketed by terrific word of mouth, and they overturned conventional wisdom left and right. The brilliance was blindingly obvious.
What a tough act to follow!
I think this is good evidence of a really common mistake on this site. Trungpa Rinpoche’s thought is not exactly consistent with itself on this point. He says both something like “meditation should be accomplished without any particular project” and also “you should meditate for reasons x, y, z”. I think you could say the exact same thing about Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, and indeed it’s a general inconsistency in Buddhist philosophy. It seems meditation requires that you don’t approach it with a project, but most everyone needs reason to practice, it doesn’t just happen on its own without thought, discipline or will. Any reason to meditate can be read as a ‘project’, but that’s clearly not the intention of the term in this case.
The way to resolve this is to think about “The Path is the Goal”. A common way of reading that statement is to say ‘you should have no goal, only path’, but that’s not exactly what it’s saying. It’s saying that the path and the goal are indistinguishable from one another. The goal of meditation practice might be to cultivate basic goodness, but that’s what you are doing in meditation practice. You could say the goal of being a bodhisatva is to free yourself and others from suffering and the cause of suffering, but that’s also the bodhisatva path. Saying that the path and the goal are the same does not imply that one is subsumed under the other.
Gordon:
You wrote: “The goal of being a bodhisattva is to free yourself and others from suffering…” The last time I checked, it’s about freeing others from suffering–not oneself. Pointing out this difference in view is what this article is about.
Thanks Andrew for your comment
Ironically, a transcript came in my e-mail this morning of a talk Chokyi Nyima Rinoche gave yesterday concerning positive thoughts, negative toughts and and neutral thoughts. Not surprisingly, he states that having positive thoughts are best when approaching the Dharma, and negative thoughts will produce more negativity.
To transcend all thoughts seem to me more on an absolute level, and we won’t progress unless we do that. But, we do need to attain merit before we start dedicating it to others as well. We need to start somewhere, and happiness is particular not a selfish motive if it helps us to serve others more skillfully. As we know, all sentient beings want to be happy. (or at least, out of pain). I recall somebody asking Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche about how do you know whether you’re doing the right thing or not (during a Naropa Institute talk). He said “If you do it with cheerfullness, you can’t be that wrong” (not verbatim).
An excerpt from yesterday’s CNR talk :
” Buddhists accept karma, that physical, verbal, and mental
actions have consequences. Karma has to do with the workings of our mind,
our thoughts. If we have unkind thinking, it will have a negative influence
on us. And we might do negative things. When we have kind thoughts, when we
want to help and benefit others, this is a positive energy that will lead to
a positive result. Even if we don’t do anything physically or verbally, as
long as we have kind thoughts in our mind, as long as we want to help and do
good, then this is a positive action, positive karma, which in turn will
ensure a positive effect. So, good and evil comes down to different ways of thinking, different mental states”.
As far as the golfer who said “The more I practice, the luckier I become”, I tought that line was funny, and showed a great sense of humor.
It would be like saying “The more I practice the cello, magically, I start playing the cello better”. Luck comes most kikely from good old fashioned work. We don’t become good at music, math, plumbing, etc., through luck.
We don’t pass exams through luck.. I don’t know if practice brings luck, but practice has been described as “practicing what Inherently is there.” Meditation seems awkward at first when we begin it. We always think we are doing something wrong when we begin to practice, but it becomes more natural the more we practice. We doin’t reject negative thoughts, and don’t cling to positive thoughts. When thoughts are transended, then we discover a deeper sense of equanimity, which is happiness. Much of happiness arises from the dissapearence of fear, and klesas don’t have a strangle hold of us. It’s not an attainment as much as more of a non attainment (so it has been taught..I know nothing).
Rob Graffis
Andrew:
I could be wrong on this point (in general my point still stands that there is a goal of bodhisatva activity which is identical to the path of bodhisatva activity) my understanding was that it was impossible to do one without the other. You can’t free the world from suffering and the cause of suffering without freeing yourself from suffering and its cause. The two go together.
g.
Andrew, it seems that your central theme has a flaw in it because a bodhisattva’s goal is to benefit self and others. Of course, on an absolute level, there is no self or other. On the relative level, benefiting others benefits self — that is the basis for the path of accumulation.
An argument could be made that our sangha puts too much emphasis on the absolute and on the highest levels of Tantric teachings. Trungpa Rinpoche himself famously said “never forget the Hinayana”. Since we are all deluded and relate to the world reflexively, moment by moment, in terms of accepting and rejecting — it is a great benefit to aspire to enlightenment for the benefit of self and others and to act on that inspiration.
“Never Forget the Hinayana” doesn’t mean we go back to a Theravadin view but that the other yanas are all included if we are keeping the precept of being in the here and now of the timeless, perfect moment. In fact, if we could keep this samaya, all the others would be kept without effort.
I quote from Keith Dowman’s translation of Longchenpa:
“Initiatory experience is present in this very moment and nothing can be done to facilitate its advent. Any kind of preparation or fore-practice muddies the waters in its assumption of a goal to be reached. Access to the clarity and the zing of reality, on the contrary, is more likely to be found in an innocent pristine mind that has not been conditioned by the cultural and religious assumptions of a “sophisticated” tradition. Purity of karma, putative rebirth, guru-relationship, degree of meditation-concentration, facility in visualization, levels of attainment, and so on, are all issues pertinent to acceptance and success within a hierarchical cult wherin a particular ideal form of social and psychological behavior is a goal to be achieved, but to the formless experience of Dzogchen such considerations have no relevance. Striving in any kind of preparatory endeavor is an exercise in shooting onself in the foot, or at least running after a mirage. In fact, to reach the point of relaxation in the moment that provides intimation of gnosis (rigpa), nonaction is the sole precept. This perspective in radical Dzogchen is exclusive to those who have no need or inclination to exchange their inbred cultural norms and mores for those belonging to a more exotic or “spiritual” tradition, or to reject their cultural legacy and educational conditioning in an effort to change their psychological make-up. REcognition of our lived experience, just as it is, in its miraculous immediacy and beauty, without any yen for change, is the praxis of radical Dzogchen and belief in personal development and improvement, progress towards a social ideal, moral evolution of the species, and so on, is deviation from the pure pleasure of the unthought timeless moment”….
from Introduction to “Old Man Basking in the Sun” Keith Dowman, Longchenpa’s Treasury of Natural Perfection.
I believe that that was the inspiration that CTR provided for us, as he was always in the immediacy of the given moment, “as it is” and was his mind-transmission most directly. Could we really believe that he was goal oriented, despite all that he accomplished. He lived in the radical, meaning back to the root, moment.
This does not mean we abandon religious devotions or ritual practice, Dzogchen doesn’t reject anything, but there would be a sense of empty play , a “journey without a goal”. The essence of what Trunpa Rinpoche was trying to teach us, when we listened to Beethoven and Bach at Western dinners at seminary, and followed it up with a Zen oriokyi. He was as comfortable in a bar as in the shrine hall.
It is this “belief” that there is some “goal” , some special amazing place or state of mind that we are going to reach someday, that is the very obstacle to relaxing into natural awareness, which is No BIG DEAL. It is the big deal idea that we have to wear out. And that is probably what all the other practices are therefore. So “we wear them out like an old shoe” another quote from CTR.
He would not believe the retrogressive, cultural, Tibetophile form that is being presented in his name. What a Joke!
Why I put all of his teachings in a Dzogchen context, is because I have no doubt that all his teachings are imbued with the view from the top of the mountain, and it includes all the rest. As any great lama did, he taught to people’s proclivities. He gave the big view always.
I enjoyed your very direct, to the point commentary, Andrew. This site is allowing people to speak directly without a whole lot of equivocating. I guess we are all too long in the tooth now to bother to equivocate.
P.S. as for bodhisattva activity. This arises naturally from a state of relaxation. It always struck me that in the Lojong Absolute Bodhicitta had to come first, i.e. emptiness and clarity before relative bodhictta could take place.
I now understand what that was pointing to: You cannot help anyone, unless you have some understanding and experience i.e. stabilization in emptiness and clarity or wisdom and out of this compassion will naturally arise. In fact, emptiness, clarity and compassion, the 3 kayas are inseparable. Any thing else is conceptual, and will often result in idiot compassion, coming from a self and other point of view. There could be no compassion, real compassion without emptiness and wisdom.
Chris
the desire to help others as the critical path to your own liberation is a kind of way of breaking out of a very subtle sense of “me” that stream-crossers, those who perfect the hinayana will experience. The sense of Lord Atisha’s work, if I may say so, is to be able to identify all of those relative and absolute-related obstacles to liberation –from thinking that the dharmas we experience are real and not dream-like, to complaining about aches and pains, to solidifying a view about liberation (the antidote), to viewing other’s suffering as a pain in the butt (tonglen).
The sense of the whole thing is that we can rejoice that when we identify these self-referential obstacles, and we can realize with absolute bodhichitta on the spot, through the slogans and include a much bigger world as our own.
From what I was taught by the Vidyadhara, the purpose of breaking out of the shell of self-liberation was that including the suffering of others was an indispensable element in our path. Or as he said, “it doesn’t prove anything to get undressed in an empty room.”
Indispensable to our own liberation. And this does not cease in the Vajrayana, not at all. However our sense of who “we” are goes through subtle and sometimes jarring changes as we apply the remedies to our small world of freedom. At that point generosity, exertion, etc., become interesting elements in this path.
In dropping our self-centered reference point we stop acquiring the negative karma. Through applying the slogans, we can wake up on the spot and actually experience the transcendental qualities of the other 5 paramitas.
Of course we weave in an out of this, like a drunk trying to walk a straight line in a sobriety test, which is why we use the word “path.” And also in applying this wisdom we acquire tremendous merit, especially if we can apply prajna in the service of other paramitas, such as dana/jinpa, generosity.
However, if we are losing our reference point in this process, it’s difficult to get a fix on where we are, what we have accomplished, since some kind of self-credentialization you would think, is flying out the window, at the same time we are forgetting exactly where we end and others begin.
I agree with Andrew that introducing signs of accomplishment opens the door for great misunderstanding of the path — that some people might actually think that there is some experience to chase after! That is, as Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said, about as foolish as going out hunting for elephants when there is one living in your house!
Lee
I appreciate your insights.
I do feel that, as Trungpa R.’s heir, many are very hard on the Sakyong — to the extent of reading his books specifically to find quotes to use to attack him.
One could do the same thing with books like “The Art of Happiness” by H.H. Dalai Lama or “Joyful Living” by Mingyur R. But our sangha does not attack these other lamas in the same way.
Rob Graffis’ story is wonderful about CTR advising that in testing whether action is “off” or “on” — “If you do it with cheerfulness, you can’t be far wrong.” For those who are very critical of SMR — let me ask — (and can you answer honestly?) — are you cheerful as you type your next post?
Very cheerful, now that I am free of trying to deny and pretend. It all has become quite silly to me now and such a waste of time, trying to force myself for years into a procrustean bed out of displaced loyalty to CTR.
Thanks for asking.
Jim:
To respond to your last post, I did not read the book to attack. It was my first time reading it and, while I found much of the material instructive as I noted in the article, I found the self-improvement aspect troubling. Since it came up a number of times in the book, I felt a responsibility to point out that this is quite different from what Trungpa Rinpoche taught. The reason I feel this responsibility is because it’s generally understood that Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is Trungpa Rinpoche’s representative and I don’t think it’s helpful for this particular line to be blurred.
You asked about cheerfulness. I’m not sure this word applies in every situation, but broadly defined, I’d have to say yes, I’m feelng cheerful as I write this.
In your earlier comment you remarked about the bodhisattva benefiting self and other. I have always understood that the bodhisattva path is about benefiting others. I suppose there are different schools of thought on this, but I’m not familiar with the one that incluces benefiting oneself.
A friend recently sent me this quote from Trungpa Rinpoche:
Learning to Wake Up
We are hungry for knowledge and want to get results immediately and automatically, but unless we give up that speed and urgency, we are not going to learn anything. The problem seems to be basically one of laziness. We are so lazy that we do not even want to bother eating our food; we would prefer to be satisfied just from reading the menu. And that laziness reaches the extreme when it comes to going further into relating with reality. The process of learning to wake up takes time and painful measures of all kinds. The learning process is not an easy matter. It is not easy, because we do not want to surrender our basic security. The teachings of Buddhism are not a source of security, such as “the freedom of nirvana” or something of that nature. The teachings do not present another form of security at all, but bring the absence of any kind of security. Enlightenment is the complete absence of any kind of promises.
From “The Tibetan Buddhist Teachings and Their Application,” in The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa, Volume Three, page 5
I suspect that one could find teachings by Trungpa Rinpoche as well which are more about relative path than are about presenting an absolute view. For example the Shambhala teachings on aspiring for the higher realms.
But both relative and absolute are important. Otherwise the Buddha would not have taught all of the first turning “provisional” teachings. Therefore, when evaluating the Sakyong, can one really discredit him for teaching provisional things? If one did that, one would have to discredit the Buddha as well.
Clearly the relative is necessary. What seems to make a difference is from what view that is presented. That view may be tangibly felt even if not fully intellectually grasped. And I think this is what people are talking about.
For example, CTR insisted that we, each and every one of us, could take up our thrones as kings/queens. Sitting on such a throne is not comfortable – its essence is being awake, within which good and bad, happy and sad, all play out their games.
There are many fine-grained, relative-truth, arduous-practice teachings, which from the very beginning can be infused with that pinch of absolute wake. We can say we want that pinch of wake, which is fine – we get at least a hint that it involves the dismantling of the experiencer of the success/failure of that project. Hopeless cheerfulness.
If you’ve had the hint of that, and are not finding it someplace, dissing the lack of it doesn’t find it – you have to find it, whether there or elsewhere.
Thanks Mark. I agree you can include the absolute view as an aesthetic in relative teachings – like as a pinch – and the Vidhyadhara was masterful at that. I also think within a Buddhist path it’s crucial to not confuse the relative for the absolute – or more likely clarify that as you go along – which is another way of talking about spiritual materialism.
My point seems to be (i’m still figuring it out) something about whether the Sakyong always has to have an absolute view in presentations, or if I personally always have to as well.
Exploring that with a contrived example, what if someone comes into the shambhala centre looking to improve their golf game. Should I scold them and try to convince them that they’re being materialist and they should desire egolessness and emptiness? Of course we wouldn’t do that, which would be aggressively pushing Buddhism or Shambhala Vision on people, like I was trying to pull them into our territory.
So in a book, should we assume everyone reading it is looking for egolessness and emptiness? If it’s clearly a book for Buddhists on how to walk the path, then sure. That would be presenting the proper view. But if it is not clearly that intended readership, if it’s just about mindfulness or intended for non-Buddhists (or about mindfulness for golf) then it seems like one needs to write for that audience and not push an agenda upon them. Or should we always try to subversively convert people? Then, was “Ruling Your World” intended as an introduction to Buddhism? I don’t know entirely how it’s framed, but it has the subtitle “ancient strategies for modern life” so maybe it’s more relative than Buddhist.
Another example, a friend is reading a book on mindfulness and depression by JK-Z right now and it’s been interesting hearing from her how the book talks about klesha and karma – without using those terms – and she’s excited because it seems so useful. But there is no absolute view explicitly articulated that I can discern. Is that materialist? sure. less so than personal wealth generation maybe, but still another example of self-help.
But I agree these kinds of books are very different from the Vidhyadhara’s books that were transcripts of “dharma talks” – which have an articulated absolute view – and they’re also very different from the Sakyong’s Seminary Transcripts which have a clear absolute view.
Maybe I mistook this article as more of a criticism than it really was. It’s perhaps more about whether a Sakyong is allowed to write non-Buddhist things. The current Sakyong does seem to offer more teachings to non-Buddhists than the Druk Sakyong. I don’t see it as a way to “draw them in” and convert people to be Buddhists as much as I see it as generosity or just presenting the full, historical view of things. Like how windhorse or jambala generates wealth.
Now for my hangup: the Vidhyadhara seemed in my mind to capture some of us by playing with elitism (what Weinberger characterized as fascism?), the notion that we had to work hard to enter a secret, inner circle of ancient wisdom by preparing ourself. That’s a relative approach I think that worked well on me in particular. The Sakyong now is, in my opinion, taking a different tact and instead publishing a book of “ancient wisdom for modern life” describing windhorse and more to anyone interested. That’s a big change. But then most of what we held previously as secret you can go to amazon and buy from wisdom publications, no? vajrayogini commentaries, a DVD of inner yoga, etc. The teaching that windhorse causes personal prosperity is I suspect not new to this nor the last century. Is it materialist? um, clearly. But we’re used to only hearing about windhorse in a buddhist or shambhala vision context, and we had chosen to enter into that path already so that makes sense. We’re not used to hearing about conventional windhorse as it was probably taught for the last 200 years or without a Buddhist view coupled with it. We definitely, then, need to be more precise with our view and knowing what it is.
Davee:
I appreciate the thought you have put into this and your articulation here. It helps me clarify, for myself, what is at the heart of this discussion altogether. Allow me to question and comment on some of the points you raised.
You said that some of the Vidyadhara’s teachings are more about the relative path, than the absolute. You cited as an example some of the Shambhala teachings on “aspiring for the higher realms.” I can’t recall any reference to this within the Shambhala context. What are you referring to here?
(Within the Buddhist context, I’m not sure that would be considered a positive thing in any case, as in someone in the jealous god realm wanting to be in the god realm, unless I misunderstood what you meant by “higher realms”.)
Regarding whether it’s OK to have a “relative view”, rather than an “absolute view”, you cited this example:
“What if someone comes into the shambhala centre looking to improve their golf game. Should I scold them and try to convince them that they’re being materialist and they should desire egolessness and emptiness? Of course we wouldn’t do that, which would be aggressively pushing Buddhism or Shambhala Vision on people, like I was trying to pull them into our territory.”
This is a good example. I think we agree that you would not scold him and push egolessness on him!
Another response might be: “Try meditation. It will help you improve your golf game.” Or: “If you meditate, your golf game will improve.” The way I was taught, there is something cheap about that approach. We could just as easily tell bowlers it will improve their bowling game, surfers it will improve their surfing, and so on. We would have the magic cure!
So what do we say to the golfer? How about something like: “Why don’t you try meditation practice? See what happens!”
In other words, we don’t have to confirm that the person is going to get the desired result.
That way, nothing is promised, and the possibilities are endless.
You wrote: “It’s perhaps more about whether a Sakyong is allowed to write non-Buddhist things. The current Sakyong does seem to offer more teachings to non-Buddhists than the Druk Sakyong.”
I beg to differ. Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior is full of teachings for non-buddhists. I’m thinking we are tending to lose sight of that fact because the current Sakyong is mixing Shambhala and Buddhism.
You wrote: “The teaching that windhorse causes personal prosperity is I suspect not new to this nor the last century. Is it materialist? um, clearly. But we’re used to only hearing about windhorse in a buddhist or shambhala vision context, and we had chosen to enter into that path already so that makes sense. We’re not used to hearing about conventional windhorse as it was probably taught for the last 200 years or without a Buddhist view coupled with it. We definitely, then, need to be more precise with our view and knowing what it is.”
I don’t know what “conventional” windhorse is, or “Buddhist “windhorse, for that matter. According to the teachings we were given, the term “windhorse” is used in the Shambhala context, and it has a particular meaning. I don’t think it was meant to be all things to all people. But again, Shambhala Buddhism has blurred these lines.
It becomes difficult to have a discussion because the meaning of specific words has morphed to fit the new paradigm.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, caught me there. By non-Buddhist teachings I mean things like running, golf, or knitting. But perhaps I’m wrong about that too, the Vidhyadhara taught about calligraphy, horse back riding, and many other things that are not complete paths to enlightenment within themselves perhaps? That’s kind of what I was getting at by relative teachings though, he also taught about what makes a good society, politics, and much more. So it seems fine to have relative teachings that do not always include an absolute view or push individual enlightenment. I think the Shambhala Terma specifically mentions aspiring to the higher realms in that way. in S:SPotW there’s a mention of this on the discussion of perky (page 166-167 in my 1984 edition – authentic presence chapter) but generally these could be more with respect to promoting a good society than achieving liberation: more provisional path instructions.
Windhorse though is old; not sure how old but they’re on most Tibetan prayer flags. In the autocommentary CTR mentions windhorse was incorporated into Buddhist culture “in later days” (pg 14). Terma about Shambhala is not unique either. Ju Mipham received mind terma in the 19th century, including a noteworthy Gesar practice titled “gsol mchod phrin las myur ‘grub” (”The Swift Accomplishment of Enlightened Activity Through Invocation and Offering”) among other teachings. Maybe that is a controversy in itself though, whether we co-mingle with older teachings on Shambhala and Gesar and windhorse? That then potentially relates to the marriage with our community and the Ripa family of Shambhala tertons.
Sometimes I wonder if the very recognition of the Sakyong as Mipham has precipitated some of the change. The first Mipham wrote extensively about Shambhala over a hundred years ago, but in a different context. How could the current Sakyong then ignore the legacy that he was expected to succeed any more than the terma of his father? It would be as if the current Trungpa Rinpoche were to ignore all of the Shambhala terma that his previous incarnation discovered. There has to be some kind of synthesis realistically, just because the Sakyong was identified as Mipham, or else all the earlier teachings on Shambhala and Gesar in a Buddhist context would have to be intentionally ignored. Or maybe not. I’m not that familiar really with how the Tibetan tulku system works, just guessing about all that.
The differences or “divisiveness as it has been called”, is about the difference between being caught up in the “Three Fold Projections” i.e. believing there is an actor, an action and something acted upon vs. resting in the “perfect plenitude of the here and now” and playing with phenomenal appearances.
SI ’s current manifestation is about the later, i.e. being asunder from the perfect plenitude of the here and now, and instead giving delusory valuation or IMPORTANCE to actions, the actor, and what is acted upon. It is now serious, there is a goal, there is a world to be saved “out there.” This is based on the most gross thought forms and is about avidya, NOT realization.
CTR was always about the “perfect plenitude of the here and now” and playing with phenomenal appearances that were always seen as empty, illusory and impermanent and quite humorous. That was why the Court of Shambhala had an Alice in Wonderland quality, filled with humor and emptiness and fun.
This is the crucial difference and you cannot convince, or argue or make people see this, if they don’t see it. They would have to have this pointed out, as we know.
They say only a fool would argue about these things. I think it means if people don’t see it, you are wasting your time and theirs to keep trying to describe the taste of sugar, if you can’t give them sugar to taste.
I still think that CTR’s students should break away (anything else will distract you for years and years) and get together to do the S of M once a month, invite other teachers to your delek, or group or whatever, after all all the great lamas always say that it is all BIG MIND and CTR ’s mind is no different than other lamas with genuine realization. I would do this before you just drop dead arguing about something that has to be tasted to be understood.
I think Christine nails it (btw, I think in your second paragraph you mean “SI’s current manifestation is about the former“). I’ve had a sense of frustration about some of these discussions, that they’re not really addressing the key point, and wandering off in all kinds of endless unclear details.
I think a recent Ocean of Dharma Quote of the Week communicates the flavor of the unified-mandala-of-all-the-siddhas lineage dharma:
I think with such understanding you could teach and learn golf – after all, there is no activity from which such view/practice is absent – but in such a view golf isn’t really about golf. Mozart, whose birthday is today, came from such a view. The Marriage of Figaro portrays human deceptions in naked clarity, but it’s not about those, or the notes, but about the space in which these play out, and in that space we are amused.
Christine thanks for pointing out that elephant in the living room.
Trungpa Rinpoche’s students seem conflicted about what to do now that he has died. Except that was 20 years or so ago.
Until we reach real attainment, we need teachers. Some moved on to study with different teachers outside the Shambhala mandala. Some stayed working with teachers inside the mandala, and over time became fully their students. Others seem to have not connected to the Sakyong in the same guru/student relationship but stuck around because the organization was the venue that hosted the practices they were familiar with, in the form they were familiar with. Then the pictures change, the practices change and the overall direction seems to change. One day they shake their heads and say “Where am I?”
Is this some kind of crisis of faith, to be dealt with by admonishments that change is good and we need to pull up our socks and be perky? Or is this more like the beginnings of leaving the cocoon?
I don’t think there is a single answer. Or rather, there is an answer only on the individual, personal level. And this is a MUCH harder question for those who studied directly with Trungpa Rinpoche!
If some one came to a meditation center looking to improve their golf game,
I’d ask them why they didn’t think to go to a golf course?
i’m sure phil jackson mostly had the lakers practice on the court, but if they showed up at the shambhala center how cool!
I just came across this quote from Ocean of Dharma: 365 Teachings on Living Life With Courage and Compassion by Chogyam Trungpa:
The Golden Chain of Spirituality
“As long as we follow a spiritual approach promising salvation, miracles, liberation, then we are bound by the ‘golden chain of spirituality’. Such a chain might be beautiful to wear, with its inlaid jewels and intricate carvings, but nevertheless, it imprisons us. People think that we can wear the golden chain for decoration without being imprisoned by it, but they are deceiving themselves. As long as one’s approach to spirituality is based upon enriching ego, then it is spiritual materialism, a suicidal process rather than a creative one. “
this topic has been wonderful to contemplate, and i had a concern i wanted to voice.
i’m starting to notice a few ways I’m relating to spiritual materialism teachings. in one manner, i use them to judge if a buddhist teaching or approach is more or less likely to clearly communicate the truth of two-fold egolessness. in other words, a way to judge if a teaching is more 1) conventional, 2) provisional or 3) definitive. so a teaching to work more skillfully in samsara i would classify as conventional – like the vidhyadhara’s Ratna Society talks on how sangha businesses could be more successful by working together – but that doesn’t make the Ratna Society talks bad, just less about the buddhist path particularly. then goal / result style teachings, like many hinayana teachings, are more provisional.
then i see a separate way i relate to materialism teachings, as warning that i’m likely to encounter my own materialistic motivations and phenomena arising as I travel any path – perhaps no matter how long i’ve been on it – and if i fail to notice the tendency and work with it then it will obstruct. and the lord of speech part of that includes how I make an us versus them identity in any group. even the buddha, if you believe the hagiography, had a goal of enlightenment at the very last moment swearing to sit under that tree, and the last obstacles overcome were ego. so the warning is consistent.
but then my question becomes, to what degree does judging other traditions or teachers or presentations of the dharma come from discernment and to what degree does it come from my own materialism? there’s no answer to that, but my concern is that any attitude that my dharma or our dharma is better risks materialism.
Take the NKT lineage. I certainly have views about Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his organization, for example, but it’s all based on gossip I’ve heard. He’s controversial, but do I really know if his divisiveness with the rest of the Geluk order is skillful or if it is corrupt in some way. I probably should check myself if I find myself judging his teachings, and his divisive stance, because it seems inconsistent with two-fold egolessness. I’m on the outside of that situation and don’t know what’s really going on. He certainly understands the teachings on two-fold egolessness, he passed the Geshe exam. But it’s tempting to judge when I see his organization criticizing His Holiness the Dalai Lama and other Gelug leadership, and for me at least I feel like he’s missing the point.
My passing judgment on him however feels like it can have a materialist root, namely a belief that my tradition and my approach to dharma is better than his in a general way instead of specifically about my path. It would be different if i considered his New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) versus Shambhala for my practice path. But by judging the NKT generally it is judging for all students, in all times, our approach is better than theirs. But that’s my tendency I must embarrassingly admit. I like to think of Shambhala as the most pure and the best sometimes.
But then doesn’t the same logic hold within Shambhala? If we think one teacher’s approach is more pure or superior in some way than the another’s approach (be it a Sakyong, Reggie, Regent, or the rest), in a general way, we should check ourselves for some kind of spiritual materialism in that no? When I hear that some people need to preserve the legacy of the Vidhyadhara by breaking away from the Sakyong or by defaming him, it seems really fishy to me. Which is not to say that people shouldn’t find communities of practice that work for them, with or without specific teachers, and perhaps being part of Shambhala International does not work for people who once loved it. But I fear my own tendency to judge generally can be fishy.
I don’t believe that anyone’s goal here is to defame the Sakyong, but rather to preserve Trungpa Rinpoche’s legacy – but not as a museum piece. That job is much more difficult when that legacy is viewed as the intellectual property of an organization, and that samaya is automatically inheritable through organizational succession.
As to your NKT gambit, that to me seems to be simultaneously muddled and disingenuous….. Are you implying that RFS is somehow like the NKT because there is a “splittist” sentiment? Are you invoking the NKT to make SI look better in comparison? Or do you truly think that there is nothing wrong with the Shugden worshippers and they should not be criticized or judged?
Sounds to me like we have just discovered the Buddhist equivalent of Godwin’s Law…..
Godwin’s Law, ha! That’s hilarious. Thanks for that Michael. I don’t think RFS is anything like NKT, but the argument i’ve heard here is similar. NKT seems to claim that they’re keeping the stream pure (of corrupting Nyingma influences) and more in line with HHDL’s root guru and that he’s breaking samaya by moving away from Shugden practice. Therefore they have to split off.
I think NKT’s argument is odd. And as a Nyingmapa I find Shugden practice offensive in its overt appearance. Maybe that’s misinterpretation though? I’ve never heard NKT actually present a view or teaching on those aspects of the practice that sound like they “grind to dust” anyone incorporating Nyingma views into the Gelug lineage. It simultaneously sounds like a long standing political split as much as any ideologic stance. Our protector practices sound just as racy, basically.
So I’m not trying to say Shugden practice is ok, it probably would not be my thing, but blanket statements are fishy. And using spiritual materialism arguments to say “my” lineage is more pure than another is ironic. That was my main point.
and I agree on the intellectual property issue. the US copyright laws granting a long monopoly seem at odds with a contemplative tradition.
I think Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s organization — NKT or whatever it was named back in the day — was pretty well established. So when there was a split from the Gelugpa mainstream a clear hierarchy and structure was already in place. It was a split from the top down.
What has happened at several junctures in the Vajradhatu – Shambhala continuum is more complex. What was a relatively clear succession plan blew apart in the wake of the Regent’s action and result…. there was a three way split – splitting from the top between the Board and the Regent, and from the bottom with many people leaving. Those people dispersed, and either studied with other teachers, or didn’t.
I think that in the articles and threads on RFS there is not so much a split as a net-facilitated conversation about how best to maintain samaya with Trungpa Rinpoche through all the vagaries of the human condition, both personal and institutional. Whatever form that takes.
Really well stated, Michael!
I think that in the articles and threads on RFS there is not so much a split as a net-facilitated conversation about how best to maintain samaya with Trungpa Rinpoche through all the vagaries of the human condition, both personal and institutional. Whatever form that takes.
Davee…trust the principle witness..
“but then my question becomes, to what degree does judging other traditions or teachers or presentations of the dharma come from discernment and to what degree does it come from my own materialism? there’s no answer to that, but my concern is that any attitude that my dharma or our dharma is better risks materialism.”
“The contrast between the teachings of father and son is extreme. Of course, it is Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche’s prerogative to teach as he sees fit. But the fact that the apple has fallen so far from the tree is worth noting, in the interests of helping to preserve the legacy of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche for both present and future generations.”
This is just sensationalist.
For what it’s worth I think that the Vidyadhara would be so proud of the Sakyong and his teachings.
I hope the irony of naming this “Radio Free” Shambhala wasn’t lost on you guys. Radio Free Europe was the brainchild of George Kennan and John Foster Dulles, CIA chiefs and architects of the Cold War who sensationalized the threat posed by the Soviet Union to justify the continued existence of America’s wartime bureaucracies. It was largely a propaganda wing of the CIA with the explicit mission of bringing down the Soviet Union. Which begs the question as to whether, despite the nuanced tone at work here, the administrators of this site see Shambhala International as the USSR and RFS as a method of intellectual resistance against it. Because that would be pretty ridiculous. I mean are you aware of the signal you sent with the name of this site?
I’m not trying to rabble-rouse. I think it’s always good to have things out in the open, and this site is a good way to facilitate these discussions. But casting yourselves as the true preservers of the Vidyadhara’s legacy and claiming that your ideas are those of “Free-thinkers,” with the tacit suggestion that the other side represents authoritarianism and the stifling of dissent, is really sort of the height of arrogance. Of course there is a place for disagreement, but I think that the very name of this site represents an off-putting aesthetic of self-righteousness that I’ve seen from some older students who are convinced that they understand the Vidyadhara’s intentions better than his students who have continued to serve the mandala he created, not to mention the son he trained to take over for him. I think a lot of the heartbreak of losing a teacher like the Vidyadhara, which having been very close to him I share, is understandable but I’m not sure I understand what’s being accomplished with some of the articles on this website.
I’m not denying anybody their perspective, and clearly everyone who commented here has a wealth of experience in practice and study. Just my thoughts in looking around the site.
KI KI SO SO!
yall are haters.
I think the opportunity to discuss the Vidyadhara’s teachings is the point of this site. When it strays into comparison with something else, it seems to
loose energy.
I think Sakyong Mipham is endeavoring to uphold the legacy of his father
in the best way he can. To think otherwise just doesn’t make sense to me.
I wish the blessings of the lineage for him and all of us.
John
.
Ashoka:
You quoted the last section from my article and said it’s “sensationalist”.
You also wrote:
“But casting yourselves as the true preservers of the Vidyadhara’s legacy and claiming that your ideas are those of “Free-thinkers,” with the tacit suggestion that the other side represents authoritarianism and the stifling of dissent, is really sort of the height of arrogance. ”
I’m going to assume that the Sakyong is your teacher–or, at least, one of your teachers. Now, let’s fast-forward to some unknown point in the future when the Sakyong’s dharma heir has taken his/her seat as leader of this community. You might be an old man by then, who knows?
After several years, you start to notice significant changes–in how the teachings are being presented, and in the teachings themselves. The new Sakyong has found teachers of his/her own and seems to be taking the community in a different direction from where it was headed under the previous Sakyong (who was your teacher). You bide your time and give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Eventually, these changes become so significant that you have a hard time reconciling what is being said and taught with what the previous Sakyong taught. At the same time, everyone assumes that this person is the representative of the previous Sakyong, and is carrying on his teaching stream.
You’re faced with a dilemma . Do you stand by and watch the previous Sakyong’s teaching stream get lost in the transition, or b) do you speak up, and point out that this is a very real possibility?
Do you remain quiet, or do you speak up? And if you do speak up, is that “sensationalist” and “the height of arrogance”?
The reason I wrote this article is that cutting through spiritual materialism is a key element of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teaching, and, based on my reading of Ruling Your World, that teaching seems to be getting lost. Or do you not see the dichotomy? If not, please explain how you reconcile these two very different articulations of the teachings and the path.
I would thank my lucky stars for the compassion on your parts for providing me with the example of exactly what not to do, and let go of my attachment to the forms of my teacher, holding my love and devotion for him in my heart, and trusting the indestructibility of that connection and the magic of the lineage I would humbly try to genuinely and spontaneously manifest what I learned from him for the benefit of those who walk his grounds. Just as some of the Vidyadhara’s former students have been so incredibly kind and brave to have done for me, to my immense joy and priviledge. I don’t know what my connection to all this would be without them; and I’m sure they’ve gone through some of what you have gone through.
I hold the Vidyadhara and his lineage above and in front of me, to the east, and that reason alone would be enough for me to joyously go down with the ship should it ever come to that. Thankfully that’s not where we are.
Someone told me a story recently about a rinpoche they study with who told them, “Look, it’s the dark age. Nobody understands the dharma right now. The best thing you have to ride this time out is loyalty.” I am a samurai and am blessed that my house was founded by a real king, with ink so black his brush was a weapon. This is where I will die.
Would “let go of my attachment to the the forms of my teacher” extend to the organization? Would loyalty to the organizational mandala / hierarchy be more important than something like the practice forms? Is it somehow heretical – “exactly what not to do” – to even question the shifting direction of an institution? Is questioning an institution outside of official channels somehow dangerous subversion? Does institutional loyalty boil down to “my country right or wrong”?
Is it possible to keep samaya with CTR outside of the existing organizational container? I certainly hope so – I include him in my guruyoga every day….
If the “true believers” were so convinced, why are they so fascinated with this site?
Either they are watchdogs and spies, , that are on here to confuse and censor, or they are afraid that there is something more going on here, and it scares and fascinates them simultaneously.
Either way, If they were so sure, they wouldn’t even be paying attention to this site, they would be practicing and following their own path.
Let’s not be befuddled anymore by the son or nephew or neice, or this one or that one with some connection to a great lama. We have the same connection, and whose to say whose is the clearer? The time has come to use our own discriminating awareness about what rings true. To trust ourselves.
“Like brahmins, some defend their caste, or in pools of fear for their fief’s survival….” (Patrul Rinpoche, Words of my Perfect Teacher, on How to Follow a Spiritual Friend).
Well, hey, we’ve all got our own path to walk. Good luck with yours! I spoke my piece, hopefully you can be big enough to take it as an honest observation from someone who cares about all this just as much as you do, and not as something foolish like espionage or class preservation. I will stop pooping on the party now. Have fun.
hey ashoka, come back ! I wanted to hear more of your thoughts – and also was interested in your answers to my questions upthread… that’s why they call it dialog and conversation
“…which begs the question as to whether, despite the nuanced tone at work here, the administrators of this site see Shambhala International as the USSR and RFS as a method of intellectual resistance against it.”
“….casting yourselves as the true preservers of the Vidyadhara’s legacy and claiming that your ideas are those of “Free-thinkers,” with the tacit suggestion that the other side represents authoritarianism and the stifling of dissent, is really sort of the height of arrogance. Of course there is a place for disagreement, but I think that the very name of this site represents an off-putting aesthetic of self-righteousness that I’ve seen from some older students who are convinced that they understand the Vidyadhara’s intentions better than his students who have continued to serve the mandala he created, not to mention the son he trained to take over for him.”
Ashoka–when I discovered this site recently I must say these associations in its name never occurred to me. For me the name simply signifies something like “free dissemination of ideas within and about Shambhala”.
But as for the question of “authoritarianism and the stifling of dissent”, it seems to me that this is a criticism of Shambhala in its present state which has been voiced very often. I’ve certainly heard many forms of it over the years–both from people within and those outside, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. And I’ve also had some personal experience myself. It’s a subject about which we should never be complacent, don’t you think? Because, as I mentioned in a previous post, group ego is always so powerful and constantly overlooked when we are engaged in collective idealistic and ambitious endeavours. And I’d say that the more ambitious / utopian the project, the more safeguards need to be in place. Add to the mix a very tight hierarchy and vows of more-or-less absolute loyalty to a central source of authority, and it seems to me we could use all the watchdogs we can find.
As for “arrogance and self-righteousness”, it’s kind of everywhere… It’s on this site, it’s in me, it’s in senior teachers of Shambhala. I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on that.
Shambhala should rejoice in the existence of this site.
i dunno about ‘watchdogs.’ I mean talk about the potential for an ego trip…
but you know, whatever, you all have been in on this thing for some time so it is entirely your prerogative to relate to it how you see fit. at first i kinda thought the whole concept of the site was cool enough, but then i started looking around and realized a lot of it is sort of subtle “defining ourselves by what we are against” sort of stuff and that is much less cool. the name fits into that quite appropriately. but i cannot deny the validity of your experiences, i just do not agree with your interpretations of the teachings or the heart of this whole thing, that’s all. i think that’s fair, we all have our view…
i am also not the guy who wants to blanket defend everything that happens in shambhala international. no sir. i am not that person. i just feel a tremendous amount of devotion to the Sakyong that largely flows from my devotion to the Vidyadhara and i have a hard time understanding why others don’t share that.
and Micheal, if the shambhala sangha is not for you or anyone else, i completely understand that. it is entirely reasonable for any one of a million reasons. but you do not get to walk out the door with the Vidyadhara’s legacy. it is where it belongs and it is mostly being well cared for. i mean don’t you have enough already? you got to spend years of your life with him. that is awesome and i am jealous. i just hope that when you or anyone else suggests that the Sakyong is turning his back on that, that it is coming from a very pure place untainted by any klesha or personal hang up because it is a very destructive thing to put into the world.
What is your motivation for coming on this site , Ashoka?. I think that is what you should be looking at. Not everyone else’s motivation, while periodically slinging mudballs in a veil of rhetoric, at those older students who chose to follow what that they saw as devotion. You were how old when the Vidyadhara died? 5 or 6, and 11 when the Sakyong took the reins? So you have really known only the Sakyong’s energy, as an adult, in this mandala. Although I imagine when you were the most impressionable , non-conceptually, it was the vIDYADHARA’S energy and mandala that, like the people on this site, you remember, that had a great influence on you too, I don’t doubt that. Perhaps that is why you are coming on this site, some non-conceptual attraction that you can’t really explain, because surely it is not just to defend the Sakyong. Why do that? Does he need it? I think that there is still a lot of residual anger toward people that left, a feeling of abandonment perhaps that is motivating the defensiveness and anger at the older students that left. Maybe you could look at that.
I think that the rules of decorum mean that you should respect the older students on this site, their choses and their struggles to try and come to terms with what was a huge part of their lives. It was excruciating to make the decisions to follow one’s heart. A chose that all of us have to make on the path, when we leave adolescent group mentality behind. This path is about shedding things, not about accumulating credentials and belonging to a social group. if you wish to participate, then please stop with the language of casting aspersions about something you only are vaguely understanding. Your posts are filled with “older students who stayed are the loyal ones and devoted”, and the “older students who left are being “destructive and filled with kleshas”. There is no possibility then to hear what anyone is saying.
There are many reasons that older students stayed, some of which is livelihood, and fear of the unknown, or perhaps not wishing to just be a humble student with another teacher again, since they had accumulated credentials, and I am sure there are those staying out of pure devotion, but please don’t think you know everyone’s motivation. It could be that the purest samaya to the Vidyadhara is being kept by those who left or by those who continue to question things. How are you so sure without being in their shoes?
So continue with your samarai analogy, and stay in here with a more open mind. Otherwise its just bringing the same unquestioning courtier mentality and ideas of “unquestioning court loyalty”, that has nothing to do with a spiritual path, and in fact is anathema to a genuine spiritual path. It is something many people are sick to death of who are most appreciative of on this site.
By the way, “watchdogs and spies” doesn’t refer to espionage, it is a dharmic reference from the VY sadhana and I assume other sadhanas. Watchdogs and spies is usually a positive reference actually.
“Like brahmins” defending their caste , is a reference from Patrul Rinpoche, it is not about class preferences, it as about ordinary people , with no more realization then ourselves, acting “like brahmins supported by the blind faith of others” and that has always been a danger in the SI mandala, even before the Sakyong’s era. It’s a problem in every buddhist mandala, and was a danger 100’s of years ago as it is now.
I refer you to that reference, if you haven’t read it, about following a spiritual friend and how to make sure one question’s everything before giving one’s devotion to a teacher. It is about blind faith really, and how dangerous it is, for many lifetimes. Much , much more dangerous than questioning things, which is what you are supposed to do before you take any samaya with a teacher, examine very very carefully, not take oaths before you even have a clue what you are doing. This questioning can take up to twelve years. Then you give your unquestioning loyalty, but not until. That is also a major difference from CTR. He wanted us to question everything. That cynicism was a positive thing until one was sure, based on experience, not blind faith. I don’t sense that teaching is part of the SI curriculum anymore. Yet that is Buddhism 101 The Buddha taught that one should question everything. please refer me to where , in the Shambhala teachings , that is happening anymore?
I could site so many other glaring differences, that someone said just can’t be ignored anymore, and make the current SI mandala no longer recognizable for many of us, that one has no choice anymore, but to trust our own intelligence and move on.
“but you do not get to walk out the door with the Vidyadhara’s legacy.”
Well I wouldn’t try to shoplift his seal or anything, and I don’t anticipate anyone turning copyrights over to me…
But I did walk out the door with what he taught me. That is a legacy.
The “Thinking Bigger” part of the logo is what I like, because I think it includes all of us who loved CTR’s teachings but ended up walking out the door.
As to the the foreshadowing of the sinking ship , perhaps it is time for people on this site to take it seriously and preserve the Vidyadhara’s legacy in more creative ways, cut the ties with what is irrelevant to practice, sooner rather than later:
Buddhist Patron Neal Greenberg: Agile Group suffers 90% loss, Shambhala International is “potential victim.” [Denver Post]
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/02/buddhist-patron-neal-greenberg-agile-group-tancredo-shambhala-international-buddhist/
Christine, I fully support you or anyone else “moving on” for whatever reason. Public critiques are just going to invite rebuttal however yes? Would you expect otherwise?
If you’d like this web site to be a place exclusively for those who have “moved on” to have a place to talk and you’re rather people who have not moved on avoid the site, then that request should be more explicit.
Oh please. No one want’s this to be a monolithic, unquestioning forum with only true believers, or only true non-believers. that’s why this alternative was created.
But if you want this to be a “take over” site of Shambhala International, with odes to the Sakyong only, like they have done on every other site, then you will have some resistance. It’s the only place left that is resisting unquestioning belief systems of SI. Obviously, it must be attractive to you for that, or you wouldn’t be here. I really am curious about why Sakyong devotees are on this site so often? What is missing for you in all the other forums? Obviously something. At the least, it must be free debate without censorship.
If you put your finger in this fire, with no understanding of what older students of CTR are about who didn’t go along with a herd mentality, and only want to defend the Sakyong, or unquestioning belief systems, well then expect to get feedback. Or do you want it to be another SI site?
If you are curious about CTR’s teachings and his students , than that is another story.
I am sorry to see our discussion spiraling in this direction. There are people who are devoted to the Sakyong, there are people who are devoted to Trungpa Rinpoche, there are people devoted to both, and there are people devoted to neither who have found this site, for whatever reason. I think all of the comments here are taking place in a really big space–a space that’s certainly big enough to accommodate all of us. No, we don’t have to agree about a lot of things, but we can sure learn from each other. I can’t help but think of the conflict in the Middle East where there are two dug-in, intractable positions and very little or no real communication between the two. That’s not a very inspiring model. I think we can do a lot better. I think our discussion here–and how we treat each other, even if we strongly disagree with what the other person is saying–could be a beacon. If Ashoka, Davee, Christine, Michael, and everyone else feels free to express themselves openly and honestly here, and speak from the heart, without sniping, something powerful can happen.
We have had very different experiences in this sangha. Why would we expect to see things the same way? As Ashoka said, he has a hard time understanding why other people don’t share his view. I have a hard time understanding his view, but I’m finding our dialogue (mostly) constructive. It’s not about winning or losing an argument, It’s much bigger than that.
Yes, for “watchdog” just substitute “protector”. Can that become a vehicle for ego indulgence? Absolutely. But so can–equally–the role of defender. We all know that.
My concern is that the latter truth keeps getting forgotten all the time. It’s a question of balance, and I feel that in Shambhala today the balance is skewed.
The most startling difference between the previous US administration and the present one is that Obama positively invites dissent. He knows it can only strengthen the whole process. Beyond this, as dharma practitioners we know ever, ever so well the craftiness of ego. And yet we so often fail to recognize it in its collective guises. Don’t we?
This is my concern, Ashoka. Everything else I’m agnostic about, but glad to read people’s experiences and views, which are enriching. I don’t even know a single person posting here, and was too young to be Trungpa Rinpoche’s student. I have no criticism of the Sakyong, a guy I’ve only spent 60 seconds or less with (refuge and bodhisattva vow interviews). My experience has been with teachers, kasung, and other holders of power. And for me personally that is the big issue: power, and the ways it is structured and understood and practiced within Shambhala.
So we all have our takes. I don’t see any kind of monolithic RFS faction or whatever.
“Nothing is worse for being looked at..” John Stuart Mill
I couldn’t understand why everyone didn’t see VCTR as an enlightened being…but they didn’t.
That seems to be one’s karma. Same with SMR. However, much of the discussion here is about the organization, which, when the Vidyadhara was running it, was more closely associated with the Vidyadhara, because his relationship to it and his students was more hands on.
Shambhala International is no more separate from the Sakyong, than it is from his students. Shambhala International is the whole group, it includes everyone.
But let’s , for the sake of decorum, talk about the “organization,” an organization that before 1999, more than a decade ago, was to be run as a “business.” This entailed , for example, dissolving what was left of the practice container at KCL, moving the staff “off campus” including the directors, to make room for the “millions” of students that were going to come upon the publication of his first book. A sort of “mark to market” mentality.
They didn’t come, and it took 10 years for practice to become important again, let alone central, which it hasn’t yet.
If anybody protested, they were told they were “old farts” who should get with the “new improved program.” A programming/marketing frenzy that has never ended, the curriculum reinvented every six months, with new incarnations to find one that “fit”.
An organization that was being run now in parallel to the current trends in the financial materialism of the Bush era, i.e. 10,000 donations and you could have an interview with the Sakyong, that is a quote from the Sakyong, that I heard at a Sadharma talk in 2000 or 2002 at KCL. It was no joke. In that decade very very few people had any access to see him , unless you had money. Soon there were oaths that were taking place BEFORE seminary, before anyone even had a clue about what being a buddhist was about, and seminary was now from 3 months to 2 months, to a month to make it more convenient for people to attend so that SI “could reach more people, forgetting that Buddhism is never about proselytising or trying to reach the most people. That is Christianity. More and more, the dharma center were mixed with Hindu yogas and new age spirituality, and psychology/therapy. And it wasn’t so long after that, that a return to a medieval Tibetophile scene developed with online donations for practices for “merit” from afar, and other rituals that the Vidhyardhara was trying so hard to get away from, that were part of a corruption of the dharma in Tibet and was also warned about, and would not believe that this is going on now in the “organization”.
And how about the Psychobuddhism given the imprimatur in the “organization?” There was recently a program at SMC called “Psychotherapy As the chariot of Liberation” or some such unbelievable nonsense. And as people practiced less and less in the mandala , a recommended 10 minutes a day, then less and less did they notice the danger to the dharma, which Namkai Norbu said in a talk in 1996 was a mixing of psychotherapy and dharma and would result in the dharma being so watered down in 100 years as a result, that it would be unrecognizable, and what could be the karma of teachers who did this and who would be leading students astray for many lifetimes because of this? But no one notices anymore because they weren’t practicing , they were busy “turning the flower outward” and into social engagement, and busy busy doing a little tonglen, first to make themselves happy of course. And then there was the sudden flip , when Dzogchen was hot, and despite eschewing that as a practice possibility in 2003, suddenly it was incorporated into the Shambhala levels, except that no one was allowed in the mandala anymore that could actually give the “pointing out” of Dzogchen, and even someone like Lama Wangdor was prohibited from doing so, so , of course, Dzogchen was mixed up with the psychology and the saving the world mentality, and the truncated practice, and no one understood that Dzogchen,( because no one could point the view out), is not about turning outward at all, but is about turning inward and changing the world by changing one’s view of the world, and not modifying anything, but discovering the perfect plenitude of the “here and now” and practicing practicing , practicing 10 hours a day, not 10 minutes, in treckcho before even thinking about togyal, but Dzogchen is sexy, so of course now SI is “teaching Dozgchen now, without a clue about what the view actually is. A recent announcement about incorporating Dzogchen into the Scorpion Seals 16th or more programming reincarnation, by Adam Lobel actually says ” Of course we can’t heal the world by meditation alone” What! Does he even know the view of Dzogchen? NO, because Dzogchen is about meditation, and turning inward, but this wouldn’t fit with the “turning the flower outward” so SI just incorporates it, like its some additive to their “real and superior practices”, and not the pinnacle practice, of which there is no “higher” and from which clarity, emptiness and compassion arises.
Shall I go on?
So I will stick to organization, which is of course being run by a President that never met the Vidyadhara and whom the Vidyardhara would have pulled the rug out from under at least 12 years ago and, out of compassion, would have pulled the rug out from under most of the current administration of this organization, but I guess it will have to be the GURU as phenomenal world doing so, which is what we are about to witness, now that the era of crass materialism seems to be crassing, and the donors that were teaching on “Wealth and Livelihood” are having the rug pulled out from under them as we speak. And soon will learn how “no one loves you when you are down and out” and so many people learned when that happened to them and tried to get some SI compassion.
So how is this for speaking my heart out and my experience over the last 15 years of watching the watering down of the dharma, the mixing of the dharma with things that were never supposed to be incorporated into the dharma, and were certainly not suppose to replace or usurp the dharma. The dharma stands on its own and has for 2500 plus years. It is the lineage of the practioners that we have inherited our true chance of freedom from. It is is uncorrupted teachings that will liberate us, nothing else.
Is this too rough, too real for this sight? Because this is why many people left, and sought other teachers, and were sick at heart at the direction the mandala was going, but were not allowed to have any voice, and speak to any of these issues that were , to some of us, actually keeping samaya, since we were told to speak out always if the “organization” was appearing corrupted, as early as 1980 in the Lids and Flowers talk.
So if this turns into a site skirting around these issues, and being decorous instead of genuine, then this will become one more castrated spin-off of SI, making sure that a pseudo-harmony pervades, rather than any genuine dialogue or heart. And I for one, want absolutely no part of another “simpy” , “let’s not talk about the elephant in the room”, forum , as the ship goes down.
By the way, when the ship goes down, metaphorically, usually what happens is , those who are saved, are on their own little flotsam, which is where we always were, alone, and having to save ourselves first through real practice before we can even think of helping others, with only the dharma as our raft until we reach the shore.
I really appreciate this website. Thank you to all who make this possible.
I’ve been taking levels for about a year and a half, so I’m very new to SI. But it has seemed clear to me that there was something odd going on, something almost schizophrenic, and this website finally helps me understand. Thank you for talking in *plain language* about the difficulties in carrying on VCTR’s legacy, instead of spreading a thick layer of “pretend” over everything. Thank you. I feel this website is one bridge that helps me connect to Trungpa Rinpoche in present time.
As I understand it, Trungpa Rinpoche encountered a lot of opposition all along to his work, including from other Rinpoches. The idea that in today’s world his teachings are any less controversial or any less in danger of being perverted by ego seems naive to me. Why in the world would that be the case? Let’s get out and feel the gritty, rugged reality here, can we? Maybe we spend too much time in cozy temperature-controlled offices.
I don’t think the possibility of ego-perversion is unique to Buddhism. In all religions, we see people of unusual insight and understanding appear who are considered controversial and meet much opposition while alive, and then after death are made into idols to make money for some church while their most important teachings are officially ignored.
The idea that Trungpa Rinpoche’s work is immune to this danger seems bizarre to me. That’s the very thing “true believers” in every church say. “Just be loyal to the church, and you will be saved. Maybe someday you can try to understand the teachings, but in the meantime loyalty to church leadership is the best way, the best form of security for your soul. Come, join us, and leave your doubts at the door. We will take care of you. And what’s more, we’re working hard for you. Where is your appreciation?”
I am grateful for this website, because I suspect it takes more than church loyalty to preserve Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings.
In fact, an argument could be made that he only achieved what he did because of the risks he took with the concepts of loyalty or propriety. Was his own loyalty ever in question? Absolutely, in the eyes of many.
What does it mean to be truly loyal?
Well other than this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sanity-We-are-Born-Psychology/dp/1590300904
And that the Dharma hasn’t stood on its own any more than the water in a cup stands on its own.
Do you really think that your current approach is helping the situation either the one you identify with SI or with the world in general? That’s the question, and not one that anyone can really answer for you. Have you tried lately to improve things? What’s stopping you? They might be concrete things which can be fixed. Or worked with. I guess that’s my primary objection to a lot of what goes on here, including the title. It doesn’t seem productive, it doesn’t seem to be shining any corners of the world.
g.
Christine, I honestly don’t share your experience. I’ve never felt like I had to offer money; I’ve never felt obstructed in any way to access to the teacher; and i’ve always experienced that practice was the primary emphasis. I feel like change is relatively slow, though I don’t have as strong as opinion as you about the efficaciousness of particular changes.
If the organization was as you describe, I’m not sure I would be as angry but I would likely be uninterested in it or indifferent to it too and go elsewhere.
One nit, you seem to have a belief that Tibetan forms and presentation of the view were not encouraged by the Vidyadhara because they were corrupt. I had the sense he thought materialism was common in Tibet, but not in all cases that the forms or how the view was presented was problematic. Or that a particular presentation of dharma would prevent materialism from occurring here either. (I think the issue of materialism is independent of particular forms personally) But on the Tibetan presentations, for example, he treasured the lineages and his teachers. He taught from Kongtrul and Khyentse and Mipham Rinpoche’s commentaries. Those Dzogchen and Mahamudra masters taught both the ultimate views and at the same time wrote literally volumes of relative practices, and also non-path teachings on politics and government, medicine, and the arts (like the Vidyadhara). The basis for CTR’s Kalapa Assembly teachings on Court Principle, as I understand it, appear to come from the very Tibetan and also brilliant first Mipham and his teachings on Shambhala and politics. I agree not all of the Tibetan way of talking about things is efficacious in the west, but I don’t share your assessment that CTR rejected it all wholesale… in my opinion…
Dear Gordon:
A Buddhist approach to Psychology, is not the same as a Psychotherapeutic Approach to Buddhism. No one is rejecting Psychology. I am a licensed psychologist. I have 3 masters degrees in various field of psychology. Psychotherapy is its own lineage, and can be a legitimate path to make one “happier in samsara” it will not lead to liberation.
You either hear what I am saying here about this watering down of the dharma with psychotherapy or you don’t.
Psychotherapy was greatly out of vogue in the 80’s and was revitalized with its amalgamation with meditation and dharma. It helped with attracting people to psychotherapy again and In the process , it watered down the dharma, and if this trend continues it will make the dharma unrecognizable in 100 years.
I speak from 40 years in the psychology and psychotherapy field, and it is is always in the service of making people conform to society, not to radically free them. It also had a much more thorough training and licensing requirements than 2 years at Naropa and some supervision, and you can hang out your sign and be a psychotherapist. Psychotherapy has also been watered down in the process, so that every third person in SI is a psychotherapist, or coach or some such self-appointed “therapist.” If not , they are a lay therapist trained from self-help books. So of course this is not a popular view I would be expressing since everyone is a psychotherapist these days, , but I am very happy to be in the company of Namkai Norbu, who was concerned about this more than a decade ago.
No one is rejecting psychotherapy, it is about combining the two, which waters down the dharma and is unnecessary.
CTR’s views on Buddhism and Psychology were more about Buddhism and the Mind which Western Psychology is only beginning to really consider. That can help psychology . Buddhism has existed as its own path for 1,000 of years without psychotherapy and to think that you must have psychotherapy ( unless you are seriously mentally ill perhaps) is refuting two of the four noble truths and is a corruption of the dharma.
Good luck!
Christine
Thanks for the very direct and heartfelt words. I have been a student of Norbu Rinpoche’s since 1989 and of Wangdor Rinpoche’s since the late 90’s so I can co-sign on what you wrote regarding those masters. One of the reasons Robin Kornman and I brought Lama Wangdor to Milwaukee so many times was (apart from our selfish desire for more teachings!) so that more students could get Direct Introduction.
My feeling is that CTR was doing Direct Introduction / Pointing Out just about 24/7. It was not formally through ritual but through his incredible skillful means – and you ended up realizing that was what was going on retroactively. I think that is why he was able to grow a sangha so quickly. Not marketing, just rigpa and the skill to communicate it.
PS – Wangdor Rinpoche is coming to the US – for what will probably be his last trip – this spring. I can’t recommend him (and his translator Lama Lena) highly enough.
Dear Michael:
I also appreciate your comments so much.
Yes, I know what you mean, realizing that CTR was giving the Direct Pointing Out, 24/7, and only realizing it retroactively when I got it more formally from a Dzogchen master in the Tulku Urgyen lineage.
I have great appreciation for Namkai Norbu Rinpoche for also the pointing out instructions. I have not met Lama Wangdor, I saw that he was coming this year and I am hoping I can connect.
I will never forget him sending me a personal letter, thanking me for supporting one of his monks in Rawalsar, who is now in the U.S. 18 years later and doing well, and whom I still have contact with. He sent me a personal letter! I knew he was the real thing then , when he was that humble and kind to acknowlege just a few dollars a month to his monk and sent me a hand-written letter thanking me! As they always say, the sign of a great master is his humbleness and unceasing kindness and availability to his students.
I will keep my eyes out for him in our area.
The main reasons I write on here is that I hope there are students reading this, who know that they can move on, there are other teachers out here that are accessible, and whom are pointing out the Great Perfection, in a different style than CTR, but the same BIG MIND, and that it is direct, and immediate, and is about Practice, not a whole lot of irrelevant programming to support a “fiefdom”, and they should follow their own hearts and intelligence, and not get caught up in some church. I wish that I had had that information sooner, and moved on sooner, because it would have saved a lot of heartache. Group think is a powerful aphrodisiac and you have to be determined and brave to extricate yourself from it and be willing to leave your social self behind as a skin that has to be shed.
I think what I object to mostly is even this vague hint that somehow you have to choose between the Sakyong and the Vidyadhara. I’m not sure that some of the contributors on this site have directly suggested it, but there is at moments a bit of an undertone that points in that direction, and I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit.
I understand that there are aspects of SI and the Sakyong that rub people the wrong way; I’m not immune to that by any means and some concerns I share at times. I mean I also have my own set of gripes that are probably separate from some of yours, that I work with, but this is an organization of people. Human beings. It’s messy. It was messy in the 70s too.
Like, Christine, you keep talking about “Sakyong loyalists.” What does that even mean? Like you’re either a Vidyadhara loyalist or a Sakyong loyalist? I won’t be boxed in by that, sorry. My love affair with the Vidyadhara and my karma with him is the direct source of my loyalty to the Sakyong. I understand if you don’t feel the same way, I mean…fuck, trust me, I DO understand…but I think that telling people who feel like me that we’re turning our backs on the Vidyadhara, or naive and dumb or something, is really divisive and condescending. My point is that I understand saying “this isn’t for me,” but I don’t understand when that translates into a need to tell people that they are samaya corrupters, which lets be honest, is exactly what the implication is, right?
this:
“The main reasons I write on here is that I hope there are students reading this, who know that they can move on, there are other teachers out here that are accessible, and whom are pointing out the Great Perfection, in a different style than CTR, but the same BIG MIND, and that it is direct, and immediate, and is about Practice, not a whole lot of irrelevant programming to support a “fiefdom”, and they should follow their own hearts and intelligence, and not get caught up in some church. I wish that I had had that information sooner, and moved on sooner, because it would have saved a lot of heartache. Group think is a powerful aphrodisiac and you have to be determined and brave to extricate yourself from it and be willing to leave your social self behind as a skin that has to be shed.”
i respect. that’s real talk. everybody has their own karma.
“I think what I object to mostly is even this vague hint that somehow you have to choose between the Sakyong and the Vidyadhara.”
Ashoka, do you mean that people here in this forum are putting forth that idea? Or do you mean that Shambhala.org is? Or, do you mean that you feel people here think Shambhala.org is?
I think the fact that you are calling it shambhala.org really sort of says it all about the ability to have a real dialogue about this, that’s what I mean.
But more directly I mean people on this forum and this website. That’s how it feels to me. Call it perceiver/object if you want.
Ashoka, I get the impression that the reasons some people, myself included, find themselves outside the current administrative mandala (Shambhala International) are not being successfully communicated: you, and others, still seem perplexed as to why on earth we feel that way.
I think it’s pretty straightforward. It’s about the view. To stick with just the Shambhala Vision side of things, VCTR, and I, and others, were and are inspired to work on creating a secular Shambhala Society, that recognizes the sacred, but that does not favor one religion over others. In such a view, Shambhala International has left that building – Shambhala Int has taken a somewhat different road, and is engaged in another project, to create a distinctive Shambhala Buddhist church/sect/lineage, in which Tibetan Buddhism and culture hold a favored place.
This goes to the very essence of the Shambhala teachings, that were closest to the heart of the Vidyadhara, and why they came to be in the first place: to present a way and practice of sanity and magical rejoicing that is available to all people on this planet, whether or not they are Buddhist. Ultimately, Shambhala is their own legacy. Now, lately, over the last 15 or so years, this is being denied, and it is asserted that the view of a Shambhala Buddhist kingdom that is essentially Buddhist was always the Vidyadhara’s view. I, and others, see this as a rather startling statement, as revisionism, and patently untrue.
In this context, I choose to follow my own inspiration and view, and that of my teacher, VCTR. The view of the Sakyong is not the same – he has embarked on his own journey and view: more power to him. However, I do not follow him in that view. Again, this is a matter of the most essential view of what Shambhala is about; it is not some minor debate about which side of the egg to cut open.
I also do not agree that the Sakyong’s view of Shambhala is the same as the Druk Sakyong’s view. For the former, Buddhist understanding, practice, and identification are ultimately necessary to fully practice the way of Shambhala. For the latter, Buddhist understanding can illuminate Shambhala understanding, and vice-versa, and this can be very useful – for Buddhists. However, Shambhala language and practice is fully capable of communicating with human beings of whatever persuasion, not just Buddhists, and, of course, their particular yogic spiritual practices, and their own cultures, could also illuminate Shambhala, and vice-versa.
I am hoping for an article from someone I know who is not a Buddhist, but a Catholic, and who is a werma practitioner. For him there was never an issue or problem in that regard.
I can understand and respect when someone says that they themselves need Buddhist language and practice to teach and prepare for the way of Shambhala. That is simply acknowledging what works for them, and what languages they can speak. However, I think that should also be accompanied by a statement that in principle Shambhala can be taught and practiced with its own language and forms, and also that people of other cultures and spiritual traditions can use those to help understand Shambhala. So even if you said that in this lifetime you can’t do otherwise than speak Shambhala in a Buddhist accent, at least you would acknowledge that for others it’s possible to speak Shambhala in another accent, or without an accent.
I see the Vidyadhara as someone who fully accomplished the Buddhist path, and, precisely because of that, was able to see it as the upaya it is, and was able to be and to communicate both with and “without Buddhist robes”, and also with other articles (such as ties, pins, furniture, elocution, ….).
Questions of loyalty, samaya , and lineage keep coming up – we’re working on offering some background articles on these over the next while.
I can’t believe this:
“We realize in an outrageous moment that if we approach all beings with kindness, appreciation and love, we can be happy anytime, anywhere.”
Was held up as an example of the fact that the Sakyong is dusting his father off his shoulder.
Ashoka:
Re: your last point. Of course, there is nothing wrong with “approaching all beings with kindness, appreciation and love”. That’s what the path is about!
Here is the part I take issue with:
“we can be happy anytime, anywhere.”
Whether or not WE are happy is besides the point. We are not practicing for our own benefit. This is a good example of citing a worthy spiritual practice, and tying it to an outcome that benefits oneself. That is what Trungpa Rinpoche referred to as “spiritual materialism”.
This is not a nitpicky point. It’s central to what Trungpa Rinpoche taught. When people would ask him a question about whether a certain course of action would lead to a desired result, he would say something like: “Good luck, sir”, or “Your guess is as good as mine.”
He never promised us a rose garden.
at the same time, he often taught within the structure “ground, path, and fruition”. not just ground and path. and not just fruition for others. if having a fruition made it a materialist teaching, then all of those would be as well.
Hey, Ashoka, sometimes I call it Shambhala.con. Now, I know you probably don’t think that’s funny, but why do you take it so personally? The teacher is sacred, and the teachings are sacred…not, to my mind, is the organization sacred. The organization s a tool that functions well or not. I’ve worked for
Shambhala when it needed criticism…(an organization needs self scrutiny)
and that was thwarted. At the time, it was the corporate culture of Shambhala to do so. So, I feel that it’s not taking sides against Sakyong Mipham to
be critical of the organization.
Fruition is not materialistic in the way Trungpa, Rinpoche uses it because, although it describes the outcome, it’s more descriptive of the path rather than something one is urged to strive for. In any case, a gaining idea is always pointed out as one of the major obstacles to the path and to one’s
practice. That’s why we dedicate the merit…always.
I have found Ashoka’s input on this board very interesting – another side of looking at the whole way of presenting Shambhala in the world
I particularly find the following quote pertinent by Ashoka:
“Someone told me a story recently about a rinpoche they study with who told them, “Look, it’s the dark age. Nobody understands the dharma right now. The best thing you have to ride this time out is loyalty.”
yes loyalty thats why I am also looking to new articles by Mark on loyalty…..
what it actually means in a Buddhist/Shambhalian context………..the gripes that I have against SI is that it is becoming too business-like not emphasising the cares and interests of the majority of the people in it – I think there needs to be more enfranchisement of the ‘laity’ and more debates that are occuring on this board-occuring in real life.
I would also like Ashoka to go into more depth about how he sees Shambhala Buddhism persay being applicable to non-Buddhists aswell -also looking forward to the further article by a Catholic werma practitioner. Not ready to give up on SI yet but would also like to hear other viewpoints aswell…………..query……..could you be loyal to the Sakyong but also be deeply, deeply questioning of his every move and decisions about things………thats why I think there needs to be some more ways devised besides the Congress of getting through to the hierarchy………….governments have to have a sense of balance between the top and the bottom…………..and there really needs to be open discussions about things…………look at NS everything in politics there is so hush-hush, and patronage is rife…………investigated politics there myself when I was freelance journalist……….dont want SI or anybody in it to cover up anything untoward that they are feeling about the organisation or the people running it.
Plus would really welcome more articles on Vajra Politics and how they relate to setting up a Shambhala society…..
Also Ashoka keep posting…..you have stirred things up………you can have my big spoon!
best
rita ashworth
stockport uk
bes
Hi John. I don’t disagree taking a fruition as an end-goal prevents going further. Rather I think it’s something we naturally do and need to just watch for as we go along. But to my point about the Vidyadhara, if I find some quotes that point out where he describes a result of practice, that could easily be misconstrued as a result people typically might want and make an end-goal out of it, can we cut the Sakyong some more slack here? One accusation seems to be that he really is promoting some side track as the main point of practice, and I don’t see that really.
The immediate things to pop to mind that the Vidyadhara taught would be fruitions like fearlessness (which Pema Chödrön described as her initial, main motivation for engaging with the sangha), joy, cheerfulness, synchronizing body and mind, confidence, charisma, and various things like that. But I’ll take a random walk through the teachings for some specific examples if that’s helpful. And I’m not saying that the Vidyadhara was teaching materialism, just that it is up to us if we take a teaching in that direction and turn it into a goal in and of itself. Which is not a problem even, just not a path to enlightenment particularly. Plenty of people probably want to know how to be happier… or overcome a particular negative emotion that plagues them… does anyone ever walk into a shambhala center actually looking for a path without goal initially? it must be a kind of process to get to that level of discipline and inspiration, unless perhaps you just fall in love with a teacher and do whatever is asked, trusting that it will all work out.
Davee:
I agree that it’s normal for people to want to achieve something through their practice, whether it’s happiness, peace of mind, whatever. For me, the issue here is that I believe it’s the teacher’s role to undercut that, rather than encourage it. As you say, this type of gaining idea becomes an obstacle and usually the practitioner is too close to it to see it, so he/she needs reminders–from the teacher and the teachings.
I think if you look through the Vidyadhara’s teachings, it will be difficult to find instances where he indicated that doing a particular practice will yield a desired result.
Hi Davee
I don’t think it was as likely to take the idea of fruition as an end goal when
VCTR was teaching because he warned us about that again and again.
If it seems like more of a potential problem now, it points to what others have said here, namely that goal orientation seems to be more prevalent now in Shambhala Int. .
We all start the path with a goal orientation…we meditate to develop some peace of mind. But once an individual has taken Bodhisattva vows, that is no longer the case. At that point, as the Vidyadhara said, we don’t practice for ourselves, but rather we practice for the sake of all sentient beings. If
there is some confusion about that in some peoples’ minds, to me, there is
a lack of understanding of the dharma….at least the way it was taught by Trungpa Rinpoche.
i feel like i’ve been warned properly too. i don’t know what kind of goal challenges there have been historically, but it’s been clear to me that goal orientation and it’s risks is well discussed and frequently joked about and still in the collective consciousness in my generation. i just don’t think that we really can solve the problem by avoiding any view of fruition. craving for fruition is both an obstacle to enlightenment as we discuss (and is clearly spelled out in a 1975 seminary talk) and yet practice yields results and creates a path.
so i looked for some specific examples during lunch, i didn’t have to look far. to start, i found two common categories of teachings that bring up a sense of gaining something for oneself. one was any teaching on obstacles and antidotes. overcoming the obstacle is the result of applying an antidote. and many of the obstacles are not merely specific to practice, but are about life in general. and that formulation is pervasive in the teachings buddhist and shambhala teachings. ( eg. overcoming laziness, freedom from depression… eg. patience yields protection from all harm – 1981 seminary, p.110) the second category is any talk on the third noble truth, cessation, or the fruition of the hinayana (e.g. 1981 seminary p16-18, 124) which Rinpoche even uses the term “salvation” to describe it without irony. and there are odd, specific examples like in the 1980 seminary Rinpoche says paying attention while eating food prevents indigestion.
then i took a random walk, picking up books on my shelf, and found something always within a couple pages. for example, in the vajrayogini teachings, volume 1, you gain healthiness and feel healthy from working with emotions a particular way. (p.213-214) and the practice is the principle of fundamental joy and how to enjoy your life (p. 249)
the book “great eastern sun” also had examples every other random page. for example, seeing basic goodness in yourself brings “a better relationship with your mate, your kitchen is cleaner, your daily schedule is accomplished on time” (p.33) and when you are soaked in it, “you become extremely insightful” (p.92) and “having achieved a decent household” we gain windhorse, and that brings us energy we can ride, upliftedness, and a sense of workability (p.109-110), and with proper renunciation you “feel a sense of joy and achievement” (p.112) and with shambhala vision comes “festivity and joyousness” (p.142) and from decorum or genuineness “we begin to develop fearlessness” and then you achieve it (p.163) and also from the basic gap “you are fearless” (p.172), and about the posture it “cultivates strength and the ability to work with others” as well as joy again. (p. 177)
then i picked up journey without goal, feeling emboldened, and flipped to random pages. e.g. “even people working nine-to-five jobs might find that their everyday life becomes fantastic.” (p. 58) and the section on the five wisdom energies was rich with positive outcomes like with padma: “every time we bathe, we feel refreshed, fantastic… we live in a world of honey and milk… Fantastic! Even our bread is scented with all kinds of delicious smells… Sweet music is playing in the background constantly.” (p.81) and with karma we “see the possibilities inherent in situations and automatically take the appropriate course.” (p.83)
sounds good eh? sign me up for a seminar!
you know, while i’m enjoying the sound of my own keyboard way too much, i’ve wanted to add that a debate about how much relative/provisional teaching is ok versus just absolute teachings is an old, old debate and a quite valid one.
for example, the Geluk founder Je Rinpoche in his “eight difficult points” took the other lineages to task for provisional teachings – for example that there was an “alaya” even though an alaya doesn’t withstand madhyamaka analysis.
one rebuttal to this that we studied at KCL in the Mipham Academy last summer was from the Nyingma school, centuries later, saying that ok sure “alaya” doesn’t withstand madhyamaka analysis so it is not ultimately established, but it is still useful for students on a path! basically, a teacher can understand the ultimate view fully and yet need not only teach the ultimate. actually, teachers out of compassion regularly teach provisional and relative teachings like “alaya”, etc. because students need some kind of path to work with. without provisional, relative presentations many would not be able to proceed or enter at all. therefore, to teach provisionally is not a sign that a teacher is not fully realized, it was argued in the 19th century, only that they have compassion to create a progressive path for students. then how to tell if a teacher also understands the ultimate? one has to look at their presentation of the ultimate, not the provisional.
I think both views in the debate are valid, the ultimate view is more correct and too much provisional teaching is misleading, and yet without enough provisional teaching many students cannot enter or progress. So I appreciate the views here that prefer a more ultimate presentation, that’s certainly fine, it’s just more like Je Rinpoche’s Geluk view then the Nyingma view.
You can read more about this debate in the book “The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?” by Dreyfus and McClintock (2000 Wisdom Pubs) as well as to some degree in the introduction in the Padmakara Translation Group version of “Adornment of the Middle Way” (2005).
The whole cool thing about Kaygu Nyingmas is we aren’t Gelugpas.
Davee:
One thing I like about this site is we motivate each other to dig into the teachings. I appreciate your effort and what you came up with.
Having had the good fortune to be able to study with Trungpa Rinpoche, and attend many of his talks, one of the take-away messages was that he never catered to what we wanted. He was uncompromising that way. I can remember an interview with him that must have been in the late 1970s. It was in A suite at Dorje Dzong in Boulder. I was going on and on about some challenge I was facing–sure to give him all the background so he could help me solve it–and then when I finally stopped and look at him, I noticed he had been playing with the telephone. He had turned it upside down on the receiver, and seemed quite involved with that activity. There was a very uncomfortable gap in which I was hoping he would respond to what I had said, but nothing came back. Then, finally, he asked, “How’s your mother?” (He had met my mother so there was some context for this question, but it certainly had nothing to do with what I’d been talking about!) It was about the last thing I wanted to discuss right at that moment.
He never catered to us, made things easy for us, or made us comfortable. Quite the contrary. There were a lot of sharp points.Our discussion here about cutting through spiritual materialism is about that. While I appreciate your scholarly approach, there is something raw and rugged about the way taught. While he embodied the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, I don’t think his teaching can be piegonholed that way. He was ruthless in not indulging our sense of self-importance–which because I was pretty self-important, I experienced over and over again. Whenever we tried to shore up or secure our ground (ego), he undercut it.
Thank you Andrew for sharing that. I’m enjoying the inspiration to dig into this more.
I just think a gradual approach is ok too. Start with the cradle of loving-kindness, and then later take some shots in the archery range once people are ready for that non-confirmation. Don’t hit everyone with the zen stick until they bow and ask for it, basically. The same must be true with respect to theism and materialism. If we cut down students for either of those from the very start (and we don’t really), there’s no cradle at all. But that is not to say that we won’t most likely be crying out for warm milk when we’re on the archery range, and our baby blanket, and we will be disappointed when we don’t get them. So the path must lead to non-theism and non-materialism and disappointment, and yet I do think it’s possible to start the path with a whole lot of confusion and get the view gradually and not get too sidetracked. Rather I suspect an easier sidetrack is to think we have those bases all covered because we’ve avoided Maharishi Guruji and then we find we’re pretty darn caught up in our worldview years later nonetheless.
So I see that gradualness already in the basic approach, in different ways. In the instructions to Shambhala Training directors, there is more confirmation in earlier levels than later levels as students express insights. And at the same time I also hear stories of teachers trying to push the non-confirmation too far or perhaps ham-fistedly, like an account of an AD trying to ignore a student completely in a level four interview and the student eventually yelling loudly at the AD with a lot of hostility and confusion. I think there is something to that anecdote (true or not) about trying to imitate the teacher and not quite getting it or it doesn’t work the same for us. And I’ve also been told not to overdue it at those levels. So we’re talking in those terms already.
I mostly interact with the Sakyong at Vajra Assemblies, and I don’t get any particular sense of confirmation. But then i’ve entered the mandala that far, you know? I believe the kusung even have a slang term for that sense of non-confirmation, an acronym that i forget, for when they get no particular response or reaction from him. Maybe he is more sweet and confirming at a public program, I’m not sure. But mostly I’m not sure he has to manifest a particular cutting form for all people, and the path still fits within the ground, path, and fruition. More than one style or emphasis has historically been ok. It must be to avoid a materialism or theism issue even.
THIS HAS STILL NOT BEEN ADDRESSED :
I hope the irony of naming this “Radio Free” Shambhala wasn’t lost on you guys. Radio Free Europe was the brainchild of George Kennan and John Foster Dulles, CIA chiefs and architects of the Cold War who sensationalized the threat posed by the Soviet Union to justify the continued existence of America’s wartime bureaucracies. It was largely a propaganda wing of the CIA with the explicit mission of bringing down the Soviet Union. Which begs the question as to whether, despite the nuanced tone at work here, the administrators of this site see Shambhala International as the USSR and RFS as a method of intellectual resistance against it. Because that would be pretty ridiculous. I mean are you aware of the signal you sent with the name of this site?
Clearly, Radio Free Shambhala reflects a view of the founders of the site that there is a lack of a forum elsewhere in our sangha for free expression (expression of criticism or disaffection with the Sakyong or Shambhala International).
So what? It’s not the title I would have chosen for the site — but so what?
I hope we are all practitioners enough to handle dissenting viewpoints. If there is bitterness in some of the posts here (and there clearly is) — I think we can handle it with some gentleness. If this site serves any good purpose — it will be because it permits people with differing views (i.e. SI is terrible; SI is wonderful) to hear that their views aren’t the only views.
thats it?
so what?
really man…..
wow.
the world is on fire and this is what you got?
Tibetaphile — I expect that you have something to say that it would be worth hearing. But it doesn’t start a conversation when you reply like that.
I hope you’re interested in The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Here’s a link to a Guide that covers this book and other books of the Oxford Tibetan Series.
http://www.samos-sanon.blogspot.com
If you find this useful, please mention it on your blog.
Trungpa Rinpoche addresses self-improvement on the spiritual path in Orderly Chaos (in The Collected Works of Chogyam Trungpa, Volume Six). Following are a couple of passages:
“Spirituality, from a superficial point of view, is based on the idea of making things harmonious. But somehow, from the point of view of the mandala principle, that approach does not apply. The idea is not so much to make things more harmonious and less active, but to relate with what is happening, with whatever struggles and upheavals are going on… ” (p. 315)
“We think we have to get something out of our situation, gain something. If we are practicing meditation or involved with spirituality, we want to attain enlightenment, we feel that if we do not attain enlightenment, we will have been cheated…We will reduce ourselves to a state of deaf and dumb until we reach the end result and get our money’s worth. All the promises that are made to us target this kind of ignorance. We are blinded by the promises, by their glaring, flashing, colorful aspect…
“That is the ignorance that constitutes the central part of the samsaric mandala. We are willing to give in to everything as long as there are promises that are seemingly worth giving in to. Having heard some “word of wisdom” telling us that it is worthwhile to give in, we forget the experiential path. We walk the path like a blind man. We avoid being sensitive to whatever life situations we encounter on the way…”
“Spiritual materialism develops because we are willing to take a chance on all kinds of trips, like holding a grain of sand in our hand and meditating on that for three months, or fasting for ten months. We fall for all kinds of promises…” (p. 324)
Andrew, this kind of “not looking to get something out of this approach” is found in various practice traditions that have a certain kind of recognizable integrity. For example, I found the following in a meditation instruction pointed to from a zendo in Second Life:
The line “The human mind is basically free, not clinging” somehow conveys how and why the seemingly paradoxical instruction to strive for non-striving works. Suzuki Roshi famously said that we don’t practice in order to attain enlightenment, but rather, since we are inherently enlightened, we practice.
At the same time CTR perhaps takes it another step, saying things like disappointment is the royal chariot of the dharma, which somehow conveys, all at the same time, hopelessness, the gritty quality of raw existence, within that its perky survival quality, liberation right within phenomena, and maybe a touch of grisly humor
While this might seem to contradict Taoist/Shambhalian emphasis on harmony, it actually lays the ground for that as unmanipulated yet practiced (as, for example, in Dharma Art).
Cheers!
Andrew, I’ve been reading Tsoknyi R.’s books lately (Fearless Simplicity and Carefree Dignity). He makes your point very clearly in a couple of passages (though not about SMR of course):
This is from the first chapter of Fearless Simplicity where he talks about using Dharma practice as a daily “dietary supplement” to cure low energy or a little upset or because it is not politically correct to be totally materialistic:
“This is a distinct trend and some so-called teachers emphasize this approach by telling their students that they will be much happier if they just sit down and meditate for a few minutes everyday. In doing so, they are trying to make spiritual practice easier, more appetizing, more palatable — trying to bend the Dharma to fit people’s attitudes. But that is not true spirituality. Don’t make the mistake of confusing this type of practice with the real thing.”
This is from the second chapter “Motivation” in Fearless Simplicity:
“. . . With this attitude of merely feeling good becoming the type of Buddhism that spreads in the West, we may see a huge scarcity of enlightened masters in the future. They will become an endangered species.
Please understand that the pursuit of “feeling better” is a samsaric goal. It is a totally mundane pursuit that borrows from the Dharma and uses its special methods in order to fine-tune ego into a fit and workable entity. The definition of a worldly aim is to try to achieve something for oneself with a goal oriented frame of mind — “so that I feel good.” We may use spiritual practice to achieve this, one good reason being that it works much better than other methods. If we’re on this path, we do a little spiritual practice and pretend to be doing it sincerely. This kind of deception, hiding the ego-oriented, materialistic aim under the tablecloth, might include something like “I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, so I must be pure.” Gradually, as we become more astute at spiritual practice, we may bring our materialistic aim out into the open. This is quite possible; people definitely do it. But if this is how you practice, you won’t get anywhere in the end. How could one ever become liberated through selfishness.”
However, having said this, Tsoknyi R. does not stress a dualistic view of self and other in discussing compassion. In the same first chapter he says “Emptiness is free of the grasping to a self. Compassion is benevolence for all beings, which, by the way, includes oneself. These two are inextricably interconnected.”
Tsoknyi R. is not my teacher (except through his books!) — but he is a genuine, subtle teacher.
You might check him out. He is teaching a long program in Crestone — this Summer, I think.
Jim, you’re reminding me of and I’ll share for general discussion the very first time I saw the Sakyong in person at a public talk. Someone asked in the Q&A about an experience they had, and why if they sat two hours each day were they not able to work with it better. I forget the exact response, but it was basically that we should not expect to get enlightened from only sitting two hours each day.
As a tantrika i’ve been asked informally to sit 1.5 hours every other day roughly, as part of the ‘by time’ sequence post seminary. But I don’t think I’ve ever had the sense that would result in any specific result.
Someone I talked to once about the three-year retreat in the Kagyu tradition joked that people in Tibet who complete that are ready to start the practice path, they’ve had enough training after finishing three years of practice to know how to do the practices and can then practice on their own. Similarly after nine years of shedra they finally have the basics of the view. So we’re perhaps not measuring up to any of that.
But then some days the encouragement to just sit 10 minutes feels like I have no excuse to put it off. Like it is better than nothing, and I’m more likely on a super busy day to just skip sitting altogether otherwise. So I take whatever common sense encouragement I can get… But the view of that 10 minutes is not for me at least that it’s in lieu of a good cup of coffee… and yet, I do also need a decent cup of coffee!
Hello
In 1994 (maybe 1993), Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche during a seminar in Cicago described our Dharmadhatu (the name of our Buddhist centers at the time) as mental training or mental gymnastic club where we practice mental fitness. He wasn’t bring sarcastic. He said we were training to make our minds sharper and clearer. He said we could be better prostitutes from the practice, better hunters because of the practice, better meditators because of the practice…
The point I think he was saying was that mental training can make us better at anything. The point he was making was that shamatha vipasyana practice (particularly shamatha) is an exercise that is very usful in helping us become meditators, among other things. I’m sure it could help us become better speed racers, astronauts and lovers as well.
Along the same lines,Lungtrul Rinpoche (during a 37 Precepts of a Bodhisattva seminar he taught in Boulder in 1995) said if you don’t dedicate your achievements, your attainments, your merit to others (all of it), the whole thing is pointless. Yes, it is good to attain, but with out dedicating all virtue to others you have accumulated or possess, Dharma is pointless. Every time you accumulate merit, and maybe even more so, you dedicate it. Self improvement is OK too, and then we dedicate it.
I think that he was saying is what the point of being a good shamatha vipashanya student. It helps us to dedicate our merit to others (among other things). Giving up all our merit doesn’t make us dumber though. It’s not supposed too at least.
Rob
Another way of looking at it, by whom I’m not sure, says: whatever you want, practice….if you want to be rich, practice…if you want to be beautiful…practice…the point being made that all of our samsaric desires
can be resolved through practice. We might not get rich or beautiful, but the desires themselves will be liberated through practice.
I spent some time this weekend researching the term “cheerfulness” in the 76, 79, & 83 seminary talks and sacred path of the warrior. Rinpoche seems to draw the distinction there between mundane, ordinary cheerfulness that we need to drum up and unconditional cheerfulness that he equates with being dharmic, having discipline, relates to wakefulness, and is an antidote to laxity/elation.
the unconditional form of cheerfulness relates also to the dignity of Perky.
this seems to mirror similar relative/ultimate distinctions with the term joy, and with how the Sakyong uses the terms “mundane happiness” versus “true happiness”.
one think that struck me though is in the 1983 talk he says (p.41) committing to helping others requires we start with ourselves, we need some cheerfulness “as the background” so that you are not “overwhelmed by the things of the world.” This is because things are so deeply rooted and there is so much to deal with. Then in a talk at the end of the mahayana section (p.71) he says if the students worked harder then they would gain more. If they worked less hard, they would gain nothing. But if they attempted to purely gain something for themselves, they would also gain nothing. So I saw both a sense of gaining and also disowning in that presentation.
This article about teachers who promise good achievements and successes reminds me of something.
A few months back I went to an evening introductory lecture at my local Shambhala center. The lecturer said “the Sakyong has told us we have to say that the purpose of practice is to attain a calm state of mind.”
At the end of the lecture I raised my hand and asked, if we setup a primary goal for ourselves of attaining a calm mind, and if we have a friend or family member who upsets us on some occasion, is there any danger of seeing them as our enemy, you know, someone getting in the way of our goal?
I can’t remember what the answer was, but we seemed to have a good discussion.
You know, I don’t mind a bit of cause and effect logic, saying that if you work hard at something you might get a better result than if you don’t. But that seems different than telling people that the goal of practice is to attain a calm state of mind.
Where does the Sakyong get these ideas from? I just can’t believe it sometimes. I’m trying hard to be polite here, but to me this whole thing is like a bad joke.
I have an amusing theory. Maybe before VCTR died, he took the Sawang aside and said “listen… I’ve got a job for you. It’s not going to be easy, but we need to test my students, see if they really understand what I taught them. Here’s what we’re going to do. I know it sounds crazy, but I want you to teach the opposite of what I taught! It will be fantastic! The chaos and confusion and loneliness that results will be great for their practice. Don’t worry, they are strong, they can handle it.
“Though sometimes they might wonder if it’s going to kill them or cure them.”
The prajnaparamitra sutra speaks of “no attainment and no non-attainment”.
I could also quote from the same book by Tsoknyi R. that I quote above where he states that stability (i.e. a calm mind) developed through shamatha is necessary. Otherwise, the experience of rigpa can’t be sustained and is like a candle in a strong wind.
The trouble is that we have to use words to teach. And there has to be a balance between discouraging practice with a gaining idea and actually giving helpful instructions.
I would be careful in denigrating the Sakyong. If he is not your teacher, then you should find someone who can be. If your connection is only from books (even CTR’s books), then you are lost.
Funny image. I’ve never heard of such a thing as calmness being the point.
I have, however, heard the result of *shamatha* practice is calm abiding. That’s very different than the point of practice generally being a calm mind. The Sakyong presents the very simple logic that you need stability before one can pursue insight; shamatha is necessary for vipashyana. shamatha is necessary for contemplative practices. And he teaches shamatha is a temporary state of mind that must be cultivated so it can be used. And that is a very classic presentation as far as I can tell. The Buddha was clear that shamatha alone is not enough, but it seems to be a key part of the process to get to vipashyana and contemplative practice.
Another thing I re-found recently, relating to this article and page, is the “How to rule” chapter in CTR’s book Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior. In there he talks a bit about having a good home situation and various mundane things as a good basis for practice. Sometimes I think we need to hear more like this, and less about emptiness and the ultimate.
He writes at the end of that chapter, “If you want to solve the world’s problems, you have to put your own household, your own individual life, in order first. That is somewhat of a paradox. People have a genuine desire to go beyond their individual, cramped lives to benefit the world. But if you do not start at home, then you have no hope of helping the world. So the first step in learning how to rule is learning to rule your household, your immediate world. There is no doubt that, if you do so, then the next step will come naturally. If you fail to do so, then your contribution to this world will be further chaos.”
“Where does the Sakyong get these ideas from?”
oh i dunno, decades of practice and study with people like chogyam trungpa, dilgo khyentse, and thinley norbu i guess…
now for a brief message from our kagyu sponsors…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5yPh8trI9k
I didn’t mean to denigrate anybody, particularly, just to ask about the origin of the idea that the goal of practice is to achieve a calm mind. Though perhaps I misheard or misunderstood the communication, as it was several months ago. However… I’m pretty sure I didn’t mishear, because I immediately asked for clarification.
Just to further explore this particular subtopic… the people I’ve met that I have the most respect for are not necessarily people who are always calm (particularly if that means no emotional energy), and it’s definitely not people who feel that achieving calmness is their highest goal in life, higher than all other things.
In my experience one of the most common methods to achieve calm is to enclose ourselves, keep all the people that disagree with us or upset us away, or to perhaps undermine them, and set up a fortress to protect our minds from outside intrusion. A protective envelope. Maybe also an inside group of friends who will agree with us and protect us from unwelcome ideas or criticism.
I believe the Dalai Lama once said years ago that he was grateful to the Chinese for helping the Tibetans come out of their shells, their isolation from the rest of the world. That’s a pretty bold thing to say. (I almost wince at paraphrasing him. I hope I’m quoting him correctly, and I hope readers will take this alleged comment in the context of everything else he’s said.) But if he did say that, why?
Sure, we can be grateful to everyone as a general practice, but why add the part about Tibetan Buddhists wanting to be isolated, and why is that something to let go of? And what’s more, how could a group of advanced Buddhists get confused into making isolation a goal? How can I avoid making that mistake?
I think somehow or another, we can’t say that all Buddhist teachers are all 100% infallible, like a group of superheroes or cosmic saviors, and also say that these comments, such as the one by the Dalai Lama, are also true.
As far as me disrespecting the current Sakyong, I have tremendous respect for him as the champion of VCTR’s Shambhala teachings. As a teacher in his own right, I am not yet attracted to him in that regard. Where the line is drawn between these two callings of his, I’m still not clear about. I’m honestly just looking to discuss VCTR’s teachings with a few people; I’m not really looking for trouble or enemies. Sometimes Shambhala International feels like a place where two different things are trying to happen on top of each other, like superman trying to change clothes in a phone booth while someone else is trying to talk on the phone. There’s a lot of knees and elbows poking.
Anyway, I’m just a sheer beginner who has a lot to learn about all this, and I hope if you have the time, some of you will help me with some of these questions.
Thank you, Davee, Mr. Wilton, and Ashoka for answering my question. I’m still curious about this notion of setting up a calm mind as a primary and ultimate goal, and I hope you’ll forgive me for discussing it further.
Maybe the claustrophobic feeling I mentioned above– the phone booth thing– is a sign that I myself need to learn how to accommodate other people, people who see things slightly differently than me. Why is that so hard to do?
The problem here is semantic. Is what SMR saying by using terms such as “calmness” and “happiness” the same as words the Vidyadhara used such as “cheerfulness” or “basic goodness”. One question that seems to be the basis for discussion is “should they be?”
When VCTR used “cheefulness”, for example, he was talking about something unconditional…not based on circumstances…which goes similarly for “basic goodness”. They were Vajrayana terms when taken in the right
context. And they were self-secret in the sense that they could be understood fully only in the context of Shambhala Training…the way it used to be, at least.
To my mind “happiness” or “calmness” shouldn’t be confused with terms
the Vidyadhara used in transmitting Shambhala teachings. I’m not saying that anyone is intending it to happen, but the misuse of words is an easy
way for distortion of meaning to occure…just as the precise use of words…of which the Vidyadhara was a master…can be a vehicle for
transmission.
I just came back from a mini-retreat and was delighted to see what’s been posted here over the last few days.
Further to John’s comment just now, it’s all a matter of context. Trungpa Rinpoche talked about bliss, joy, etc. too, but in a particular way. Here’s a quote from Ocean of Dharma: The Everyday Wisdom of Chogyam Trungpa…
“Treading on the spiritual path according to the Buddha, is not a pleasurable situation, neither is it a blissful one. In the lives of great teachers in the past, it was a constant unmasking, a constant giving away, a constant undressing, peeling off skin after skin, layer after layer, mask after mask. Getting on the spiritual path is like getting into a vehicle without brakes. Traditionally, it is said that it would be better not to begin such a trip, but if we must begin such a journey, we should prepare for it and we should not expect bliss as soon as we start out. Bliss, pleasure, and joy should emanate from some kind of work, some kind of sacrifice, some kind of giving in. “
I agree. The terms and changing usage seems to be core to this thread. I think there has been some migration in usage over time, especially by the Sakyong though even the Vidhyadhara preferred certain terms in certain eras (as evidenced when they only appear in later transcripts or only earlier transcripts). But to the question “should” they change over time I don’t know. It certainly confusing to denigrate the word happiness in one decade and then elevate it the next. Though it seems the main point is really the conditional / unconditional distinction.
For example on cheerfulness, the Vidhyadhara drew the distinction between conditional cheerfulness and unconditional cheerfulness explicitly, like in the 1979 seminary talk on the eight antidotes or in Sacred Path of the Warrior. In SPotW he contrasts condition “setting sun” forms of cheerfulness. In the seminary transcripts, he mostly draws the distinction in talks about being a “dharmic person”, when commenting on the lojong slogan “Continuously apply only a joyful mind”, also in discussing antidotes to elation & laxity, and in one case just as something we need on the path because the world is so overwhelming (1983 p.41). So I agree he seems to encourage an unconditional cheerfulness notion, and he continually draws the distinction with conditional cheerfulness or temporary states of mind to do that.
Edward, I love the phone booth image. That’s going to stick with me for awhile. Yes, the God realm sounds great, but maybe not so great. I think you’ll find both Sakyongs and others warning against staying too long in the calm of shamatha. An Acharya once offered it’s fine if you want a rest stop on the highway of your path, but you have to get back on the highway sooner or later. My favorite reference in that regard is the poem “Timely Rain”, where the Vidhyadhara wishes that we’ll be woken by the coconuts of wakefulness if we spend too much time in the cool pond of shamatha. And yet, I’m sure it’s an incredibly common misunderstanding and also even a tendency with our meditation, even for long time practitioners, using it as a way to hide. The Vidhyadhara seemed to constantly caution us in that regard, with things like “lean into it”. Perhaps a common tendency is to use meditation as another cocoon.
I just read “Basic Anxiety is Happening All the Time”, an excerpt from The Truth of Suffering and the Path of Liberation, by Chogyam Trungpa (2009) in the Shambhala Times
http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/04/03/basic-anxiety-is-happening-all-the-time-by-chogyam-trungpa/#more-2806
Here are a couple of excerpts:
“You could regard any sense of promise that comes into your mind, any hope that comes up, as another thought. If there is a strong desire to achieve a result, that will push you back. You could relate to hope as respect for the dharma, or the truth, rather than a promise.”
“Simplicity brings tremendous relief. Nonetheless, you don’t look for final results and you do not become goal-oriented; you just keep on practicing. Having practiced enough, achievement comes naturally. If you are constantly trying to achieve cessation, it is a problem–you will not achieve it in that way. Whenever you take an ego-oriented approach, you become allergic to yourself. There is no other way but to step out of that. So attaining individual salvation does not come from seeking salvation–salvation simply dawns.”
HOPE IS RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH
“Although you may not have experienced the final development (enlightenment) yet, it is no big secret that there is a final development. You can’t pretend that the Buddha didn’t exist and still talk about his teachings, because he actually did it — he achieved enlightenment. We can’t keep that a secret. In the meantime, however, you could regard any sense of promise that comes into your mind, any hope that comes up, as another thought. If there is a strong desire to achieve a result, that will push you back. You could relate to hope as respect for the dharma, or the truth, rather than a promise. It is like a schoolchild seeing a professor: one day she too might become a professor, but she still has to do her homework. Similarly, particularly in the hinayana, the early stage of the path, there is a journey going on all the time. ”
From Chapter Seven, “Meditation as the Path to Buddhahood” in THE TRUTH OF SUFFERING: and the Path of Liberation, page 71.
Andrew Safer’s article is the most instructive I have read so far when it comes to understanding what all the controversy is about. It seems the Vidyadhara’s teachings are subject to the same evolutionary (and devolutionary) forces that prevail upon any important Dharma teachings in this world.
On the one hand there are those individuals that strive to maintain teachings in a way that comes as close as possible to their original form and intent.
Then there are those that strive to maintain the intent while making accommodations in form according to time, place and individuals, i.e. as ’skillful means’.
Finally there are some amongst the beneficiaries of those ’skillful means’ that fail to go beyond a literal understanding and practice of the accommodated doctrines they have received. If they go on to teach, they degrade the teachings to some degree. Mipham Rinpoche (the first, 1846-1910) quotes from a Sutra and comments on this scenario:
“The Discourse on Eradication of Evildoings says, “Shariputra! Enmired in this life’s affairs, fascinated by controversy, ushering themselves and others unto ruin ? just such people, spiritually unhinged, will overrun this world of ours.”
Keeping in mind the circumstances foreshadowed by this and other sutras, individuals born in the presence of the teachings in this age of rampant degeneration will degrade most of the Mahayana’s essential doctrines by inverting the four principles of interpretation, thus producing a counterfeit version of Dharma.”
[Source: _Roaring Lions: An Extended Summary of Buddha-Nature_, my translation]
The four principles are: rely on the teaching, not on the personality that teaches; rely on meanings, not on words; rely on definitive meaning, not on provisional meaning; rely on timeless awareness, not on ordinary mind.
For example, the definitive meanings of Dharma can be expressed literally, as they are, or in a roundabout (metaphorical, or skillful) way. The ’roundabout’ approach is meant to lead up (upaya) from provisional (ordinary) understanding to definitive (timelessly aware) realization. It is the responsibility of both teacher and student to make sure that the rope of skillful means is used to pull oneself up (literally ‘upaya’ in Sanskrit), not to strangle or hogtie oneself.
So in this regard, what the Sakyong is doing now is ultimately of less consequence than how his own students understand it. In particular, how will the Adam Lobels manage to maintain a proper (definitive) understanding in themselves and their students, when it comes to accomodating the teachings?
Buddha Shakyamuni had many great disciples, but none of them equalled their own teacher in terms of sheer brilliance and originality. The same must be said of Padmasambhava; even his teachings reached a sorry state by the eleventh century, to be revived by the teachings of Tertons and Longchen Rabjam, etc. Even then, the great teachers like Longchenpa who maintained the faith and realization of the practice lineages were not always hierarchially situated. In other words, to inspire faith they did not have to rely upon high-faluting titles and tulku certificates granted by inscrutable, lofty authorities. Witness the lives of the first Traleg Rinpoche (Saltong Shogom), Drukpa Kunleg, and Longchen Rabjam himself. None of them ever had a booming, buzzing monastery, much less an international organization under their directorate.
I believe those of us inspired by the Vidyadhara’s teachings just have to live them. That alone protects the teachings. As for the businessmen and hierarchs, they will (as always) take care of themselves, which is neither good nor bad. It is just what they do.