This caught ‘my’ attention…
…self-existing…!???

‘I’ don’t think so!

Though it is difficult to use a form of communication/language that is 3 dimensional to define multi-dimensional potential one needs to be careful none-the-less to use any term/reference definitive to any existence.

In suggestion to the 4 Kayas
Svabhavika!

“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.

“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.

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.”

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.

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. “

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.

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?

oh i dunno, decades of practice and study with people like chogyam trungpa, dilgo khyentse, and thinley norbu i guess…