Reflections on the Vajra Sangha
February 9, 2009 by Charles Marrow 
Print This Post
Commentary by Charles Marrow
I very much appreciate this forum for dialogue which gives the sangha an avenue to reflect on how we would like to proceed, as individuals and as a sangha, to continue as practitioners of the buddhadharma and Shambhala teachings. As far as a means of communication that are open to me, there is not much available where I can address these concerns. So I think Radio Free Shambhala is pretty good. With this in mind, I would like to express my appreciation for the moderators and all the contributors who have added their posts to this web site regardless of the degree to which their views might coincide with mine.
The ability to have a coherent discussion regarding changes to the lineage view and dharma practice of our sangha has been slow in coming. It has been my feeling that the administration and the leadership of Shambhala have not readily acknowledged two things that I think are important. Now, these topics are gradually finding their way into discussions on this web site and, presumably, into other conversations. The two topics that I would like to consider and that are closely related are:
A: There is a division in the sangha, and
B: Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche has made and is continuing to make significant and some of us might say “dramatic” changes in the spiritual approach of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.
Regarding the first topic, I think it is fair to say that any reasonable Buddhist would regard a division in the sangha as not a good thing. So we probably agree on this point. Regarding the second point, some might feel an affinity to the Sakyong’s vision and feel that his vision is very appropriate to their inspiration, some may feel deeply disturbed by what the Sakyong is doing and many might have mixed feelings about the new approach of Shambhala Buddhism. So I am comfortable suggesting that there is a broad range of feelings about adaptations to the teachings and practices of Trungpa Rinpoche that are now being presented as Shambhala Buddhism.
Let us first discuss the topic of division within the sangha. The historical Buddha gave an important vinaya teaching which addresses the serious nature of a division in the sangha. From a scholarly point of view, the issue of dividing the sangha is somewhat complex. A key element is that the sangha must be harmonious for the fault of dividing the sangha to occur and what is regarded as a harmonious sangha would be subject to interpretation. But suffice it to say, as sangha members, we instinctively feel that a divided sangha is not healthy. Under these circumstances, any balanced and mature communication that can alleviate some of this tension is regarded as laudable in the Buddhist tradition.
We can be a little bit more thorough and consider why a division in the sangha is a problem. After all, there are 84,000 collections of dharma, many personality types that will find affinity with various teachings, we are liberal and broad minded people and certainly there is room for great diversity. Is this not the case? Are not disagreements somewhat normal? On this point, the traditional texts are very clear: “As long as the sangha is divided, the five paths will not be realized”, meaning that if there are fundamental unresolved issues within a practicing community, it is pretty hard to make progress on the spiritual path. Practically speaking, if the sangha is divided in regards to fundamental spiritual principles and the related practices, there will be a natural underlying tension and a certain amount of competition, even if unstated, as to where the sangha’s spiritual and material resources will be directed.
The second topic is that Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche has made significant changes to the Vidyadhara’s teachings coming from the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions and also to the teachings of Shambhala. The Sakyong proclaimed a spiritual lineage of Shambhala Buddhism at the year 2000 Kalapa Assembly. Again, whether this is a positive, negative or mixed development will be perceived differently by different people. I would like to be simplistic for a moment and merely note that there is a difference.
Using myself as an example, I became a member of Karma Dzong in Boulder in 1977 which was the main seat for the Vajradhatu Buddhist organization. Vajradhatu, under the spiritual direction of Trungpa Rinpoche, followed the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. The emphasis was on a certain approach to sitting meditation followed by mahayana teachings, the Kagyu ngondro and the yidam practices of Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara. The view and teachings of the Nyingma tradition were elucidated by the Vidyadhara at important points in his teaching. Now that the West has some thirty-odd years of experience of Tibetan Buddhism, there is some understanding that Trungpa Rinpoche’s approach is pretty classic, and is well known amongst informed Buddhists. That is to say it follows the tradition of the Karmapas, the Rimé tradition, and the teachings that the view of Ati is the highest view. The Surmang Trungpa lineage is within the Karma Kagyu school which can be traced directly to Gampopa and is therefore about 1,000 years old. This tradition has had many, many committed practitioners over the centuries in Tibet and also a notable number in the West in recent decades.
In regards to the Shambhala teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche, these have been presented to many people in the Shambhala Training levels, graduate program, the Kalapa Assemblies, etc. This format is well known in our community and many of us would regard Shambhala Training as having been very helpful to many people over a long period of time.
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is teaching and encouraging others to teach the lineage, the view and the practices of Shambhala Buddhism. This lineage came into existence under this name in the year 2000. I do not think any other master ever taught something known as Shambhala Buddhism. This teaching seeks to unify the Shambhala and Buddhist paths and articulates the principle of basic goodness as the overarching principle. This principle is represented by the image of the Primordial Rigden. Shambhala Buddhism is presented as more applicable to the modern times and the problems of this era. It is also regarded as being more applicable to a greater number of people.
In the practice methods, Shambhala Buddhism presents a view of sitting meditation that promotes the value of shorter sitting periods and also recommends using a closer technique with more control used in mindfulness meditation. It presents the mahayana teachings and then one proceeds to do the Primordial Rigden ngondro followed by the Primordial Rigden abhishekha, the Werma Sadhana practice of Trungpa Rinpoche and then the Scorpion Seal retreat. The Kagyu ngondro and yidam practices of Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara are presented in Shambhala Buddhism as optional, and presumably valuable practices that can be done after the completion of the Scorpion Seal retreat at the discretion of the practitioner. As the primordial Rigden ngondro is only a few years old and the format for the Scorpion Seal retreat is still being worked on, there have only been a very few acharyas who have worked with this path to a significant degree. It is still being formulated, without much previous human experience.
The Sakyong, through his administration, has indicated that, with a view to unifying Shambhala and Buddhism, the Shambhala Training levels will be mixed with the new Shambhala Buddhist curriculum. This new approach to the Shambhala teachings is presented under the curriculum title of the Way of Shambhala. There is a possibility that the name of “Shambhala Training” will be phased out altogether in favor of “The Way of Shambhala”. An individual entering this new program will receive Buddhist teachings in an explicit form. As we know, in the Shambhala Training format, it was possible to complete the entire program, even up to receiving Werma Sadhana without becoming Buddhist. Some may feel this inclusion of Buddhist teachings in the Shambhala context is very good.
In these summations, I am trying to be neutral and merely highlight some of the distinctions in the Shambhala Buddhist approach in contrast to the Kagyu Vajradhatu tradition with Shambhala Training being presented as a separate stream of study and practice.
Now I would like to speak more subjectively and say a few things about how I have personally experienced the community and organizational dynamic. First of all, up to the last year or so, I felt like Shambhala International’s official position was that Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche’s approach was, in essence, identical to his father’s. This is what I felt was being said. Further, it seemed that this new Shambhala Buddhist path was being presented as really superior and that it will become widespread and help many, many people in this dark age. Also, I felt I was being told that the notion of adhering to the practices and teachings I was quite fond of from Trungpa Rinpoche’s Vajradhatu path was out of date and that I was stuck in the past. Then, there were the instances when it was communicated to me that, like other “old” students, I was just hanging on to the Vidyadhara’s teaching, being inflexible and being an obstructionist as to how the Sakyong wanted to manifest Shambhala.
My reaction to this whole process is that the current Sakyong and the administration has crossed the line in what modern parlance would call “non-negotiables”. One could make up a simple story, as an example. Say that I am an Italian man, who likes my home country and falls in love and marries a German woman. I go and spend time with my wife’s family and her German father begins to expect that I will become patriotic to Germany, root for their soccer team, sing their national anthem, adore German beer, give up my love for opera and Italian wine and totally get into the German national spirit. “Well, sorry to say to you guys, I am an Italian and I like my Italian thing and that is just the way it is!” In short, one would feel that these kinds of expectations are unreasonable.
From the point of view of spiritual development, in my own experience, I feel that the presentation of Shambhala Buddhism is a distraction. I do not have much connection to it and I have explored its theory and practices to a reasonable degree. Needless to say, there are students of Sakyong Mipham who are inspired by his example and are undertaking the Shambhala Buddhist path with enthusiasm. So, once again, I am merely trying to clarify and stabilize the notion that a) the Kagyu Vajradhatu path is different from Shambhala Buddhism, and that b) there is a division in the sangha.
Perhaps it is because of my background as a member of the Dorje Kasung that I believe it is sometimes most skillful to approach complex situations with a degree of simple-mindedness and literalism. In discussions that we have had on this web site and elsewhere it is easy to get drawn into notions that “This way or that way is the pure, enlightened or correct way,” or that “This is what Trungpa Rinpoche really wanted,” etc. In fact, there are certain traditional methods for exploring the validity of a path of dharma through study and contemplation but that is not the purpose of this article. Here, I am trying to focus on two simple facts that are related to the experiences of individual practitioners and that also have a big impact on the vitality and cohesion of ourselves as a sangha, i.e., a group of practitioners.
I will go one step further into an area that is maybe somewhat more difficult, but necessary. This is to say that, in some form or another, there will have to be a process by which the direction of the sangha is clarified. The issues discussed thus far have been in the air for some number of years now. For example, in 2004 there was a conference in Boston called the Mandala Conference that produced a document called The Ground of Openness and Trust. I personally feel that the observations made at that time are still quite applicable to our situation. What is needed now is to have a mechanism for discussing and coming to practical decisions regarding the issues raised at that time.
From the vantage point of looking back to the discussions of the Shambhala Congress of 2003 and the issues that are still with us, I have to be somewhat blunt regarding my observations. I feel like there was, and still is, an approach to communication coming from the Sakyong and Shambhala International where expressions of the principles of inclusion, diversity, respect for elders, etc. are regularly circulated. However, when we observe how actual policies are implemented, it seems that every effort is made to march on with the predetermined agenda of furthering Shambhala Buddhism, while the feelings of those who have an affinity to maintaining Trungpa Rinpoche’s dharma and the practice traditions of Vajradhatu are related to as minimally as possible. One might get the feeling that it is the hope of the administration that if they just proceed, then those of us who did not really like these changes would eventually conform or just get out of the way, perhaps even leave the sangha altogether. Needless to say, this does not encourage a good sangha atmosphere.
To conclude, I would like to recap a statement made by His Holiness Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche when he was in Colorado around the time of the Vidyadhara’s parinirvana. I heard the following quote from two different reliable sangha friends. At this time, His Holiness said something to the effect that:
Now that the Vidyadhara has passed away, various lamas will come to the sangha and will want to present their teachings. My advice to you (the Vajradhatu sangha at that time) is that you ignore those lamas and continue with the teachings you have received from the Vidyadhara.
It is my feeling that this advice applies today.
I know some of these are difficult points, but I trust that presenting these issues will be of some benefit to the practicing community.
Charles Marrow has been a practicing Buddhist his entire adult life. He moved to Boulder in 1977 to become a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche after practicing at San Francisco Zen Center. In 1983 he moved to Nova Scotia to participate in the Vajradhatu sangha. He has been the owner of several small businesses and currently works as an independent bookkeeper and accountant.
I think this is an excellent analysis, in both the “objective” and “subjective” sections.
It raises the rather large question of how those committed to the practices CTR laid out should best proceed, especially as regards the generally accepted idea that until one achieves realization, it is best – many or most would say absolutely necessary – to work with a living teacher. I am not familiar enough with the selection process / vetting / politics (inevitable?) of the current Acharya setup to know whether they could truly function in that role on the “Trungpa Track”.
Some cold comfort could be taken in the knowledge that questions like this are or will be asked in many sanghas (especially those not directly tied to long-established monastic hierarchies) in the relatively near future.
Thank you, Charles, for a very clear statement of the situation that the vajra sangha of Trungpa Rinpoche in particular finds itself in. Your choice of words seems impeccable, which demonstrates your training under Trungpa Rinpoche.
I especially appreciate your illustration of the “non-negotiables.” The expectations of the German father-in-law towards the Italian seem very apt in more ways than one.
Many thanks.
Michael Sullivan brings up a very good point, of course, which relates especially to students who did not have the blessing of experiencing Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings in the flesh. There seem to be a growing number of such people who want to follow CTR’s path, rather than SMR’s. I can’t be utterly certain, but it seems that those who are official Acharyas under the Shambhala International umbrella are increasingly being squeezed into the Shambhala Buddhism mold, and that those who were senior teachers in Vajradhatu (and pre-SMR Shambhala Training) and cannot squeeze themselves into the SI mold, or swear fealty to the SMR/Shambhala Buddhist approach, have been squeezed out. Thus, the ‘younger’ or newer students who want to follow the CTR path do not have access within the SI sangha to teachers of CTR’s path or the “Trungpa Track”.
It does seem, to me at least, that this needs to be acknowledged openly as the ground for any resolution of the division within the greater sangha that includes Trungpa Rinpoche’s own loyal students. I don’t have a lot of hope for such a resolution, but the need to acknowledge this disjunction in access to the Trungpa Track bears repeating nonetheless.
I can’t help thinking about a recent posting on Ocean of Dharma Quotes of the Week of a quote by Trungpa Rinpoche, under the title Buddha Saw The Problem:
“With tremendous deception, we create samsara — pain and misery for the whole world, including ourselves –but we still come off as if we were innocent. We call ourselves ladies and gentlemen, and we say, “I never commit any sins or create any problems. I’m just a regular old person, blah blah blah.” That snowballing of deception and the type of existence our deception creates are shocking.”
Just so.
Good thread. I seem to remember VCTR stating at one point that
confidence was the only sign of fruition….something like that…anybody
remember? It implied that no one can be the judge of another’s experience. Also, from history we know that at some point, each lineage holder had to let go of the guru and put into practice the teachings they’ve been given. For students of VCTR, we have experienced being let go. At the same time, it’s usual, not rare, that Tibetians study with many teachers. Albeit that the Vidyadhara’s teachings are unique for this time, that does not preclude that working with other teachers is not beneficial for students that have such a strong basis in the dharma as we have been given. So much of “being right” is based on insecurity of not really having confidence in the dharma. This is typical for newer students who are
proceeding from a superficial understanding of the dharma towards
“becoming” the dharma. I was that way…proud that we had “the best of the best” in our teacher. Now, I don’t have those thoughts anymore. Perhaps some of the taking sides we see is based on that type of insecurity….
both from the newer students as well as some of us older ones who
haven’t quite integrated the dharma into our lives. Just a speculation.
Can you be a little more straightforward, John? Where does what you wrote leave the newer students, who do not “have such a strong basis in the dharma that we have been given,” and who can’t follow the Trungpa Track within the SI sangha? Having been ‘let go” of by SI, senior students of CTR who adhere to the Trungpa Track and have been trained as teachers are not accessible to new students who want the Trungpa Track, with rare exceptions (such as Reggie Ray and Bill Karelis) precisely because we have been “let go.” This is a sangha issue, not an individual one, just one of the many problems in propagating the dharma generated by the division in the sangha.
I recall when Shambhala Buddhism was first announced in 2000. I then recalled that the Vidyadhara had actually planned Shambhala Buddhism all along. Also, I think Vajradhatu Publications even issued a book re enforcing that concept. It was a whril wind for me. I couldn’t digest it all at once.
Then I recalled when it was recommended that people who do ngondro to stop doing the Kagyu ngondro if they haven’t reached the mandala stage yet, and to start doing Shambhala ngondro. Then I recall that when some of the more “seasoned” practioners couldn’t quite understand what was going on, they were deemed by some of the students of the Sakyong as being stubborn. There seemed to be a “bring out the old, bring in the new” mentality, and an artificial generation gap that didn’t exist before was created. I felt this process was unfair to everybody. Nobody benefited. I have also seen sangha friends become indifferent to each other because of disagreements. This is also unfair to everybody.
I came across this article today (I don’t know why I havent seen it earlier)
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2008/08/open-letter-of-concern-from-bill-karelis-re-shambhala-mountain-centers-need-for-support/
It was an eye opener. Quite frankly, I think we need to re establish what our priorities are. It appears to be how to stay out of debt, and keeping our heads above water. Is this the Shambhala vision?
Right now, our economy reflects a hard time for everybody, and I do think Buddhism and Shambhala should be made accessible to more people.
One shouldn’t be forced to choose both.
Rob Graffis
The quote that you attribute to Dilgo Khyentse R. is one that I have also heard. The trouble is that I heard the quote attributed to Thrangu R. and the reference was to “advice” of lamas and not to other lamas “presenting teachings” that the quote was addressed to the Sawang, not to some unspecified gathering of “Vajradhatu Sangha”.
I don’t know that what I heard is accurate. I do know that your quote is careless — and probably untrue. Think about it — do you really think that H.H. Dilgo Khyentse R. — one of the greatest Rime master of the 20th Century who gathered and propagated teachings from many different lineages — would tell a group of our sangha to “ignore” other lamas who are interested in presenting their teachings?
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was trying to say that the older students have been “let go” by their teacher, the Vidyadhara. I don’t equate SI with a teacher…not
even SMR. If SI doesn’t want some older students to teach in it, I think that’s fine. Where does that leave the newer students? Well, if they are attracted to the Vidyadhara’s teaching, they do have to find it somewhere, don’t they? The
question is whether to blame SI for being the way it is, or to do something else, like Bill or Reggie. That’s left up to us as individuals, and I think that is just fine. We don’t have to have an SI for us to propagate the dharma…not in the least. Thinking so, to me, constitutes whining. At least, it will do no good as far as bringing change to SI, in my opinion.
Newer students have many more options….good ones..than we had,
with all the younger teacher’s coming up that have appreciated VCTR, what he did and how he did it. We had the best, I believe, but SI is not
the only genuine game in town now….maybe not even the most genuine.
Of course, there are still charlatans around, but who one chooses to follow is still up to the individual. If one thinks SI is actually perverting the
dharma, that’s another story…but I’m not ready to say that. Maybe there
should be an Institute for Disaffected Vidyadhara Students Teaching The Dharma…but then that becomes absurd….
No, I think if we want to teach the dharma on our own, up to our ability, that we could. Why not? My point is simply that for us, the Vidyadhara’s
students who have been on our own since his parinirvana, I feel that
what we do is completely up to us….whether we want teachings from other teachers, or want to teach, we should have the confidence to go forward.
What do you think about Robin Kornman’s point (from the Q/A on talk #4 of his series on googlevideo) — it is the senior students of the Vidyadhara who are responsible for maintaining the continuity of the Vidyadhara’s teachings?
I agree with John on this.
We own a small Inn in Maine and are actually looking to create affordable group retreat situations where the teachings particular to the Vidyadhara can be presented. We are currently looking at offering a 10 day program in the spring and fall of 2010.
We have 8 individual cottages and the idea is to combine group and individual practice. It would be great to have a teacher who was a close student of the Vidyadhara and someone who has completed a 3 year retreat. Can anyone suggest any candidates?
best Tashi
Tashi
I’m not a candidate, but you never gave me your e-mail address when we met in Nepal last December.
Please write me privately at:
gyurmesopa@yahoo.com
Rob Graffis
Here is my email if anyone wants to write to me directly.
srhodes@suscom-maine.net
and the Inn’s website is:
http://www.newmeadowsrivercottages.com
Tashi
Dpn’t forget that SMR was a student of VCTR….so, how could Robin’s statement not be true? Already a number of students of the Vidyadhara
are teaching with other teachers. I intend to put up a note card in a local coffee shop and offer meditation instruction…there are all kinds of ways.
I wouldn’t teach Shambhala Training outside the context of SI, because
that’s the province of the Sakyong lineage….but I could give a talk or class about the Sacred Path book….for example. I would feel fine about teaching Hinayana and Mahayana, but wouldn’t teach Vajrayana on my own…..there’s lots we could do.
It doesn’t answer the question, really, about how the teachings of the Vidyadhara are going to survive in the forms we remember. I have no idea about that. The material will survive, certainly.
I believe that the living Dharma always changes to meet the needs of an-ever changing culture. I feel that these new changes, with the uncovering of the Terma of the Scorpion Seal are 100% the vision of the Vidyadhara, and am so honored to be living in a time where his vision can finally come to fruition. We are so lucky to have had a Terton, and Shambhala Buddhism, I firmly believe, is his life blood, and each change and practice opens my heart and mind further. ( I found the statement difficult “that you ignore those lamas” if that in any way pertains to his heart son and Lineage Holder)
I feel like the Dharma is medicine, and we can include everything that helps to inspire us to practice.
Thank you for writing this. It clarified some of my misunderstandings and helped me see some new angles on old painful issues.
You Tube:
“Compassionate Leadership SMR” = 200 hits
“Spiritual Materialsm CTR” = 19, 938 hits (and he’s dead).
By the way, Neal Greenberg and the Agile Group, “Wealth and Livelihood Shambhala teacher extraordinaire, was getting Mike Rosen, ultra conservative talk show host, to promote his fund to others on his Conservative Talk Show by paying him to do so. I just don’t think the ordinary sangha person realizes how skewed toward wealth and materialism the inner workings of the SI administration has been over the last decade. I think it would absolutely shock the ordinary SI member. Greed and material accumulation was the main practice and connecting this with dharma teachings has really been inexcusable.
CTR certainly had his share of wealthy benefactors buzzing around him, but he never pandered to them and made them teachers and administrators, just because they were wealthy like we have seen over the past decade. Just googling the current SI board is quite revealing in terms of how skewed this has been.
Namkai Norbu eschewed benefactors being also teachers and administrators because it led to an unhealty situation in the long run and would lead to confusion in the sangha. Because someone has accumulated wealth, does not make one wiser or more compassionate.
I think we are seeing the results of how much suffering can accrue when acquiring weath, and giving large donations to a sangha is inappropriately connected to somehow being dharmically wise, or even knowledgable about adminstrative issues. I have seen people teaching courses in this mandala just because they have accumulated wealth or gave big donations. This is called corruption of the dharma by any other name. It is not that a wealthy person couldn’t also be a great practitioner, but to just assume this is so , is the corruption.
That is the most striking thing about the current administration and leadership of SI, how skewed it is in favour of the wealthy. The karma of the last decade is about to implode. Thank goodness.
I think there is a hunger out there, particularly now , for CTR’s teachings, unadulterated, when ” the Jewellke teaching of insight is fading day by day; The Buddha’s teaching is used merely for political purposes and to draw people together socially”….and the “yogis of tantra are losing the insight of meditation” and “spend their whole time going through villages and performing little ceremonies for material gain” (from intro to Sadhana of Mahamudra). Sounds a bit to close to home.
Christine, thank you. You say, “That is the most striking thing about the current administration and leadership of SI, how skewed it is in favour of the wealthy. The karma of the last decade is about to implode. Thank goodness.”
I’m with you there. The celebration of greed (beginning in and led by the US) during the last 30 years is, in fact, at the tipping point where its consequences will quickly manifest as widespread suffering and want on a global scale. It has been astonishing to see SI fall into the materialism trap (delusion) in so many ways. It’s as though the bubble mentality of Wall Street infected SI. And, yes, I believe the word corruption applies to spiritual materialism.
As things fall apart, the (real, true) dharma will be very important for helping people face reality and keep their sanity.
I have read this article thoroughly,and all of the comments.
All I can say is that the Buddha told us that there are 84,000 dharmas.
We are fortunate to have been exposed to a variety of teachings, and that has allowed many of us to integrate them into our lives thoroughly and diversely. All of our Shambhala Buddhist teachers have had a profound effect on peoples’ karma.
What has kept me a practitioner all these years, curiously enough is the teaching of Shibata Kanjuro, O’Sensei, of the great lineage of the Heki Ryu Biu Shyu Chikurin Ha. Then his teachings cleared the karmic ground for the pratctise of the vajrayana path in the Shambhala lineage. Without him, I would have no true connection to Shambhala. Both the VCTR and the Sakyong continue to provide that gate, although little is spoken of it.
Each of us makes our own way, and works with our own karma on the conceptual and non conceptual levels. In many ways we have little “control” over the larger process. Continuity in many ways requires little choice, or making choices in some sense. We just have to practise sincerely so that we can see clearly where we are walking, Maybe we can relax into that.
I do agree with Jim WIlton though, that the view that all of our teachers have taught is to integrate the teachings, that fall on fertile ground for us,into our pratices and lives. They would never speak to denegrate any buddhist teacher in any way. They are masters of accumulating merit in that way. As a matter of fact, we know that the phenomenal world often can be our teacher., So other lamas and lamos are somewhat involved, if we encounter them.
Whatever path we choose, the issue of path is a very personal choice, and it should be so. It is a mark of maturity that it is so. We are past the dharma child stage after 30 years or more.
As the VCTR said repeatedly:
” The proof is in the pudding.”
Perhaps there is not really any particular schism in the sangha.
Perhaps seeing it as such is a reaction to groundlessness that VCTR was always so ready to provide us, and indeed goes on providing us.
From that groundlessness ( rather uncomfortable at times) incredible richness can arise, is arrising, and always will arise
in the timeless now of the Shambhala lineages and the Buddhist lineages. And in that now we, each of us, will decide our path and what works, make our pudding as it were.
That is incredible genuine freedom. And we need not fear it.
It is cause for a great deal of celebration.
Much love to all.
Cheers,
Dale Hinchey
Five years ago I took my vows as a “Shambhala Buddhist.” I have never met CTR or SMR. I see CTR as my root guru and SMR as one of my teachers. I have loyalty to both and to neither. I have had many teachers and have found that they have helped me understand Buddhism, Shambhala, Shambhala Buddhism, and Tibetan Buddhism more. I am thankful that I have been enriched with their styles and the interpretations they present and practice. Sometimes I am very confused with all the different lessons and the diversity, and yet that confusion has been a great teacher as well.
Thank you all for the dialogue and teachings. I hope that I can live up to them.
Mark Bourdon (Gyurme Choga)
Now I hate to pee in the tasty cauldron of Kumbayaa Soup that seems to be brewing here, but here I go.
I always was under the impression that your guru – most especially your root guru – is the LIVING person who you interact with and who provides you with a living example of Buddhahood in action, and who wakes you up. Otherwise we could have people saying that their root guru is Milarepa or Padmasambhava or Shakyamuni… So the people who actually received real-time teachings from Trungpa Rinpoche have a valid claim to him as their guru. Especially if they received transmission from him. Other people? not so much…. a teacher whose writings and recordings and videos taught you much? sure. But not guru. Not root guru.
So if you want to study in Trungpa Rinpoche’s lineage, you need to study with someone who is passing on HIS TEACHINGS.
If wishes were fishes, we would all have a fry….
Sorry for being crabby (and perhaps somewhat Talibanish), but there you go. If someone is vastly better informed on this issue, then by all means please “enlighten” me!
It seems to me that the people who are bemoaning a division in the sangha are the ones creating it. Yes, divisions in the sangha are not good, and if you’ve taken any oaths in the Shambhala lineage you’ve probably taken one that says you are not to create factions in the sangha. You, and your cohorts, seem to be both causing the problem (through suspect reasoning) and then complaining that it exists. Especially when someone posts a link to it on sangha-announce; how do you think reading this post would affect someone who is brand new to the sangha, and just started receiving our emails? What a disservice to the entire lineage, the Vidyadhara, the Sakyong, and all the members, and vision.
It’s pretty ridiculous to think that the Sakyong would re-teach everything that the Vidyadhara did. Even reincarnated lamas do not teach the exact same way that their predecessor did. A lama is trained and learns all of the classical texts and commentaries, does the practices, and then teaches the teachings of the Buddha in her/his own way based on their experience.
If you have decided that you want to pick and choose which practices the Vidyadhara taught, praising some (Kagyu) and dismissing others (the Shambhala terma), then wouldn’t it be much simpler to just find a Kagyu teacher and go study with her/him? If you want to practice strictly traditional Kagyu Buddhism, then go to Woodstock, or wherever, and find a guru and do it. As you noted, the Buddhism that CTR taught was traditional. It was great, in that he was able to present it better than anyone else to a Western ear, but it is not the Sakyong’s job to imitate or emulate CTR. CTR said that the Shambhala terma was his biggest contribution and devoted his life to it after he first received it in 1976. To suggest that the Sakyong is wrong to make it the centerpiece of our lineage, and that CTR wanted us to be Kagyus first and Shambhala was something lesser is absurd and extremely audacious. It’s not even that you have to conform or get out of the way, if you’re already a Vajrayana practitioner, you only need to attend Vajrayana programs and do Vajrayana practices. But, what you shouldn’t do is think that Shambhala should change to fit your feelings.
People are still going to be able to take the Shambhala Training levels separately. They’re just going to be offered in conjunction with the pre-seminary Buddhist teachings for those who want them. Before there was no clear path or link between the two paths (Shambhala and Buddhist), now there can be one path from the beginning. Shambhala is the cultural aspect of the path. It makes so much sense knowing that the Buddhist teachings are being introduced into a totally different culture. CTR said that if Buddhism is the mountain, then Shambhala is the trees and flowers on that mountain. The paths are parallel and complement each other. But, more than just culture they (the Shambhala terma) contain the whole path and are very profound. By saying that you are not into the Shambhala teachings, you are rejecting the guru you are supposedly professing your confused loyalty to, and also are rejecting Guru Rinpoche (who was Nyingma, of course) who unlocked these teachings, through CTR, at this auspicious time.
Beautifully put Travis, and furthermore…this infamous “SI” that everyone is badmouthing is… us. Polarization is the birth of warfare, and we are all better trained and more intelligent than that, aren’t we? We are all a part of this organization, and nothing is perfect, but I believe that we all share a sincere aspiration to be of benefit.
Never, ever, create doubt, schisms and polarization in a sangha. This discussion and proud people who “secede” make me really sad. We are so privileged to have each other and the Dharma, and we must move forward. It is not 1974.
Sincere warm and well wishes to the whole Vajra Sangha, and may these seeds of discord be healed with the GES vision.
Travis,
Until your post, I was very much impressed by the thoughtfulness and uplifted tenor of this discussion, in which the following things seemed to be coming to the fore:
a) curiosity about various viewpoints
b) respect for others’ viewpoints
c) a continual “coming back” to our own commitment to our personal paths, which is a deeply personal thing. “Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one.”
Travis, your fiery post may seem like anger and finger pointing on the outside, but if you look deeper, it reflects, perhaps, a great deal of hurt. Perhaps there are people here – yes, reasonable, thoughtful, committed people, who do not come to the same conclusions as you do. But is that really so awful?
Anyhow, I think this discussion has been pretty “on the level” in terms of people taking responsibility for their own discoveries on the path. No one’s saying your path is wrong Travis, and I suggest that you offer the same.
May I suggest that curiosity and openness are two great marks of practice? (Tough ones, to develop, for sure).
Wow. Wow, Travis and Dawn, I am amazed at how much you can miss the point and put words in people’s mouths that they did not say, and then claim that the people you’re pointing the finger at created the problem – as in “It seems to me that the people who are bemoaning a division in the sangha are the ones creating it.”
You need to read what is said on this site more carefully. You are not comprehending.
One other brief reflection, if I may.
Dharma, it can be said, exists to serve the needs of sentient beings. That is, Dharma arises out of the innate longing that everyone has for liberation. And a Bodhisattva – literally “Dharma Hero” – commits to serve the needs of sentient beings *wherever and however they are.* Thus, he or she places the actual, spontaneous needs of sentient beings *above* agenda and doctrine. No matter how holy that doctrine may be.
A danger for any religious institution is a tendency to treat doctrine as an end, rather than a means. As soon as the establishment and propagation of a body of teaching becomes more important than the needs of the constituents, the institution ceases to be a vehicle of liberation, and becomes another “ism.”
In our case, I suggest we be very careful about admonishing students for expressing their needs, in favor of obeissance to an established doctrine, for that may indicate a rather profound misprioritization, and a departure from the “one point” on which all Dharmas agree.
I don’t have to like the direction SI is taking….if it’s working in the sense of transmitting the genuine dharma, what I think about it isn’t important…even to
me. I’ve got plenty of teachings to practice. And people enter the dharma in
many ways….even Ole Nidhal! I can be as true to the teachings as I can…
what more or what better can I do? But more and more I feel that judging
others….not so good. I can’t see what SMR is seeing….and I sure don’t want his job.
Hello,
Although the tone of Mr. Marrow’s post is honest and heartfelt, there are a few inaccuracies about what the Sakyong is teaching. For example, what the Sakyong teaches evolves with time– he is not stuck advocating a diet of short sittings and close placement techniques. These are skillful means, appropriate to one’s own development of shamatha-vipashyana. The Sakyong has elaborated on these topics in past years, however, now that he has thoroughly covered the topic, he has continued on. Some people can’t get behind these teachings, but they are extremely helpful for those like me, interested in this early teaching of CTR, written down by Michael Hookham in the ’60s:
“First let the mind follow the in and out rhythm of the breath until it becomes calm and tranquil; then rest the mind more and more on the breath until one’s whole being seems to be identified with it.
Finally become aware of the breath leaving the body and going out into space, and gradually transfer the attention away from the breath and towards the sensation of spaciousness and expansion.
By letting this final sensation merge into complete openness, one moves into the sphere of formless meditation proper.”
This, yes, is the teaching of the Vidyadhara, my root guru and yours, Trungpa Rinpoche. To master the details of this succinct diamond-like teaching would benefit any one of us. Why would we complain if the Sakyong helped illuminate the first part (close placement) of this particular model? The Sakyong does not in any way advocate that you stick with the first few lines and forget the rest. He certainly doesn’t believe that 10 minute sessions will gain you any kind of depth in your journey. If anyone out there still believes this is the case, it’s not.
The point I’m hoping to make here, is that CTR said a great many things, and no one should get on a high horse, soapbox or otherwise and declare that their own understanding of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teaching is not without gaps. It took me 20 years to really get into and get a feel for the Shambhala Teachings, but now they completely unified in my mind with his straight-ahead Buddhist teachings.
Also, as Michael Sullivan said:
“So if you want to study in Trungpa Rinpoche’s lineage, you need to study with someone who is passing on HIS TEACHINGS.” Michael, (I know Michael…Hi Michael) what does this mean? Are you suggesting that the Sakyong is not passing on the Vidyadhara’a teachings? Which teachings? Are you dismissing the Shambhala terma that CTR spent nearly all the energy teaching in the last part of his life?
I was just given the Director’s training talks of CTR and my mind is blown again by what I never heard before from my root guru’s lips. It’s brilliant. It’s astonishing. It’s adamantine living dharma. You can’t read it and believe that Shambhala Buddhism is a misguided notion. I am so grateful for the Sakyong and the Acharyas who are carrying forth this crown jewel of dharma. This too, is the Vidyadhara’s dharma; not just secular, not a lesser dharma than that of the Kagyu and Nyingma.
Criticism is fine, but when attacks are deemed appropriate against those who carry forth as much or more of the Vidyadhara’s teachings as any of you/us are able to do, I feel that we have contributed powerfully to the propogation of this dark age.
Much Love to the Sangha,
Alan Anderson
As as a relative newbie to the Vajra sangha it pains me that such discontent still burns on within the community. Contrary to views expressed in an earlier post my inspiration for taking Samaya with the Sakyong was to connect deeply with the lineage and teaching of VCTR. Having made that decision I feel the current direction of the path is steering me towards the cream of the cream of what the Vidyadhara revealed for us.
Time is a compounding factor now influencing allot of decision making – particularly for me. Personally, I would prefer to go traditional route of Vajrayana training. However, I cannot deny the lingering feeling that we as a society and planet are moving into a time of BIG change. The luxuries of time and money to practice Dharma are precious indeed. HH Karmapa has made it clear that all our energies must now be directed towards uplifting our world. A timely mission, not different from KOS, that brings me to tears.
Personally I really appreciate and savor opportunities to practice and hang with ‘the old dogs’. Even if they should not feel they have official influence in the direction of SI, there is a very real generational transference of wisdom and good heart that needs to happen between senior practitioners and neophyte warriors for this noble lineage live on.
Thinking. Thinking many thoughts. Attaching to certain of these thoughts, forming opinions. Attaching to these opinions, forming beliefs. Attaching to these beliefs, finding justification for dissatisfaction with what is.
Good luck.
Hi Silas,
I have to say what you have written is lovely. We are all longing to connect. I often feel that these internet forms are more of an obstacle to this than an aid. We get caught by our words and forget the wisdom that we are all striving toward.
What we need to do is practice together — practice and live together. This has been an inseparable part of the Buddhadharma from the very beginning. Living and practicing in a community is how Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are manifest. Certainly our history as the lineage of Trungpa Rinpoche is rooted in the residential practice community that was Karme Choling.
When I lived there in the 80′s we had 60 people living in residence. It was a very tight container and a tremendously powerful transmission of the living dharma. We practiced 4 to 5 hours a day! It was part of the schedule! Over and over again throughout the history of the Dharma, when you create situations like this the Dharma is manifest. It is all nurtured by this situation. Drala, dakas, dakinis, yidams, protectors it is all nurtured and enacted.
Cheryl Campbell touches on this in her interview on the Chronicles and people should check that out.
Over and over again in the early days Trungpa seemed to have created these residential training situations for people. Seminary was three months long! Dathun, one whole month of shamatha– nobody else did this! As a sangha we need to revisit this because I don’t see it any more.
I can’t afford to pay $2000.00 to do a dathun. That is another issue. That is another big issue. My first dathun in 1985 cost $400.00.
Sadly there doesn’t seem to be this kind of wisdom or nurture coming from the center of the mandala. And I think the conditions are going to become more difficult for our established centers now that they have spent themselves into a gigantic hole.
any way I will leave it at that.
My best to you all,
Tashi
Well friends, her eis my experience and view
Chogyam Trungpa loved the Sambhala teachings, and viewed them as central to what he was presenting. I don’t find anything the Sakyong is doing that counters tha, on the contrary, it continues that.
THings aren’t going to look the same as they did in the 1970′s. Why would we expect that?
I have been in the community since 1994. I did 3 month seminary, kagyu ngondro by number, rigden number by time, and am doing vajrayogini practice by time, tho counting, and will eventually do werma and scorpion seal. I love this lineage and feel supported.
And I love the way new peole are being helped with group practice, the studying and practicing together. I think it is ingenuous to suggest Chogyam Trungpa did not want the Scorpioni seal to be a signature aspect of our community or his teachings. He was the ultimate Shambhala Warrior. How could we not incorporate what he taught with our Kagyu lineage.
And the Dilgo Khyentse quote back inthe beginning seems to say to me hold on to your heritage from Chogyam Trungpa. Precisely, the mixing of buddhism with Shambhala. How could tht be any more clear?????
I appreciate so people sharing their questions and doubts. To imagine that the Sakyong hasn’t been in on the central debates of his father from the beginning is nuts. I think his synthesis is precisely what needs to happen, I feel completely supported in my vajrayogini practice, and love the teachings unfolding before me.
Just don’t see the problem folks, Feels a lot like attachment.
thanks
“Criticism is fine, but when attacks are deemed appropriate against those who carry forth as much or more of the Vidyadhara’s teachings as any of you/us are able to do, I feel that we have contributed powerfully to the propogation of this dark age”.
I wonder why this same attitude and openess wasn’t given to Reggie Ray, from the Shambhala mandala, for example, whom I recently (last year) did a free open weekend with, out of curiosity and found him brilliant, clear and very compassionate and helpful to his students , new and old, by passing along what felt palpably like the energy and teachings of Chogyam Trunpa Rinpoche. There was a mind-stream that was so familiar it was undeniable. In one weekend (not 10 or 20 years of expensive programming, Mr Ray gave an immediate , fruitional experience of Mahaumudra. He gave the fruition first, and then the path, similar to CTR. Obviously a brilliant student and former acharya of the Vidyadhara, Mr Ray was villified, refused to be allowed copyrighted material, formally rejected from the mandala, in a letter to the sangha, because SI and the powers that be, became critical and closeminded when they became territorial about their own view about how the teachings and what teacher should carry them forth. This was a schism that hurt and confused a lot of students.
Yet Reggie Ray has, and continues to have many many new students that are coming into the dharma, are getting a clear, and to me, unconfused basic foundation in the Kagyu tradition. They also progress as serious practioners, where it is clear that practice is the main focus. There has been no respect formally given to Reggie Ray and his students, who are clearly carrying on the CTR stream, as far as I can see.
If one wants others to really be open and willing to see the pristine adamantine dharma being transmitted by other holders of the Vidyadhara’s teachings, including the Sakyong, then one has to model it, not just try and gather all the “ataboys” for one’s own connection with a particular stream of teachings, and dismiss any and all other streams and connections with the Vidyadharas teachings.
The majority of the students of the Sakyong have never, ever, in my experience, respected the choices and views of those students of the Vidyhardara that didn’t adhere to a straight, party line. It’s this churlishness, always critcizing other people’s independent views and differing perspectives , a churlishness, and closedmindedness, and lack of openness to other perpectives, that was the main propellant that made many students of the Vidyadhara leave, and that it just seems to never penetrate: i.e. that this is the MAIN problem: it is NOT a sign of realization or inspiration to others to always censor and close down independent, open and discriminating perception. In other words, closedmindedness is not associated with magnetizing others to a vast view. I am sure there are MI’s still in the SI mandala , those who have their student’s best interests at heart, and direct them to other teachers when they have progressed in mediation, and their path inevitably becomes more in need of an individualized approach, and they direct them to teachers and streams that would be the most benefit. I know this happens, but that it has to happen secretly, or surreptitiously, underneath the radar of SI, is unhealthy and says that there is a schism deep within this mandala that has nothing to do with people who have left, but is the result of a repression, and lack of openness, a territorial fear, that has nothing to do with the dharma, and has much more to do , it appears, with preserving territory and keeping students in the SI organization to perserve the “organization”. It seems it would be more productive to heal the situation within the SI mandala by really creating an open dialogue amongst yourselves, i.e. those students of the Sakyong, and start “looking within” and not worry about what is happening with others who have a different view and have taken a different direction with the Vidyadhara’s teachings, constantly trying to monitor and control. If you stopped doing that, I am sure the criticisms would stop. And everyone could move on in a healthy way. As long as you think that the “problem” is out here, and you try and solve it “out here” it will get bigger and bigger. You need to turn that flower inward and start healing yourselves within. You can’t stop the energy of free thinking now, those days are over. It is not 1999.
Alan Anderson (Hi Alan!) wrote:
‘Also, as Michael Sullivan said:
“So if you want to study in Trungpa Rinpoche’s lineage, you need to study with someone who is passing on HIS TEACHINGS.” Michael, (I know Michael…Hi Michael) what does this mean? Are you suggesting that the Sakyong is not passing on the Vidyadhara’a teachings? Which teachings? Are you dismissing the Shambhala terma that CTR spent nearly all the energy teaching in the last part of his life?”‘
I am not suggesting that the Sakyong is not passing on many of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings, but rather that some aspects of them have been reinterpreted, and others have been de-emphasised. The explicit inclusion of non-Buddhists in Shambhala Training through to the highest levels cannot be something that CTR began on a whim. That inclusion is in itself a teaching!!
Personal digression: My belief is that the Shambhala teachings were Trungpa Rinpoche’s skillful means for Dzogchen as a stand-alone means to enlightenment. While the Nyingma school traditionally sees Dzogchen/Ati as the ninth yana – no argument from me at all on that – there are also a number of masters who teach Dzogchen as a complete path in itself. In Tibet itself, the practice of Dzogchen crossed not only sectarian boundaries (even more since Ri-me) but also religious ones, since there is a lineage of Bonpo Dzogchen dating back to pre-Buddhist Tibet, so one might suggest that there is a precedent for CTR’s inclusiveness.
The Sakyong has teachers other than his father, and they have influenced his approach. His wife’s family lineage appears to also have influenced and will continue to influence his teachings . And I would be quite surprised if his attendance at the Rinchen Terdzo empowerments didn’t bring further changes to the Shambhala Buddhist approach. No one is saying he shouldn’t get or practice or transmit these other teachings!! If he discovers terma, well then, mazel tov! But they are HIS terma, and HIS approach. When the Sakyong’s loyal students conflate Trungpa Rinpoche’s terma and methods with the Sakyong’s terma and methods, that to me is a little off…. but that is just my outsider’s view.
In the book Blazing Splendor, we see a model of how a family lineage can maintain and uphold an inheritance, in this case, the Chokling Tersar. It is a wonderful and inspiring book. I recommend it highly! Hint – it wasn’t by succeeding generations adding lots of new stuff or changing the approach of the original.
The real issues seem to be with the organization which appears to have mutated from a kingdom into a corporation replete with branding strategies, concerns over market share and capitalization, staying on message, and even older workers being nudged out of the door to make way for those whose fealty lies with the new CEO….
Probably the last thing needed are more comments, but here goes. The first being the Shambhala versus Buddhism thing. I didn’t see that Charles’s point was that one had to choose between the 2, but rather that CTR presented them to us and the world in a completely different way than is being done now. This “division” , in my understanding, has nothing at all to do with an allegiance to one path or the other. I don’t know about the mountain and the flowers analogy but I attended a talk given by CTR in 1980 in Vancouver. In that talk he said, “Buddhism is the stroke and Shambhala is the canvas”. At which point he took a bathroom break( I’m guessing) and came back 10 minutes later. When he sat down again he said, “As I said, Shambhala is the stroke and Buddhism is the canvas”. Would anyone like to explain that one? That’s rhetorical by the way. My point being that to just go practice Vajrayana with ones “cohorts”(?) is not the answer. It’s not even really part of the question.
The other comment was “..never ever create doubt……”. I understand Dawn’s comment was referring to the Sangha. While on the surface perhaps an insignificant thing, for me it may be what goes to the root of the problem. If this sentiment is indicative of the “new” approach it couldn’t be farther from what I believe to be the heart instructions of my root guru CTR. Rather than for us not to have doubt, he encouraged it. My suspicion is that not shying away from the doubt may lead to genuine insight, fearlessness, or some such thing. The discussion, I believe, is not about change or don’t change. It’s not about Shambhala or Buddhism. It’s not about the old and the new. It seems to me to be more about having confidence that the teachings of CTR, of which we all have received one way or the other, are being delivered in an authentic way. There are many students, old and new, that do not currently share that confidence in this leadership. The real challenge perhaps then is to engage in meaningful dialog that doesn’t rely on an “us and them” mentality.
David
I took a degree in Systems Theory in 1985, with a brilliant family and system therapist, who studied as an anthropologist and later took another doctorate in Systems Theory.
Out of his work with Whittaker and other family therapists, study of Gregory Bateson, and his own “field work” with group systems, healthy and unhealthy, he devised his own body of theory about what composed a healthy group, and what were the characteristics of an unhealthy group situation.
Any “system” to remain functionally healthy has to be permeable to “feedback”. Take even your heating system. It is dependendent on a feedback loop from the larger environment that gives it feedback to maintain a certain homeostatis that is ever-changing, but maintaining a certain steadiness.
Applying this to human systems and groups, a healthy group system to function, includes “leaders,” and “followers”, ( both self-explanatory) “opposers” i.e. those who have differing perspectives than the followers and leaders, and voice them, and “bystanders” i.e. those that watch the process of the group, stay a bit uncommitted to “group think” like the opposers, and have a sixth sense when it is getting unhealthy in terms of process, i.e. communication. They also give “oppositional feedback” i.e. feedback that is not the group consensus at the time but more feedback about the group process itself and how it is functioning. All of these players in the system, i.e. leaders, followers, opposers and bystanders must be “empowered” in the group for the group to function in a healthy way. That is, they are respected and are valued as equally important players. The opposers and the bystanders are important because they often provide important informational feedback to the “system” at large that the leader and followers aren’t
seeing. They keep the “checks and balances” of the system so to speak.
This may seem like a simplistic theory, but it never fails, that when “opposers” and “bystanders” in a group are dismissed, or disempowered in the group, the group system overall, gets more and more closed and impenetrable to healthy and necessary feedback. We saw this in the Bush administration, it is seen in cults.
This can get so serious, this lack of permeability, that in a living system, or any organism that depends on feedback to live and survive and prosper, will result in dysfunction, and even eventually death of the system.
It is the lack of “permeability” to opposing healthy criticism, that has hurt the SI mandala, not dissent, not doubts. And it will not be the leader, and “followers” who will see how much trouble the SI organization is actually in. They would see everything as just fine, and be the gatekeepers to dismissing anything but the party line. That would have been the opposers and bystanders job in the group. To provide necessary, albeit uncomfortable “feedback,” in order to provide the checks and balances of the healthy functioning of the mandala. CTR knew this intuitively, because he was who he was. He didn’t need a course in systems theory.
If the Sakyong “followers” were to approach this site as an opportunity for feedback, it might actually help prevent a furthering dysfunction which many of us, who are not in the “follower” role are seeing is about to come.
nice discussion. i’d just like to add one point. when a friend and vajra brother was studying Tibetan, he received a small guru yoga i think to translate as practice. i looked over his shoulder at karme choling to the thin tibetan pages of dense script. curious to see what he was translating, but my own ability to read Tibetan very poor, all I could make out was the chapter heading along the margin. It read “Shambhala”. this short practice, just a few pages long, was about a 100 years old. but it was a Buddhist practice, and a Shambhala practice, from the first Mipham Rinpoche. I think we need to appreciate that the Vidyadhara was not the first person to receive terma about Shambhala and won’t be the last. This for me means that I can make his terma something outside of all that and altogether different if I want to, but that is possibly not consistent with the terma system.
and perhaps folks who just want to study with CTR will have their chance soon, it looks like he’s about old enough again. in the least maybe we can ask him for clarification where there are doubts. could someone collect questions to pass along? seriously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUY_zKAWjEU
Several commenters are saying something similar to what Todd Manley says, or maybe he got it from them: “I think it is ingenuous to suggest Chogyam Trungpa did not want the Scorpioni seal to be a signature aspect of our community or his teachings.” Probably “disingenuous” was meant here. More to the point is that nobody has suggested any such thing. Nobody has said, as Travis May says they have, that they are not into the Shambhala teachings.
What some people are saying is that in the merging of Vajradhatu Buddhism and of the Shambhala Vision of a sacred/secular kingdom/society into a Shambhala Buddhist religion, two things are being left behind or significantly altered:
1) the uncompromising practicing tradition of Kagyu/Nyingma/Vajradhatu, present in both transmission and in specific stages of the path;
2) the very heart of Shambhala Vision, which is that it is fully open to practitioners of any faith.
In such a perception the attempt to combine both-and results in neither-nor: Shambhala Buddhism loses on the Buddhist side, and it loses on the Shambhala side.
On the other hand it is said Shambhala Buddhism creates something new and useful, and that it makes (its) dharma available and more accessible to many, including both people who did experience Vajradhatu Buddhism or CTR’s Shambhala Kingdom, and those who did not have direct experience of either of those.
For these latter it may be natural to see through Shambhala Buddhist eyes when looking at CTR’s presentation of Buddhism and of Shambhala, and to see Shambhala Buddhism as “same as it ever was”.
However, others feel that the Shambhala Buddhist approach, while fine for Buddhists, ultimately only addresses Buddhists (and maybe only Shambhala International Buddhists – there is a worrying isolation from the Kaygu/Nyingma lineage streams), and abandons the original Shambhala mandate, which addresses “people who have doubt, [who are] caught in the sickness of the dark age, [who] have the outlook of the setting sun” – and this isn’t just Buddhists. In this view being able to speak to such people, to speak sanity and brilliance in open space without leaning on Buddhist language or credentials, to find enlightenment inherently in others’ culture, practicing tradition, and being, is the very heart of their and CTR’s Shambhala Vision. Such an outrageous approach no longer finds a home in the halls of Shambhala International. But many continue to feel that this is what the 21st Century urgently needs.
My goodness Christine. Thank you! Your post was eloquent and rang very true. Concerning one of the quotes above: “But, what you shouldn’t do is think that Shambhala should change to fit your feelings”, I think that is one of the issues at stake here. I would argue, like you Christine, that Shambhala, to remain alive, breathing, and vivid, must constantly “host” the opposers and bystanders. Furthermore, it must adapt to the circumstances illuminated by these two very important groups.
“Nobody has said, as Travis May says they have, that they are not into the Shambhala teachings.”
Charles (to whom I was replying):
“From the point of view of spiritual development, in my own experience, I feel that the presentation of Shambhala Buddhism is a distraction. I do not have much connection to it and I have explored its theory and practices to a reasonable degree.”
co·hort (kō’hôrt’) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A group or band of people.
2. A companion or associate.
3. A generational group as defined in demographics, statistics, or market research: “The cohort of people aged 30 to 39 . . . were more conservative” (American Demographics).
Yeah, cohorts.
“A key point in the Dorje Dradul’s Shambhala teaching was establishing enlightened society. One could perhaps say that this was the essence of it. In this context he spoke of Buddhism as a mountain, (the open background of prajna) on which Shambhala flourished as the trees, flowers, animals living on the mountain (the manifesting upayas of Shambhala). He used many different analogies to distinguish these two lineages, and underscore their differences, for example:
‘When one enters the Shambhala world there are certain things one deals with- identification with the Rigden fathers, the Rigden aspects, and a relationship with that. The way one identifies with the Rigdens is by actually becoming a warrior oneself. Not copying, mimicking them, but actually those qualities become the warrior, and the warrior becomes those qualities. The warrior takes on the same qualities as the Rigdens. So there is total identification. There is a parallel in Buddhism- our Buddhist practice is total identification with Buddha, or awakening: Shambhala practice is total identification with the Rigdens, or earthholders. Even in the Buddhist tradition, when Sakyamuni became the Buddha, he was known as the World-renowned one, the ruler of the earth.
So Rigden and Buddha are the secular and spiritual side of awakenment. And the path of the Rigdens and Buddha’s are parallel paths. They go hand in hand, but have their own particular practices, their own particular philosophy, with one thing in common. Do you want to guess what the one thing in common is? Shamatha-vipashyana practice…’
From a public talk published in the “Karma Dzong Community Newsletter” July/August 1978
I probably didn’t need to put all of that in here, but it’s pretty sweet.
There is a good interview with Acharya Levy on The Chronicles where he talks about this “division” if anyone is interested: http://www.chronicleproject.com/chroniclesradio_dispatches/index_dispatches.html
From what I can see, Mark, from our own little center is that Shambhala is still open for everyone of any faith. You are still able to, and will continue to be able to, attend Shambhala Training, and Dharma arts programs, open sittings, etc. regardless of what you call yourself. There are people who come to our book study programs, our open houses every week, etc., and then leave before we do the chants, or quietly disappear when we are going to do the Sadhana of Mahamudra. No one looks down on these people, or thinks anything of it. There were many people at dathun last summer who weren’t Buddhists, some that had neither taken any Shambhala Training nor become Buddhists.
As far as the other point, it also seems that you are able to do the same Kagyu/Nyingma/Vajradhatu path, or one similar to it. There is still the Kagyu ngondro, Vajrayogini practice, Chakrasamvara, Six Dharma of Naropa, etc., isn’t there? You may have to do a lot to get there, but I thought the idea was that when Trungpa Rinpoche first came to the West and taught strictly vajrayana that he realized that nothing was really happening, it wasn’t working. So, he laid out this path of tilling the soil, setting the foundation, by requiring a dathun, pre-seminary practices, etc., before even becoming a vajrayana practitioner. As he had, and every other great master before him, thoroughly trained in the hinayana and mahayana, etc., this was the path that he thought most benefit his students in the long run. And how could the Shambhala terma teachings do anything but that? To me it makes much more sense, than at this Drikung Kagyu place down here where next weekend anyone one can walk off the street and get a Chakrasamvara empowerment. But, I don’t know when this started exactly, so maybe this is something that the Sakyong initiated and not CTR? Is this one of these new direction things?
It still seems that people are complaining that the path isn’t unfolding the way THEY want it to, and THAT is the actual problem.
perhaps i’m missing the point. which is fairly routine for me. but what is with the extensive explanations and comparisons of the dharma, shambhala or buddhist? is this particular discussion about understanding this “division” and all the painful aspects of that? or is it a logic debate? i think it’s important to hear what people think about this difficult situation and what we could all possibly do about it. reading an individual’s idiosyncratic understanding of dharma is not why i’m here. there are some great books on that subject. no worries, all of our “understandings” are painfully obvious in the comments we write.
David
Travis, Charles finds Shambhala Buddhism a distraction. He is, however, as am I, very much into Shambhala vision, teachings, practice.
Shambhala Buddhism ≠ Shambhala
I think I could even say, in my case at least, that because I am into Shambhala, I am not into Shambhala Buddhism, because Shambhala Buddhism constrains Shambhala to Buddhism.
To do the more “advanced” Shambhala practices, such as Werma, you now need to have done Buddhist refuge, bodhisattva, and Vajrayana samaya vows with the Sakyong. When Chögyam Trungpa was asked what it means to take refuge vows, he replied that when the hospital asks you what religion you are, you say “Buddhist”. It’s right there on the shambhala.org web site and other publications: the version of Shambhala taught in Shambhala Buddhism does ultimately require you to be a Buddhist.
There is a refuge that is part of the Werma practice, but it is not refuge in Buddha (just as other traditions have their own taking-refuge practices/rituals).
Shambhala (à la CTR) and buddhadharma have shamatha-vipashyana in common, of course – but s/v is not unique to Buddhism, or to Shambhala, or to the East.
CTR’s presentation of Shambhala is not reliant on the Kalachakra Tantra, and speaks to something that predates (both temporally and ontologically) Buddhism: “It is not particularly borrowed from buddhism, but it is simply self-existent in the Shambhala style.” (CTR, from Comments on the Werma Sadhana)
Re Mitchell Levy’s podcast: he makes it very clear that in his view a subject of Shambhala who wants to participate in the government or the military must be a Buddhist. A non-Buddhist cannot be a first-class citizen of Shambhala society. That’s not really my vision of Shambhala for this world.
The Sakyong has I believe made a statement that Vajrayana Buddhism is at the center. What center means might vary – does that mean military and government roles for example – but the Mandala council meetings I’ve been to never required that I have taken any vows or samaya. He also said that while there may be a center nothing has to be excluded. Just that something has to be the center of a diverse mandala. My question: if there was no center would that be a problem?
Maybe this open question is also something to do with parity. That there could be two centers? or a different center?
I do get the sense that the Sakyong views the vow section of the Werma Sadhana to be refuge and bodhisattva vows; maybe samaya too. I think I’ve also heard the Rigden referred to as the Rigden Buddha, though. That might be at the very center of a question of view, if a Rigden is not a Buddha then what is a Rigden? If we take refuge in the Rigden that is not a Buddha, do we take refuge in something secular and external? (sorry, Mr. Frevola, I’m getting into a dharma detail, but what’s in the center seems a key even if unanswerable point.)
I’d like to thank Christine Chandler for her comments on Systems Theory, and reinforce the message. One of my own teachers on living systems theory, Joanna Macy, a Buddhist, put it quite bluntly: any system that consistently blocks feedback is suicidal. That applies equally to individuals, families, institutions, and societies. Healthy living systems are open and permeable, which enables them to remain resilient and to grow. Closing down to feedback fosters unhealthy insularity and stagnation. Something to think about. . . .
Just to add a little bit of the kind of personal reflection that Dave – rightly – counseled against, I would hazard that no synopsis of Shambhala is complete without an acknowledgement of the fairly significant roles that both Confucianism and Taoism, each in their own way, play in the formation of this culture, both historically, and practically. The “Shambhala Edict of Wholesome Human Conduct” is a marvelous example of Confucian emphasis on the perfectibility of an individual through her relationship to a decent human society. The concepts of “Virtue”, if “Li” and of Heaven, Earth and Man are, rooted in Confucian thought. Likewise, I have always thought of “First Thought Best Thought” and the dignity of Outrageous to be in particular harmony with the teachings of Chuang Tzu. Both streams, whether individual or societal, feed into the vision of Great East: i.e. the incorruptable confidence in the path of awakening.
I am not saying that the words “Confucianism” or “Taoism” ever need to arise in our parlance, but rather I am sharing a personal understanding, like Mark, of Shambhala as more than just Buddhism: as an ancient body of secular spiritual teachings arising from myriad profound traditions.
Mark,
Thanks for your reply. I have a much better understanding of what is going on now after reading this and some of the other posts. I also didn’t realize what this site was all about, having followed a link from sangha-announce. It did all seem familiar though and then I remembered I had been here once before for the Financial Labryinth piece (also from a link from sangha-announce).
There does seem to be some good reasons for keeping the paths separate. You’ve made some good points. Good luck with it all.
One thing though is that one reason they were seemingly kept so separate in the beginning is because CTR was trying to reach a broader audience, that would be scared off by Buddhism. The scared off by Buddhism group is shrinking by the minute, as Buddhism further plants it’s foothold in the West. I think that is part of the reason the divide is going away. Another thing is that if Shambhala is American Dzogchen, a terma from Padmasambhava through Gesar of Ling, then… Thirdly, the people who actually would do the Werma Sadhana, who aren’t the ones scared off by the Shambhala shrine, banners, chants, etc., are practically all the people who are also Buddhists. The uber secularists with the Post Traumatic Catholic Disorder, and what not, are not going to get to, or want to do, the Werma Sadhana anyway, I don’t think. It’s funny at our center when the MI’s talk at an open house about the secular aspect, or that anyone from any faith can do it, etc., but every member of the council, all of the MI’s, and just the ‘regulars’ at open house and nyinthuns are 99% Buddhist. ‘What makes you not a Buddhist’ anyway? And like I was saying before, you can still go all the way through Warrior’s Assembly, attend all the dharma arts programs, dathun, maitri, etc., etc., Shambhala programs without becoming a Buddhist.
I’m glad that it is Shambhala Buddhism now. When Acharya Spiegel was talking about the new curriculum, I asked him if that meant we could stop being afraid to use Buddhist language at open houses, etc., and he said, “yes, we are Shambhala Buddhists. I am looking forward to using all of the Vidyadhara’s teachings, Buddhist and Shambhala to wake me up and to benefit all sentient beings.
Hmm, I guess I could have stopped at good luck with it all.
Long live Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche,
Travis
Thanks Travis. I’ve noticed some kind of shift in people entering the centers in the last few years. Not sure if it is mandala wide, but as an anecdote our last ST Level 1 last weekend had 32 people and not a single person was new to meditation. We didn’t take a comprehensive study but many described sitting for some time in other traditions, mostly zen and theravada. I wouldn’t say meditation practice is mainstream but the folks entering, even in the short time I’ve been involved with Shambhala, seem to be shifting in some way towards older and with more background. This might relate to just how many different groups and meditation offerings there are now in urban areas. Or maybe as our age demographic ages that is what feels comfortable entering. But we do have multiple zen, tibetan, and theravada groups all within blocks of our center. I wouldn’t be surprised if people are just getting exposed to more before they enter a practice seriously now than twenty years ago, on average.
Mark S, we have always had to take refuge, complete a dathun (in the old days that meant all at once, not broken into weeks), go to seminary, take bodhisattva vows, complete 11 Shambhala Levels before being admitted to Kalapa Assembly, with very few exceptions. The only difference now is that there is now a ngondro for Shambhala practitioners, so you can do it in place of Kagyu ngondro if you wish. I really like that ngondro, as well as the Kagyu ngondro, and I’m an old timer of 36 years.
VCTR also gave refuge vows at seminary to those who had not yet taken them, so that they could complete transmission and go on. It isn’t only putting a religion on a form. It is a heartfelt surrender, taking refuge, and not to a teacher or dogma, but to a state of being.
Fionna
There were reqirements to do the Shambhala levels, and yes, to usually do Dathuns, attend a seminary, and other things that were Buddhist related, but these were still the days when the whole idea of a Shambhala enlightened society was still getting off the ground. I others also very much recalled as well that the Vidyadhara did want to eventually (and perhaps did) blend in people from other disciplines and traditions to attend Kalapa Assembly without having to become Buddhist. To say otherwise would be re writing history. . I’m sure other people can testify to that. This clearly seemed to be his intention.
Also, can one be a Zen student or a Tharivaden Buddhist student and still be a Shambhala Buddhist without taking vows with the Sakying as their Buddhist Guru? As far as I know, no. This somewhat limits the opportunities for people to Be full fledged Shambalians unless they want to be not only Buddhist, but make a serious commitment to have the Sakyong as their root guru.
I suppose in a perfect world, we would all be Buddhist, but that will not happen. I would also like to add, it has been said there are many Bodhisattvas in this world that are not Buddhist. Wouldn’t it be ironic if a Bodhisattva who happened to be not Buddhist be turned away from Shambhala, or not allowed to be a “first class citizen” of Shambhala?
I think the Vidyadhara had a vaster vision then that.
I think.
Rob
well this brings up the distinction of what does it mean to be “in” shambhala then. do we mean doing the werma sadhana? or do we mean being part of the society? in other words, does it mean having access to specific practices or does it mean something else? one definitely needs samaya for certain practices, but is that a requirement for being “in” the society? i’m not clear on where we’re drawing lines here. (and i’m not asking anyone that in particular, just generally curious where people think the distinctions are for them.)
I am really enjoying the discussions on this website – everyone is brilliant in giving their exposition of the teachings.
Recently found a paragraph in True Perception where Trungpa stated that by peoples complaints about the teachings both his and their understanding of the teachings were increased…….so I would say ‘complain on’ its healthy to do so.
Aka the centres turning totally Buddhist re people in the world getting to know Buddhism more and being more into the religion that I am not so sure about …in the UK I think you could call this country a country of two faiths now Christianity and Islam in the sense of people actually practicing their religion…………..in fact if you just look plainly at the world these are the two main religions……..so we do have a theistic basis for most of the worlds institutions……..I thought the challenge of Shambhala was to integrate people around the world into having meditation as a basis for an enlightened society………and I dont believe in an enlightened society you can have separate practices for some and not for others…….everything has to be open for everyone…………Trungpa taught alot about melding meditation into all the worlds institutions ……..why the visits to Washington with the Karmapa 16 otherwise………..its like Communism to a certain extent……….Trotsky was for world revolution ……Stalin for a macabre communism in Russia only……….we are entering a globalised era……………could a world government with more bite exist……….in poems you see Trungpa taking interest in the UN and he did say that U Thant was an excellent leader of that body………….I know this sounds a bit strange-lovey but there are echoes of such thinking in Trungpa’s teachings……………would love to hear more debates on enlightened society persay.
best for the new year
Rita Ashworth
Stockport Uk
“There were reqirements to do the Shambhala levels, and yes, to usually do Dathuns, attend a seminary, and other things that were Buddhist related, but these were still the days when the whole idea of a Shambhala enlightened society was still getting off the ground. I others also very much recalled as well that the Vidyadhara did want to eventually (and perhaps did) blend in people from other disciplines and traditions to attend Kalapa Assembly without having to become Buddhist. To say otherwise would be re writing history. . I’m sure other people can testify to that. This clearly seemed to be his intention.”
Ahhhhh, so now we’re working with the “intentions” of the Vidyadhara. Well that is a lot to bite off! God forbid we’d change some of the structures to fulfill those “intentions,” no?
Anyway, I was buying the termas online yesterday and ran across this. Thought of some of you. When I have the money I’m going to pick this up:
http://www.shambhalashop.com/pubsonline/asp/product.asp?product=709&cat=141&ph=&keywords=&recor=&SearchFor=&PT_ID=
Ashoka, Fulfilling the Aspirations of the Vidyadhara the Venerable Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, as described in that chant by Thrangu Rinpoche, is exactly my practice: identifying my intentions with his.
My understanding of devotion is that it is not so much looking at the guru, as from: in a sense that is the “principle witness”. This says it all:
Re the Shambhala Buddhism sourcebook that you refer to, I’ve been studying that, and the field of teachings it’s extracted from, for years.
Hi Davee,
What it means to be “in” Shambhala is clearly defined
in the membership requirements posted on the
Shambhala website. It includes time in terms of service and membership fees. I wonder what others feel about this kind of definition and how it relates to the topic here?
Mark, how exactly do you go about deciding what his aspirations are? And how would you prove that other ideas on those aspirations are false?
John, I think that is something that comes up for me in these discussions, specifically which Shambhala we’re referring to. We conflate the potential meanings. Do we mean the organization, the vision, the practices, the community, or something else maybe? It’s one thing to say that Christians can no longer receive the Werma Sadhana (without special permission) and yet that doesn’t say that Christians are unwelcome within the larger sense of Shambhala. Or that we wouldn’t already consider some Christian people to be warriors and bodhisattvas in every sense that we have of those ideas. Then it seems another thing to discuss if the center of Shambhala is a particular thing. Is it the SI organization? Could the community of Shambhala be larger than the center, and is there a need for a center/middle at all, and if there might be a center would that be Buddhist. The Sakyong has stated in recent past that the center is Vajrayana Buddhist, but that Shambhala is much larger than that. He seems to be stating things in terms of center and not-center. Do folks here wish that the center was different and if so what would it be.
One thing I will add that only partly applies to this discussion of Shambhala society, etc., is that Acharya Spiegel recently said that with the new curriculum the Sakyong is placing the Shambhala terma as the centerpiece of our path. So, that may only relate to the practice aspect within our community, and not the community as a whole, but it seems to be an update, in some sense, from what others have been saying. Even though I haven’t seen it yet, it’s starting to seem that at the level of the Werma Sadhana, Shambhala practice is inseparable from Vajrayana Buddhism anyway, so perhaps it is a moot point. I mean, if you’re using a sadhana, as a skillful means, reciting a text and doing a visualization, in order to wake up and experience your true nature, isn’t that was Vajrayana Buddhism is?
RE “how do you go about deciding what his aspirations are?”, that’s a good question, and perhaps worth an article in itself. I don’t know if “deciding what his aspirations are” is how I see it: it’s more a matter of identification, and coming from the same place.
One inspiration I’ve had over the last few years is Prahevajra’s (Garab Dorje’s) instructions to Manjushrimitra (from Wellsprings of the Great Perfection, p 285):
Reggie Ray wrote an article a few years ago that I think was helpful, on The Three Lineages, where he talks about the primordial lineage, the transmission lineage, and the organizational lineage. The primordial lineage is the “direct experience of the awakened state”, which I and many others had through Trungpa Rinpoche (as well as thru other teachers and students – yup, the sangha doesn’t totally suck!). The transmission lineage is how that was and is communicated to me, in particular ways: individual, group, public. In a way these first two cannot be touched by anyone else: their living presence in yourself or someone else can only be evaluated by your own direct experience. The organizational lineage facilitates the first two, and its vitality is based on the presence of the first two. A lot of the discussions here really have to do with organizational lineage. Ie, we can all be mutually noble and respectful of each other, but there may be specific rubs and frictions that occur thru the organizational lineage’s control of texts, artifacts, and imprimaturs on transmissions.
If you don’t pay attention to the organizational lineage, you can kind of continue with your own practice, activities, and relating to to others, especially students and peers/sangha. That’s a kind of loose, non-institutionalized situation as was found for about 300 years with the Nyingmas after King Langdarma cracked down on them. However, given the kind of emphasis CTR placed on precise forms, including organizational ones, it makes me wonder about such an option.
Returning to your question, I’m afraid I return to Garab Dorje’s instruction: “Learn to perfection the teachings of my pith instructions”.
Cheers!
Yeah but it wasn’t really an answer though. Or perhaps I just didn’t really understand. The idea here is that you are trying to fulfill the aspirations of your teacher, aspirations which are being more or less dismissed by his heir. That’s sort of the “skinny,” right. But he thinks he is fulfilling the aspirations of the Vidyadhara, as do people like Mitchell Levy, who you suggest doesn’t really “get” Shambhala vision. I mean you can’t talk about the aspirations of the Vidyadhara without explaining just how you got to the point where you decided you understand what the Sakyong and his Acharyas are misunderstanding. As imperfect as they may be I hope we at least have the common ground to acknowledge that everyone involved is trying to do right by Trungpa Rinpoche.
And this idea that Reggie put out there with there being a separation between the transmission lineage and the “organizational” lineage never really resonated for me personally. What you call “the organization” is essentially the structure and forms that were created by the Vidyadhara, arguably as part of the terma process. He set up the government (and as much as I agree that it is important for there to be open dissent and communication, the Vidyadhara was not exactly Thomas Paine when it came to democratic principles), created a military, and made the Sakyong his heir. He encouraged people to move to Halifax and wrote memoirs about how the structure of the Shambhala mandala would see its fruition as a functional society. The technical details about how that would happen or a conversation on the merits of that kind of vision are separate from the question of whether the Vidyadhara intended “the organization” to continue functioning after his death; obviously he did, and I would argue close to exactly how it presently appears. I think what I’m saying is, we can debate whether organized religious communities have value or whether monarchical rulership is something we want to take part in, but it’s a little harder to argue that the Vidyadhara didn’t see merit in both and, in fact, leave exactly that behind for us.
I would like to invite non-Buddhists to take Shambhala training. I think Shambhala training can be utterly amazing.
I’m upset that the Level directors say that they’re being encouraged by the current Sakyong to use more and more Buddhist language when doing these levels. When I saw that, I decided I wouldn’t invite anyone I know to the Levels, which was really disappointing.
Ashoka, you make some good points, but I wonder if your arguments are pointing in the right direction? There are people who are reinterpreting the Vidyhadhara’s intentions, and causing a lot of discomfort in the process. But the main people doing it aren’t the ones posting on this website; the ones posting on this website are the ones feeling the discomfort, and starting a dialog about it. Just my 2c.
Hi Edward, I haven’t heard any encouragement explicitly to mix the vernacular, but it does feel like more mixing is occurring. Perhaps that is a natural side effect of the recent direction. But I’ve also heard Acharya Ferguson be more distinct, with the view that the terma has a particular way of saying things and it’s important not to muddle the language – or that it’s important that we be mindful of the language used in the terma and how things are said in that particular lineage and honor it. Maybe that’s changed some since he offered that view. But for me personally, it does feel like before I was bilingual and constantly catching myself using the wrong word in the wrong context – where the concepts were clearly mapping between the two ways of saying things. Now it feels like I don’t have to be as careful using the specific language, but perhaps that is not a good thing to get sloppy about or muddle. And yet I am seeing that happen.
Regarding the comments by Travis May on being “Shambhala Buddhists”…
I think it’s great that people take pride in their practice, in their tradition, and in being Buddhists. But we have to be a bit careful.
It might be a relief to be able to use Buddhist language openly at Shambhala intro events. People who aren’t comfortable with that can go somewhere else, maybe.
It might also be a relief to get rid of some of the weird people at the center that we don’t like. Maybe they can go somewhere else too. If they really understood the dharma, they wouldn’t be so weird.
Pretty soon we might end up with just us and our cocoon. That might be the biggest relief of all, the most relaxing situation. We wouldn’t have to watch what we say, we could act however we liked.
Just speaking personally, I’ve learned so much from people of real maturity or experience who were from a completely different tradition than me. Often it was uncomfortable for me to see this, to see people OUTSIDE my tradition teach me something. I felt if they were really on the right track, they would be part of my tradition, so what could they possibly have to teach me? My limited ideas about this were disproved over and over, which was very humbling and even painful.
That’s what I love so much about VCTR’s Shambhala teachings.
“Ashoka, you make some good points, but I wonder if your arguments are pointing in the right direction? There are people who are reinterpreting the Vidyhadhara’s intentions, and causing a lot of discomfort in the process. But the main people doing it aren’t the ones posting on this website; the ones posting on this website are the ones feeling the discomfort, and starting a dialog about it. Just my 2c.”
Edward. Honestly man you dropped in on this like two years ago. And I’m not saying that invalidates anything you have to say, but I’m not sure you are really in a position to begin pointing fingers at who is or isn’t re-interpreting the Vidyadhara’s legacy. I mean you aren’t a tantrika nor have you done Kalapa Assembly so really there are whole tracts of texts that you haven’t even read yet, man. And you are in a discussion with one of his sons and a lot of his very senior students. So there’s that perspective.
I am also saying that his family and many of his most senior students feel that what’s happening right now with the Shambhala path not only “wouldn’t upset him,” but actually feel that this is what he was working towards with the limited time and, initially, very uneducated and preconception-having student body he was working with at first. I think within the pool of people who have a strong connection to the Vidyadhara there are a range of feelings about things like center development, re-connecting with the Tibetan communities, and yes, even the shift in ngondro requirements and practices that people have, but there are a great many people who have chosen to remain in the mandala and work with the new students because they feel that overall, the Vidyadhara’s legacy is being well cared for. My question remains, what would you say to them Mark? “You are wrong?” Because, and I”ve made this point a few times here, this website isn’t one of moving on, it’s intended to attack. My first post was pointing out how the very name of the site itself sends a signal that I think, deep down, you probably DO want to send. Shots across the bow or something. And I don’t understand that. I am curious as to whether you’re willing to say out loud that you think the Sakyong is just out for his own fame, or perhaps that he thinks the Vidyadhara was a fool or something… I mean do you acknowledge that he believes strongly that he is fulfilling his father’s legacy, and then at this point…and I’m sorry if this comes across as arrogant, but who are you to argue with him? The Vidyadhara trained and spent far more time with him than with you, and he was subsequently trained by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, perhaps one of the few remaining vajra masters in the West. I mean perhaps if the Sakyong is turning out to be such a Samaya corrupter…hahahaha, what hope do the rest of us have???
Understand I’m not saying “Shambhala is the only salvation jooooooin ussssssss” because that is what cults and freaked out religious materialists do. But this is more than you saying, “yep not for me.” You are actively saying that the Sakyong doesn’t understand his father’s teachings and doesn’t care about his legacy! That’s a serious allegation, so I’m trying to figure out what the soapbox is made out of.
I’m not trying to stifle your view here, just wondering how it can be so self-sure and rigid, and what your feelings on the intentions and beliefs of the Acharyas and the Sakyong are. Would you share? I’m obviously personally invested in this, I was raised by the Vidyadhara until his death and consider him to be, without question, the most important figure in my life. In some way or another my whole life will be oriented around his teachings and probably his community, so I am paying attention to all this as well. You might ask, well what the hell do you know at 27 years old, not having even finished your ngondro? You’d be right to ask that question, but I’m throwing it right back onto you also. You think your Guru would be down with you deciding you are the one to interpret his vision over the person he calls “The Ashe Prince” in his will?
I appreciate the comments here. I tend to agree w/ Ashoka, but it is clear that everyone here has a strong karmic connection with the Shambhala lineage. In a lot of the comments there is a mix of fixation on a particular opinion and a softness — and I interpret that (at least the softness — and sometimes the willingness to just say something and be out there) as a sign of practice. The fixation is another thing — but that is nothing new.
I do know that VCTR is completely accessible now in SMR’s Shambhala Buddhist community if you practice with the right view. The right view is (i) not accepting SMR’s actions with blind devotion, and (ii) not rejecting SMR’s actions as being inconsistent with Shambhala vision.
Ultimately, particularly with vajrayana practice, there is a need to cultivate genuine devotion. Maybe for some people posting here it is not possible for them to do that with their opinions of SMR. However, I do know with certainty that — if you have resentment or difficult emotions with SMR — it can be a great practice opportunity. For example, if you really have a knot in your stomach when you think of SMR you could try putting a photo of SMR on your puja table and look at it with a softness (fabricated or not — it doesn’t matter) everytime that you do the lineage supplication and see how your mind reacts to that.
I am not saying that you can’t experience Shambhala outside of the Shambhala Buddhist community. That would be stupid. Shambhala is much more than that. So if people can find a practice path with other teachers, that is wonderful. However, if you are experiencing all of these great kleshas with SMR — it seems a shame to go somewhere else and look for a teacher who makes you feel better.
Ashoka, or ‘whitey tulku’ as you’re known on the Dharma Brats’ site, I can’t help feeling that you have taken on a role in your family that you may not be fully conscious of yet, a role that may have nothing to do with what you are here, as a tulku, to do in this lifetime. I can’t help feeling that defending the Mukpo Clan, your immediate family, and ‘keeping the family together’ – including loyalty to Osel Mukpo/SMR – is a motivation in the stances you take. It seems that your mother and (real) father, Mitchell, have regarded keeping the family together as more important than keeping the sangha together since the Vidyadhara’s death, in spite of his stated wish (command?) to keep the sangha together in his will. How else to explain their support for SMR every step of the way, as he dismantled and got rid of one vestige of Trungpa Rinpoche after the other.
Excuse me, but to say that you were ‘raised by the Vidyadhara until his death’ seems disingenuous, or perhaps mythological, considering that you were – what, 4 or 5? – when he left Boulder in 1986, and also considering that he was not exactly the nurturing parent type. He was a fabulously nurturing guru, in my experience, but raising children was not his forte. That was Diana’s forte.
In any case, it seems you have opened a door on this site for mud slinging, as ‘sangre de christo’ took prompt advantage of – lowering the standard of dignified discourse on this site considerably. Can we now expect more juvenile attack dogs to come crowding in, throwing their weight around among seasoned practitioners who are old enough to be their parents, and then some?
I for one am not intimidated. First of all, what you said to Edward is blatant ‘rankism’ – pulling rank on someone who is expressing his own intuition. You’re putting him down and, it seems, trying to shut him up. Is that what you regard as dignified Shambhala behavior? You didn’t learn that from the Vidyadhara!
You say, “I am also saying that his family and many of his most senior students feel that what’s happening right now with the Shambhala path not only “wouldn’t upset him,” but actually feel that this is what he was working towards with the limited time and, initially, very uneducated and preconception-having student body he was working with at first.”
There are two assumptions here I would like to challenge: (1) many of his most senior students, and (2) very uneducated and preconception-having student body he was working with at first.
1) I’d like to know exactly how many ‘most senior students’ have remained active within the Shambhala International mandala. Can you tell me? I ask because I am aware of a great many people who actually were senior students trained by the Vidyadhara who are no longer within the mandala – who have left. I also know that a number of the current acharyas were not senior students or senior teachers during the Vidyadhara’s lifetime. So I’m really curious about who these ‘most senior students’ are, and how many there are so I can compare the number to how many there were.
2) As for the ‘very uneducated and preconception-having student body,’ I wonder where that assumption came from. You can’t be speaking from your own experience, since you weren’t born until there were already hundreds of sadhakas. I certainly never considered myself very uneducated or preconception-laden. I soaked up the dharma like a sponge and Trungpa Rinpoche put me in just the right place to do that. Moreover, I challenge you to prove that current incoming students are more educated and have less preconceptions than we did.
You say that this website is ‘intended for attack’ – ‘shots across the bow or something. And I don’t understand that.’
I think you are missing an important point, Ashoka. The Vidyadhara’s sangha was coherent. Many of us felt the sangha to be our family, our real family. I personally felt I’d known many vajra brothers and sisters for lifetimes. Trungpa Rinpoche trusted us and we trusted each other. At the Four Karmas Fire Puja at RMDC in 1986 with the Vidyadhara, he told us we were the ‘cream of the crop’ and that we were all Mukpos. With his death, it all fell apart. You know that history.
Those of us who are devoted to Trungpa Rinpoche, but have been shocked and alienated by the changes that Sakyong Mipham has instituted – because ‘he can do whatever he wants,’ so I’ve been told – find comfort in talking to each other, sharing views, trying to make sense of our predicament. We’re getting old. Older students are dying off. Some are younger than I am. We commiserate and wonder what to do because we are scattered and without a sangha home. This is my own view of what this site is about. Others may see it differently.
My point is, many of the defenders of SMR and SI who show up on this site have no idea what we’ve been through, and especially the heartache of the ronin – the warrior without a master or a sangha. Some of what they say is uncomprehending, defensive noise, with little to no attempt to comprehend. What is the motivation for interfering with our conversation?
You say, ‘who are you to argue with his heir, who he trained and spent far more time with than with you.’ Well, I’m sorry, but the latter part of that sentence is debatable. And if one’s deep conscience says, ‘No, I can’t go along with that,’ what is the greater violation: to go against one’s own conscience, or to refuse to go along with the guru’s heir? If one’s samaya is with Trungpa Rinpoche, and one’s conscience rebels against being herded into a situation that does not feel right, then it’s time to say no to the authoritarian, hierarchical argument. This is what I got from Trungpa Rinpoche. No pretense, no deception, no self-deception. One’s identification with the root guru is the “principle witness” as Mark said.
You said, ‘I’m not trying to stifle your view here, just wondering how it can be so self-sure and rigid.’ Look in the mirror, Ashoka.
Suzanne, did some of the incoherence of the sangha you experience start with the regent? I haven’t heard him mentioned on this site yet. In talking to folks it sounds like the 90′s were a very difficult time, few people entered the community then. Someone once told me she thought Pema served as a kind of regent for awhile, that there was a lack of coherence when the regent died. Did that period, before the Sakyong started to take a seat, have an experience of divisiveness and discord for you?
Suzanne, thank you for that. That put a real smile on my face. Genuine, real shit. I do want to take a moment before trying to respond to some of the points that you raised there, and communicate how it makes me feel (which is complicated), but for now I just hope you know I am not here to ‘mudsling.’ That’s not my intention, nor do I represent anybody’s agenda but my own, whatever that might be at the moment I decide to start “talking.” I’m sorry if you feel like I’m disturbing your dialogue, but I thought the point of the site was to bring these kinds of thing out, no? Perhaps it’s the tone I’m using; if I’m being too aggressive or confrontational I apologize. I respect that everyone has their wisdom, and you are right, I was six when he died. But I remember him too.
But really, I’m not sure why you felt the need to turn me into the focal point of the conversation based on what you read on a website where kids who went to sun camps together can post youtube videos and crack jokes (i really do not understand people lurking there, it is strange to me), though. That seems a little unfair. Could you perhaps give me the credit to understand that my views are based on more than familial propriety, okay? I have a lot of friends and loved ones in the Shambhala community as well, people that I believe I have deep karma with and experiences I have shared with them in that mandala that have shaped me into the person I am for better and for worse. I am here because it causes me pain that the sangha has this split. I am not the perfect student nor the smartest, but I do not believe the Vidyadhara would be very happy with the bad blood, whoever is “right.” But it is not fair for you to take what very limited knowledge you may have of me from a message board you really have no more business on than I do here (perhaps less, considering i at least have introduced myself here), and use that as a foundation to relate to me. I mean you might as well just ask me to leave if you feel you need to push me into this corner. Big picture: I’m one of a relatively very small group of people who has devotion to the Vidyadhara, talking with you about this. Wouldn’t you welcome that? I mean most other buddhists think we’re all crazy, the lot of us…
More later, I do want to respond to the rest of what you said. Thank you for posting it, again. That kind of directness is always appropriate.
I think there is a difference between the concept of an entity “splitting” and a phenomena that looks like an extended network maturing and becoming if not more self-aware at least more communicative….
The SI entity is mutating as of course it would – being part human and part construct designed to deal with fiscal and political/legal realities. Oh, and also being the long-form improvisation cobbled together by devoted students trying to manifest their guru’s wisdom. So when there is a new guru, guess what? It’s still a long-form improvisation cobbled together by devoted students trying to manifest their guru’s wisdom.
Just a different guru.
PS I think Davee is smart to ask about the Regent and the problems around his action and result. That is when I left and I know I wasn’t the only one.
Re: “lack of coherence when the regent died”
E Ma Ho
A discursive thought
I don’t think there was a lack of coherence when the Regent died. I think there was a colossal, crystal clear reversion to panic and habitual thinking. There was an incredible run for cover!
Look, I think that there were a million and one other ways that the Board of Directors could have responded to the Regent. But from what I saw there was just a colossal freak out. I think other senior buddhist lineage holders were available and tried to help (Kalu Rinpoche, H.E. Jamgon Kongtrol, Dilgo Khyentse, etc).
But is there any real merit to re-hashing it?
I think the karma of that moment is still very living for Shambhala International.
Dear Suzanne:
Thank you . I have to pinch myself reading your directness and refusal to be intimidated by the particular rankism, familial survival at all costs, regardless of the price, that most of us have been all too famiiar with, and are sick to death of, but few will confront. Wow, I didn’t think it was possible.
I so appreciate this site and the bravery it takes to have started it, and the continued refusal to be intimidated by the fears of others regarding its existence. I am sure that the Vidhayadhara would give his blessings, unequivocally.
There must be something very powerful going on in Halifax amongst Trunpa Rinpoche’s most senior students. Something that has never happened anywhere I have been, in the last 17 years.Certainly not in Vermont which has a more “heads in the sand” quality, and “go along , to get along nature”, and not one other person protested about the gross and obviously insane changes there at KCL, and certainly not in Boulder, where the river of materialism and new ageism seems to have “burst its banks.”
Must be the raw and rugged lineage of crazy Celt energy up there. And why CTR loved the maritimes. Soft heart and hard back.
To Ashoka,
I am not relating to you based only on a couple of visits to the Dharma Brats site to see what Gesar was saying (linked from this site), where I happened to see a couple of comments by you. So you can disabuse yourself of the notion that I turned you into the focal point based on what I read on Dharma Brats. I was responding to what you said here. And yes, your tone called for a direct response.
What I said about the role you seem to be taking vis-a-vis your family is based on things you said in your posts here, things I’ve heard through the old-dog grapevine, things Mitchell said on the Chronicles site, things Diana said in her book, things I observed during the 10 years I worked for Vajradhatu, and my experiences within the sangha and with the Vidyadhara. Like most people in the old days, I wore many hats gladly, did whatever was needed or requested: serving, household management, administration, writing, teaching. That was how Rinpoche trained us. It was intimate. So I saw stuff. It was my family. I was one of the people who was assigned to watch for corruption. That has stayed with me.
I understand that it causes you pain that the sangha has split. It causes us all pain. I think we can all agree that it would cause the Vidyadhara pain. But to blame the split on those of us older practitioners who have not been able to go along with what SMR has done? There’s something fishy about that. I keep hearing Rinpoche say that’s ‘the wrong end of the stick.’ We, or at least I, feel we were forced out. Many of the changes appeared brutal to me, with no consideration that I could perceive for the feelings of the Vidyadhara’s students. The changes were done with a ‘take it or leave’ attitude. ‘If you don’t like it, too bad.’ ‘SMR can do what he wants.’
Yes, some of the Vidyadhara’s students left during the Regent scandal. I wasn’t one of them. That as a painful episode but I stuck around until SMR required MIs to change the meditation instructions. That was the beginning of my disaffection. Then it got worse. The message was ‘my way or the highway.’ I took the highway. The lack of consideration for what those changes meant in the lives of people who were devoted to the Vidyadhara was the main message. From any dharmic point of view, it seems to me, that was unskillful and uncompassionate action. There was not only no effort to accommodate those of us who couldn’t go along with the changes, but then we were insulted for not going along by SMR students. And that continues.
I was one of the VCTR loyalists who was soaked in his teachings on lineage and devotion, which was the body of teachings the Vidyadhara first presented in North America. That was the ground of everything he subsequently did. The sense of the continuity of lineage and devotion, going back to Tilopa and Padmasambhava, was the basis for the coherence of the sangha. That continuity has been eroded, to put it mildly. The atmosphere changed in a palpable way. It is the change in the atmosphere of the sangha, as much as anything else, that has alienated some of us. Something vital has ben lost that was once at the center of our lives. That’s why we are aggrieved.
To add insult to injury, we are being blamed for causing the division in the sangha. I respectfully beg to differ.
And speaking of ‘being pushed into a corner,’ Ashoka, who is pushing whom into a corner? Not only have some of us felt pushed into a corner and pushed out the door, but now that we are talking amongst ourselves on this site, we are being harassed and accused. You used the word ‘attack’ – insinuating that the intention of this site is to attack. Do those who contribute to this site break into your online conversations on other sites, hurling accusations and blame? I seriously doubt it. We are far too busy. At least I am.
Well, Ashoka, one of the advantages of having moved to the edge of the mandala (or beyond) is that I have nothing to lose in being direct and forthright with a tulku. I keep my samaya and the spirit of my warrior-king-guru close to my heart. I appreciate the opportunity to express myself to you, thanks to this site and thanks to you for asking. Maybe my point of view will be of some benefit. I hope so.
Bowing,
Suzanne
Christine, thank you. I always appreciate your posts. Are you in Vermont? (Yes, I have been appalled by what has happened to KCl, since I lived there three years in the early 80s. Those were truly golden years.) I’m not in Halifax. I’m in the Netherlands and not affliiiated with the Shambhala Center. I accepted the role of the ronin years ago. I teach deep ecology online through Naropa. It’s a safe place to bring ecology and dharma together, at least so far.
Best,
Suzanne
Wow -very interesting- I did not know Suzanne that the Vidyadhara appointed people to watch out for corruption-what did he actually say to you regarding that………….things are coming out of the woodwork on this site that I have not heard of before………..
Ashoka is interesting………….he is debating stuff that nobody in the hierarchy is at present debating……….so I do welcome that whatever tack he takes I think that it’s good to hear from him.
Are there any other ways you could enlighten us as to how the Vidyadhara would have wanted a shambhala society to evolve in this world.
…….one of my prime concerns still is in opening the teachings to everyone equally…………..so we have 8,000 members-its a big theistic world out there how do we engage with people and not sound as though we have got THE ANSWER……….
Sorry wanted to post a bit more to my post -got cut off………myself veering towards Shambhala Art in engaging with others – it traverses the debates about the Sakyong and his way of doing things……….but am still turned on by politics/power and how you manifest that in the world……….Manchester where I come from very working class area people always debating stuff -it was historically the birthplace of feminsim with the Pankhursts, Marx and Engel’s communism with Manchester being the worlds first industrial city and of course unionism…………..people are very blunt and argumentative but ‘nice’ up here its almost a different country from the south……..anyway lots of things in my life could not have occured without these great social movements……..so I welcome the power of politics to effect change-for example I suffered from bronchitis when I was a child because of coal being burnt excessively – the buildings up here were all coated in black soot when I was child…..now they are white…………..so therefore that’s why I am very interested in vajra/shambhala politics – politics are a matter of survival for many people in this world.
……..hope to hear back from you re the issues I have raised
best
rita ashworth
stockport uk
Rita, sorry, no can do. I’m out of time, at least for the kinds of questions you’re asking, for the next four months. But I too am glad that Ashoka has engaged with us here, so far.
Sorry, gotta run,
Suzanne
What I hear, sifting through all of this, is longing for the guru, and sadness that he is no longer here in that form, and his students all loved and miss him so much.
No one can or should take his place, so close and precious and magical, his compassion, and the goodness that he drew out from us.
Our longing is right, our missing of our Guru is right, and his oral instruction will forever imprint our minds. That is what we are to follow, and with that, most of us have more than one Guru/ Kalyanamitra, connection.
The Vidyadhara’s students were the very first (largest group) of American Tantrikas. We have to learn how the tradition works when a teacher passes, and it is not easy, but we can’t have this every generation fighting with the next. For example, the students of the current Sakyong getting upset when his bloodline, the following Sakyong, takes over and alters the practice method, and on and on.
This is not also, the “Trungpa Rinpoche Memorial Museum, ” that form is gone and has been reborn, he himself has moved on. The instructions given to his students are their teachings, appropriate for them at that moment in time, and should be treasured, and no one is trying to alter, diminish or take away from that heart training.
*Tantrikas no longer have the liberty of free speech, he was very serious about this point.*
Our speech in word or writing has severe consequences.
Haughty intellectualism, infused with aggression and intention to split rather than unify, that insults well intended people and teachings, who may have different karmic connections than ourselves, is really harmful.
If we have a way that an administration could be better as they always can be, then offer help and inspiration from within, and if you are hurt or disappointed, say just that. (We are not immature Judd Gregg-like crybabies, who have to leave if everything doesn’t go our conceptual way.)
If others are born at a different time, and teachings change, please, please do not insult them.
You cannot as you say keep Samaya to your teacher and insult his son, sorry, wrong view, you broke it, and no one should engage with this view until this is corrected. If you must retaliate to that statement, please do so to me directly at shambhaladakini@gmail.com, rather than post more here, your transgressions will be less.)
We have been trained enough to see that all Dharma has but one intention, and it is a cause for rejoicing! I think that we could all cheer up a bit, and clean up this cesspool of slander.
Samaya can be repaired, but it first takes feeling the gentleness of the heart over the momentum of aggression. The Mukpo lineage believed in us, that we can rise above aggression, with unwaivering warmth and clear seeing. Please, if this were the last moment of life, wouldn’t you want to write/speak in a way that evoked the “tender heart of sadness, our soft spot” rather than a warring faction? If the purpose of the Radio-Free is to say that we no longer have to keep the Samaya of Speech and are allowed to insult the Three Jewels here without repercussion, I say it should cease altogether, and we could rather, practice more, or at least some.
“This is the darkest hour of the darkage. The Sangha is divided amongst themselves with sectarian bitterness…”
And with that, shines an indestructible brightness, your walls are no ordinary walls, but walls of the palace of universal goodness, and in that we take refuge. I hope that this was of benefit, and please let’s stop this, and be joyful. Its kind of silly really, like Tulku Urgyen used to say “being at the Island of Diamonds” and complaining that one diamond sparkles ever-so slightly more than another.
this issue of “division” clearly seems to be on a lot of people’s minds. if this website is any indication, which i believe it is. i would go further and suggest that it ( this “situation”) is central to the evolution or perhaps progression of the teachings of ctr. this discussion is important. important, relevant and extensive enough to warrant meaningful response from our leadership. much more extensive than simply the “feelings” of some old dogs. sometimes it feels like conventional logic is suggesting that if we ignore it long enough it will just go away. conventional logic is so……conventional. disagreement with direction has either been directly or at the very least, atmospherically discouraged. this has pushed many of ctr’s (old and new) students to the edges. lovely, committed heart students. and there are lots of them out there. do we care? maybe, maybe not. but the fact that they exist (or appear to) must bring questions, and i dare say some doubt, to mind. devotion cannot be legislated or coerced for that matter. it’s not brought about by logic. regardless what the tibetans or anyone else says, i do not believe that devotion is automatically inherited either. from my sliver of experience it’s based on trust, love and the intangible, yet undeniable “that”.
david
Dear Suzanne:
No , am in Crestone, CO. A gathering place it seems for many, heart-broken students, of many lineages, not just CTR ‘s, who, out of disappointment, begin to separate the wheat from the chaff. Even the monastic situations here, such as Trungu Rinpoche’s is pretty iconoclastic, and where students have “real” relationships with their teachers, with lamas and loppons, etc. and can actually get interviews, and direct contact , up close, and personnel and talk about their practice. I can’t say enough about how important this is . Places like this actually exist. Where a “no big deal” atmosphere permeates everything, and if any attempt at a “big deal” is created, it is undermined, almost immediately, before you can say TGS.
Hi Christine,
Thanks for your delightful description of Crestone as it is now. You made me smile. I love Crestone and have many fond memories of it, but haven’t been there for many years. However, I still have friends who live there. I’m happy to know you are there!
Best,
Suzanne
I think the notion that someone’s primary claim to love or respect is who that person’s dad is could be a very harmful idea, even somewhat brutal. I would hate growing up as the son of a famous or great father, especially if people treated me a certain way only because of who I was related to. The more that happened, the more awkward the situation would feel for me. It’s like blowing more and more air into a balloon, sooner or later the situation could become unbearable.
I’ve only read one of the Sakyong’s books, but I’m pretty sure he has a tremendous amount to offer to many people, all on his own. I’m kind of offended that people seem to be demanding some level of devotion to him, not because of his own inspiring qualities, or because he’s a good teacher, but because of his family connections. How is that fair to him? How is that not an insult to him? How does that kind of coercion help the situation? That’s almost like a bad marriage, where the tension just keeps building because people aren’t being honest or true to their feelings. People in a bad marriage sometimes start to feel that they’re only being dishonest for the good of others, that they’re making this gigantic sacrifice, but I wonder if that’s always true.
Respect is one thing. We should all *show* respect to everyone. We should especially show respect to people who are in a prominent public position, who obviously do things to help others, as SMR does. But feeling *devotion* to a teacher is an extremely personal and intimate thing. Mixing the two things up is like comparing apples and oranges. My old teacher used to say, you can’t argue a woman into loving you, and just so you can’t argue someone into feeling guru devotion. It’s a mysterious process.
Just as a disclaimer, I’ve only done up to Level 4 in Shambhala Training. As Mr. Ashoka pointed out, I’m perhaps not qualified to participate in this discussion. So don’t take what I say too seriously.
Anyway, I’m personally confused by what the role of Sakyong is in today’s world. Is he supposed to be free to teach his own students the way he sees fit? The guru-student relationship can be so beautiful when it is free to happen without restriction.
Or is the Sakyong supposed to feel tightly confined to teach the way the Vidyadhara did, and fit himself into some sort of box, even at the cost of ignoring his own insights or inspirations, which might lead in opposite directions?
Or is it something in between?
As much as I might wish it were otherwise, I seem to have a strong attraction to Trungpa Rinpoche, and so far do not feel attracted to Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche. But I don’t want my own interests– in being part of a sangha, or in talking about VCTR– to harm anyone else.
Which puts me in an uncomfortable position. But maybe that’s good? The teachers that I have the most respect for seem to always want to put me into uncomfortable positions.
Edward
Sorry if I got carried away there.
I forgot to mention that I feel very inspired by the way people in the Shambhala lineage, which I am new to, can be so courageous in discussing issues which are not only difficult and tricky but potentially very painful.
I don’t have as much at stake in this discussion as some people, and I apologize if I was being disrespectful or flippant in my comments.
Also, the Sakyong is not the Vidyadhara’s dharma heir. Isn’t that true? It’s my understanding that the best he could find was a regent, to hold his place for a while. He had no dharma heir.
And the current Sakyong was selected to oversee the Shambhala kingdom, as a separate lineage of a kind, isn’t that true? I’d be curious to know if the Sakyong agreed to that as a free choice or if he was, you know, kind of forced into that role, and at what age that happened. I’ve heard many times that the Sakyong “never wanted to be Sakyong”, in other words, be responsible for carrying on the Shambhala lineage and teachings.
That’s understandable of course; I don’t envy him.
Someone please correct me if I’m stating any of these things wrongly. It just seems like some of these details get all smooshed together sometimes, and it’s like we’re talking about the Catholic Pope or something.
Thanks Edward. I too engaged with Shambhala because of the Vidyadhara’s presentation. Then I met and decided to study with the Sakyong more and more as I connected with his presentation – especially from the tremendous detail in his 1999 and 2000 seminary transcripts – and then from studying with him in person. I also experienced a kind of pressure to “fall in love” with the lineage or the teacher. But who could or would force such a thing, it is like demanding someone to be sincere (in spite of doubt).
Thanks all for the comments about the Regent. It does seem like we’re still feeling the karmic effects, and I’m wondering how much of that karma still enters into the current lack of trust in the organization or in leadership generally. I don’t mean to rehash it, but to acknowledge it.
I first entered a Shambhala center in 1987, but then I didn’t return for a few years. I feel fortunate honestly that I wasn’t around during the colossal freak out period, and came back when things had settled significantly. And yet I still encounter the karmic shock waves every now and then from that period. There was a noticeable generation gap in the SF bay area, for example, where very few new students were entering in the 90′s. Then things have been picking up there in the last 10 years, with new centers opening and community growth.
Ashoka, or ‘whitey tulku’ as you’re known on the Dharma Brats’ site
LOL
you are known on the sites.
hahhahahahahahhaah
yall are killing me over here!
we must maintain a good ratio of fart jokes to edward post in order to keep the place a float.
Edward, the Sakyong is the Druk Sakyong’s (Chögyam Trungpa’s) Shambhala heir. In fact February 27 will be the 30th anniversary of the ceremony where he empowered Ösel Mukpo as the Sawang, the Sakyong to be.
The Vajra Regent Ösel Tendzin was appointed the Vidyadhara’s Dharma heir, in “the Practicing lineage of Kagyü and the Ancient Lineage of Nyingmapa… to act on [CTR's] behalf in propagating buddhadharma and the vision of the three yanas throughout the world”, on August 22, 1976. As was true of so many things, Trungpa Rinpoche gave his own meaning to the sense of regency: there was no feeling that Osel Tendzin would be a transitional figure waiting for the next Trungpa Tulku – in fact CTR discounted the idea that he would have a tulku. He said “There is the possibility that members of the sangha, Western people, can take over from the Tibetans. We are not trying to transplant culture, particularly. Our main concern is to transplant buddhadharma, with or without culture.” (Garuda V, p 98).
Being the Sakyong is the current Sakyong’s karma, so to speak. It wasn’t his choice, but he has chosen to accept it, and make of it what he can, and what he is doing.
Being empowered as either Dharma heir or Shambhala heir carries no guarantees, of course. As CTR said to the Regent,
Thanks. That’s very helpful.
I seem to recall in the Vidyadhara’s commentary on his will that the new Sakyong is free to make any changes he likes, with other students functioning in an advisory role.
So I guess that answers my question.
What a delightful situation.
Not sure if this relates, but my old teacher used to continually set up people in situations where they were seemingly in conflict with each other, or having to somehow come together and work together from different points of view. He really liked that, while the students were always trying to undermine that situation because of the discomfort of it.
I also heard that Ashoka / Whitey Tulku applied to go to WEST POINT as a young man.
gasp.
What it says in CTR’s Comments about his Will, in response to questions by David Rome:
Dear Edward, sounds like you “got it” after Level I; i.e. there was nothing to “get’.
The rest of us got “pins.”
Chris
I’d like to express my appreciation and respect for Ashoka for contributing here publicly, and the same to all the other people using their full names. I haven’t had the courage to do that, which I’m a little ashamed of, and which I fear dilutes the atmosphere of credibility and respectfulness.
I’m impressed by the dedication to the Vidyadhara that everyone here has, in one form or another. Thanks.
man. you folks are bitter.
mad bitter.
seriously bitter.
bittttteeeeeeer.
would you say these things to any of these folks faces?
I guess thats the beauty of the internets ; trash talk all you want in the comfort of your own home.
These are some dark underbelly of the internets moves right here… but I love train wrecks.. so carry on.
best believe real world moves are happening no matter how you all feel in your comments boxes.
Suzanne check yourself. Your post regarding Ashoka’s family is disrespectful to say the least.
Oh and Ashoka, smooth move using your name on this silly site.
tibetaphile, you should check yourself. Why not reveal yourself as Ashoka did? What are you so scared of? The dharma is the truth, reality, as Trungpa Rinpoche and Jamgon Kongtrul defined dharma. Warriorship is having the courage and confidence to speak and defend the truth, adhere to the truth within one’s own heart and gut, against all the opposing forces that would water it down and muddy it with specious, deceptive logic, against those who would put it down. Is it disrespectful to speak the truth as one sees it when one has evidence to back it up? That is coward’s logic.
The term ‘bitter’ seems to be the current rationalization to deflect the truth of what is discussed on this site. The intent appears to be a put-down – ‘Oh, they’re just bitter because we won.’ It’s an attempt to trivialize, disregard, disrespect and dismiss (‘dis’ in your language) what is actually threatening. But why is it threatening? Why even bother to come to this site and dump juvenile, disrespectful comments if there isn’t some truth here that is threatening? Hmmm?
As for your question: ‘would you say these things to any of these folks faces?’ I would have no problem saying what I’ve said to people in person, if there were an opportunity to do so. I know them and they know me. I’m not hiding behind a username and I’m not intimidated by authoritarian hierarchies. I’ve been defying them all my life. I take my example from Trungpa Rinpoche, by whom I was trained and in whose footsteps I walked for 12 glorious years. What about you?
BTW, tibetaphile, the tide of the times is turning against herd mentality, in case you haven’t noticed. The realization and manifestation of the dharma requires that we leave the herd and stand on our own two feet as a naked human being sandwiched between heaven and earth, as the Vidyadhara taught.
Does anyone have a copy of the Vidydhara’s last will and testamant? Perhaps David Roma or the Gimmionas?
i think mr. tibetaphile’s comments are very telling and go to a fundamental issue. “…would you say these things to any of these folks faces….” ? do you really think that the comments on this site are based on peoples petty “bitterness” and an opportunity to sling insults from an anonymous dark underbelly? dude, you’re the only person on this site that uses anonymity.
i believe that it’s that very aggressive and threatening approach of yours that has helped create the need for this site altogether. there seems to be no open forum anywhere to have this discussion. and you want people to be afraid to say what they want/need to here? edward is an example of someone who doesn’t want to use his last name for fear of some sort of reprisal. there are many others who feel the same way. WTF!!! is this what the scene is? hopefully, this is just your view, because really, is that the kind of sangha you wish to see? i don’t mind that you or anyone else has a different view than mine. but to attempt to stifle discussion by threat and ridicule is pathetic, childish and extremely unhealthy. speak your mind mr tibetaphile. and please allow others to do the same.
david
All this talk is great and wonderful. Very positive.
But what’s the point?
I would humbly and sarcasticly reccomend to every Dharma brother and sister to make a personal decision about your own spirtual path or just walk up the steps of the Shambhala Center closest to you with some new cloths and demand to put them on the emperor with no cloths.
Or not?
I think we all should just get off the pot or fence and do something good and stop wasting time and money on his pretend eddicts and deluded vision of grandure about him self .
Dan and Sancho
I like this site. Some days I go for hours without hearing any circular logic or raw agression. Now that I have this lovely website, especially Suzanne D., who can’t seem to go a day without insulting someone, I now have a lifeline to the pure milk of agression. Illuminating the dark side! DELICIOUS. I roil in the pure irrational hatred of fixed views and gain strength with every drop of blood that is shed. Thank you all! Thank you so much!!!
The fact that this is not a dialouge at all is so refreshing. Where else in the world can people interpret dharma over and over in order to disparage lineage holders and exalt charlatans. I drink deeply and love every word. Keep up the good work!!! Hatred, the only thing that lasts. Good, very good. Talk more, practice less, you serve the forces of the setting sun with such devotion. GO RFS!!!
lol- yes, I guess this formally proclaims the birth of the ODKOS. I did not realize that it would be headed by a woman. The Darth Vader -like haunting background is so appropriate. This is such a joke, and we should refrain and not read this sickness anymore.
The big NO!
whatever, mr skywalker and mr obi wan. unlike the star wars warriors of the same names, you guys are cowards.
david frevola
the dregs.
sigh…..
its dons season, this is not mellow place to hang on the internets.
those with a need for sanity, lets stop reading this horrible site.
licking honey from a razor blade… indeed.
Greetings to all readers and contributors:
There may be limits as to how much clarity can be established in a web based dialogue about complex issues. As the writer of the main article for this thread, I think I will second the previous writer’s sentiment and suggest we take a well earned “don” season holiday from this particular discussion. Perhaps my main purpose of the article was to provide a structure where the range of sentiments on the direction of the sangha could be expressed. I have found the comments to date to be well expressed, illuminating and helpful. So, from my perspective, I think this process has gone well, including the occasional hiccup. Thanks for your interest and maybe we all need a little break.
Charles Marrow – Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia
Post to RFS
As Suzanne said in her post, it doesn’t hurt to be honest, unless your honesty
is just your honest klesha. The same would be true for criticism. Suzanne and I grew
up in the same dharmic incubator and I think she might agree that the honesty of the
sangha at that time could be brutal…the Vidyadhara could be devastating, but it was
always compassion (personal pov). One of the functions of the sangha is to be a
reminder …which Katherine exemplified quite nicely in her post here.
But I don’t see this site as a place where the elder students go to complain as
much as that we need forums like this to discuss where we’re at on the path and
get our bearings. There’s been a lot of complaint in many of the threads, and
maybe this is just venting…if that’s the only purpose this site serves it will
soon loose steam. But even if that is the case, it will have been worthwhile.
But it’s more than that, as we know. Most of the trash talking seems to
come from anonymous youngsters who don’t have the experience to see things
they way people who have been around for a while do. I wonder why they even
care about this site except to undermine it. If they have devotion to SMR then
they should follow his teachings….what others do shouldn’t be of much concern.
Attacking people here because they have a different view just shows a lack of
maturity, and a lack of understanding. And to think that the only purpose of this
site is to undermine Shambhala International is really missing the point.
Reading at this site has actually lessened my negative feelings about the direction of Shambhala International. I believe SMR is doing what he thinks is best and I’m in no position to second guess him. But if my path takes me in a different direction then that’s ok too. I’ve seen Shambhala International
move gradually from rejecting other teachers to an attitude of acceptance.
Perhaps we students are moving in that direction too.
I experience this site so far as both a place with discussion and also venting. And the venting klesha is attracting some trolling klesha. But I also don’t get a sense that the site is intending to be strongly moderated or trying to present one particular view. Maybe folks just need a place to vent? The public nature does change the timbre, compared to somewhere like the sangha-talk email list, to me. Maybe also adds some fresh air though.
John I read your thought as also going both ways and maybe that’s also what you meant: “If they have devotion to CTR then they should follow his teachings….what others do shouldn’t be of much concern. Attacking people here because they have a different view just shows a lack of maturity, and a lack of understanding.”
Comment#108 What do I win?
lulz. tell cleveland i like his mustache!!!
Why assume I am a boy? Why believe I am a coward? The truth is I fear for my life and must maintain a veil of secrecy. It is believed by some that the commentors on this website(I will not name names) are powerful black magicians who can cast terrible spells with only a name, even if it is spelled inncorrectly! I am certain that others of the commentors are under their control right now. You may suggest that these accusations are insane, but they are no more insane than the assertion by Suzanne D. that protector chants have been abandoned( on a past thread) or the general implication that the Mipham is only in it for the money( well over a hundred talks last summer makes for a crappy hourly wage). Much of what is said here is untrue. I stick by my assertion that my husband and family will be in danger from evil magic if I am to reveal my true identity(cue whistful music)
David Frevola, dialouge is fine, but as I said. . . this isn’t one. Easily 1/3rd of the facts presented are merely assumptions, and the main commentors have no desire for dialouge. A few do. You for example are a decent man. There are larger problems in the sangha than any discussed here, most of which arose before the Mipham took over. Like using Vajra energy as an excuse to be a jerk, and avoiding idiot compassion so much that one becomes an idiot without compassion. People are finally starting to be kind to one-another, not use Vajrayana as an excuse to get drunk and womanize, and the shamatha practice is starting to work. We are a little too churchy though. And still pretty white and dare I say racist. But whatever, at least I won’t have an evil spell cast on me in my sleep.
well wow, you were honest with a tulku. notch on the belt.
i thought it said radio “free” shambhala. but duly lectured, or whatever.
i like chogyam trungpa. a lot. and sakyong mipham rinpoche too. sorry y’all don’t feel the same, i guess that’s life. i think there are ample opportunities to deal with shit getting stirred up wherever you might be. so i guess we all have the path! that’s good news. too bad jesus ain’t around. perhaps i will see him in my pancakes tomorrow.
been fun guys. let’s see about some Don chants this week. and stop acting like the french resistance and go to a center on shambhala day to have a fricking mimosa and hang out and crack a joke. eat some little cheesy crackers and check people out. say hi to someone you don’t know. sorry to have riled you up, i really have no idea how things look from your eyes.
Seems like there was some angry criticism of other people’s anger here.
Personally, I think negative emotions can be good. They’ve got some life to them at least. And they can be so real.
By a weird coincidence, somebody just sent me a reference to this:
“…Negativity breeds tension, friction, gossip, discontentment, but it is also very accurate, deliberate and profound….”
“The basic honesty and simplicity of negativity can be creative in community as well as in personal relationships.”
[The Myth of Freedom, pp. 73-4]
That sounds pretty advanced to me, but then again life is pretty advanced.
annakin, I’m not sure that the purpose of practice (or at least my practice) is to find people to be kind to us, or to reduce the number of drunks in the world. Hopefully we can encounter kindness, but who knows. (side note: On the other hand, in the community I come from, people could be really cruel to each other years ago, so I know what you mean.)
That’s one difference I see between teachers of course. Some teachers promise that your life will become easier through the dharma– happier, better, more fulfilling– and other teachers do not promise that at all.
Perhaps those promises are a useful trick, a valiant means to get people interested in practice? But the side effect might be terrible disappointment if the promises don’t materialize. Disappointment and confusion. Our practice must not be working. For that matter, those other people must not be practicing if they are upset.
My old teacher sometimes took it as a good sign when his students fell into a bottomless pit of despair. In fact he spent years orchestrating that with some people, I’m convinced.
anyway, give my warm regards to your family, annakin. the force is strong in the skywalkers.
Edward, your insights are precious. You get it. Your old teacher sounds very much like ours (VCTR). Please stick around.
Charles, thank you for the Dön season recess suggestion. I’m taking it.
Cheers,
Suzanne
Dear Ashoka:
People are tolerating you, only because they are kind, and because your mother was married to Trungpa Rinpoche. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON, not because you have any wisdom in the dharma. You have overstepped your bounds with your childish insults to older students because you are incapable of even holding an adult conversation. Take your childish rantings and your TULKU BULLSHIT, back to your juvenile site and come back when you grow up and realize that YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL .
Robert B. Chandler
Robert, what a mean post! Are you regreting it? There is no benefit to this website if sangha with differing views can’t get together in a civil conversation.
And, for god’s sake, don’t post a reply that says that “Ashoka started it.”
Ashoka has come on this site, insulting people, throwing around his “tulku” credential like it has some meaning without any training.
You think this is mean? What has has been mean, even cruel, is the way this sangha has indulged and tolerated and spoiled these children, including the Sakyong, without any balance to the “blind faith” of devoted students.
In Tibet, real tulku training was by a tutor, who made sure that humbleness was part of the training, and many , many years of practice and study with realized teachers, usually NOT their family. This also included boxing their ears, and other forms of physical punishment that we would consider mean by Western standards, but was great kindness to balance the huge potential for the kind of spoiled behavior that we see could develop, without making sure that a tulku also developed humbleness and a realization that he did not see him or herself as special just because he was recognized as a tulku. He was there to train and study to help other people, not to be spoiled and pampered by them. It is a curse, and a cause of great ego , if it is not balanced.
I consider the indulgent remarks and behavior of the sangha the real meaness and unkindness to Ashoka, and yes to the Sakyong ,over the years. You have no idea how protecting him like this,enabling his “tulku credentialing” with no training, is the mean and cruel behavior. It has been crippling, and if Ashoka has even a glimpse of sanity left from it, he will get as afar away from this indulgent crowd, of Shambhala International, find a realized teacher and study and practice with him for at least the next 12 years, to see if he can live up to the recognition..
Hey Hey Hey people! Youch. Hey look, this forum – any forum – loses its power if people start going on attack mode. Let’s follow Charles’ suggestion and recommit to mindfulness. We may get emotional, but let’s remember our Hinayana vows: to try to clean up more messes than we create. Please remember respect.
And kudos to the sense of humor evident in so many posts. Ashoka, Edward, etc, thank you. Sense of humor is key ingredient in non theistic morality: its presence is a sign that the path is being engaged. Its absence is perhaps a little ‘wake up call’ and a sign that lots of mercy and plenty of quarter is called for. Let’s give each other room to be a little confused, and love each other any way.
To all you heart-bruised Ronin, you are loved, and you are part of this community and will be, guaranteed by the mutual bond of Samaya which CTR committed to each and every one of you, when you took to the path of laying down your weapons of ego. That intrinsic *belonging* is basic space that will never desert you. Enjoy! Now just trust yourselves and stop complaining so much!
To all you eager Shambhalian Buddhists, bemused by forums like these, don’t seek an end without considering the means. Just as a Goal without a Journey is the failing psychology of God Realm, so too does Shambhala fail if it seeks to “shake off” the wisdom of doubt. Doubt is the soil from which wisdom sprouts. Have patience and stop trying to get somewhere so quick.
Everyone,
It misses the point to have our views and disappointment arise as a personal attack to anyone here. The frustration seems to have momentum, and these blunt knives are going everywhere, please let’s stop this, so hurtful.
I have an idea, would everyone be happy if we decide to officially offer, as Susan calls, a “Trungpa Track,” as well as the New Way that leads to Scorpion Seal?
Would it work if students have the choice of the Kagyu Ngondro, VY,CH,6 Yoga Track? Maybe we can offer both, and have students choose? I work closely with the admin in Boulder, and will bring this idea to the Strategic Planning Board, and thanks everyone for their ideas; but let’s always, always speak kindly with compassion for each other.
My old teacher used to scare the absolute crap out of me, because he was not afraid of his own anger or anyone else’s.
I sometimes wonder how I will ever do justice to what I received from him if I continue being afraid of my own and others’ anger, to the point that I give no space for either.
I’m not recommending meanness or dumping on other people, and I wouldn’t say this if I didn’t have so much respect for the people here. But as someone pointed out, there is more than one way to be cruel.
What did Al Pacino’s character say in the Devil’s Advocate about how he warped people? He said: “That’s our secret. We kill you with kindness.” If you recall the movie, he was speaking literally.
How many people have I killed that way? Not killed exactly, but smugly refused to relate to in a real, honest way when they needed it.
anakin skywalker. i think i know who you are now. and if i’m right, you know i totally respect and care for you. the tricky part of this type of communication for me is that it’s missing a face. so i respond to conceptual statements. if anything i’ve written has hurt you or anyone else, i deeply regret it. i feel passionately about the life and teachings of ctr, as i know you do. and as a person of irish-italian heritage, besides the obvious other 2 things we like, fighting is a favored activity. but it’s so much better in person. so we both can cry or laugh. or preferably both. at the same time. so i too will take this opportunity to “retreat” for the last week of the don season. and if you are not the person i think you are, it doesn’t matter. i also love you, whoever you may be. that’s not to say i won’t be back to argue passionately. but hopefully i’ll do it better next time. and for guidance in that, for some reason a picture of the karmapa’s face leaps to mind. one eye looks penetrating, fearless and inscrutable. the other soft, with a tear.
david frevola
Look, I don’t know Ashoka. I’ve never met him. I don’t know if he is a tulku or who recognized him.
However, I didn’t hear him say anything here about being a tulku. I think that others brought that up. I also didn’t see his posts as being insulting. He has strong opinions, but so do the rest of us. And if they were insulting — wouldn’t that be his problem? We could have some compassion.
I do know that if we can’t have a conversation here — this experiment has failed and this site might as well be taken down.
Mark …….thanks for posting the article by Ray aka the Three Lineages-am going to read it thoroughly………interesting all the comments and the new addition of younger people to this site……I would say post on……….post anything you want to………..aka the Uk we had the sex pistols-if you listen to their lyrics they were very perceptive youg men as to the times they lived in…………and also the Clash…….so I think its great that you have such an open board………interesting Suzanne’s brief reply to me………had a feeling at the time of the Regent that some people were primed to explode by Trungpa if corruption occured……….think I remember reading an article by Jim Green (?) at the time of TCS about how you would remove a vajrayana lineage holder if he broke his samaya vows………..do you remember that………..its all interesting about what Trungpa did tell certain people to do………and have they got what he told them to do right or wrong…………..I suppose you can see am still trying to understand the politics of the whole thing……..could you go into more detail about your experience of vajra politics when Trungpa was alive………..would love to hear your comments on the whole thing.
Best for the New Year
Rita Ashworth
katherine wrote:
“I have an idea, would everyone be happy if we decide to officially offer, as Susan calls, a “Trungpa Track,” as well as the New Way that leads to Scorpion Seal?”
That sounds interesting. I’m not familiar enough with the details to know what exactly what that means but it sounds good.
What I would like is to be able to invite non-Buddhists to Shambhala training, without them feeling out of place, unwelcome, unwanted, or a burden to the people doing the program, or for them to feel pressured to give up their pre-existing heritage.
Edward,
Jim Fladmark mentions here that all of ST can still be taken up to WA w/o requiring Buddhism. I hope that this helps to clarify and confusion about the “New Way.”
http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/documents/NOV08MIRROR.pdf
Q. My husband is on the slow path for
Shambhala training, but he will never be a
Buddhist. Will Shambhala Training stay open
to non-Buddhists like him?
Jim Fladmark. Yes, all of the Shambhala Training levels
through Warrior’s Assembly will be open
to non-Buddhists. The Way of Shambhala
expresses the whole of our lineage without
demanding that students “choose” between
Shambhala and Buddhism. However, following
Warrior’s Assembly, if one wants to
attend Vajrayana Seminary, one does need
to take Refuge to become a Buddhist.
David you are truly a warrior, you may know who I am, I don’t know, but I respect you tremendously and sincerly feel that you have been on the up and up on this board, as always.
Edward, Yes the purpose of practice is not to reduce drunks, but there has been a childish tendency in this community to believe that becoming a vajrayana student somehow makes all action permissible, when in fact action is very important, and cultivating anger or self-indulgent passion(any passion really) continues to create karma unless one can hold to the ultimate view constantly. I don’t know anyone who does that. Therefore we must actually be willing to change behavior. (Guru Rinpoche ” my mind is as vast as the sky and my actions are as refined as a sesame seed”)
Missing the point is the territory of the sangha old and new.
What I see here is that when views are expressed, attacks follow. No one wants to communicate.
For those who slandered Ashoka I would like to point out that he did not wave a tulku credential. He never mentioned it until it was brought up by another poster, even then his refernces were toungue in cheek. His thoughful comments were met with derision and agression. This is endemic on this site, take note please.
As far as CTR’s teachings being lost; The Werma class(3 part) curriculum is a study of Kalapa Assembly talks, 90% of which are from the Dorje Dradul. The pre-seminary course is about 50/50 CTR/SMR, with the remaining cannon available to all. I have a close friend, non-Buddhist, who will attend Warrior Assembly this summer. Many students have recievd both the Rigden and Kagyu ngondros at Vseminary. The outbreath-dissolve shamatha technique taught by CTR is still taught at level one and by any good MI when it is appropriate to a student’s path. The technique of resting in awareness is taught at level five, and also given by MI’s at the appropriate time.
To those who feel marginalized; There are literally hundreds of students who would love to share your insight, hear your stories and drink in the experience that comes from having studied at the feet of the Great Vidyadhara, the resistance comes when people express that what is happening now is ‘all wrong’.
Losing a teacher to the passing of time is a tragedy that cannot be comprehended by those who have not experienced it, it must be met with sympathy.
As a community we need to grow up. A lot. This goes for all generations. Can anyone honestly say that they have stopped picking and choosing entirely? This path will not end, and none of us has got it.
I find it telling that the one hanging question asked by Ashoka has not been answered. The serious allegations that SMR is not a genuine teacher, and is in it for riches and fame, and that some of those here know better what the DD had in mind. It was easier to attack his youth, family and “rankism” than to answer it at all.
SMR is very talented, if he wanted to be rich he could have done it much more easily than this. One need only watch the personal attention he gives to each person in a two hundred person recieving line to know that he is very commited to the benefit of beings. As another poster said, to slander him based on his intentions is very dangerous speech.
As for the posters who react angrily to what is here, it is unfortunate, but understandable, there is a lot of venom being strewn at SMR, and since we are not enlightened, many will react defensively. Niether of these approaches is helpful.
I wish everyone who is hurt a swift healing process, and sincerely hope you will share what you know with others, if not on Tower road, then at Steve-o’s or whatever. Surely people know that undermining the current direction is likely futile, if that is the intent then it is probably time to move on, but if the love of the Dharma is genuine then let us share, heal our divisions and grow up a little bit.
I stand prepared to have my post dissected line by line in an effort to discredit the details of what I have written.
Be appeased! SAMAYA!
One thing I think it’s hard for younger people to
recognize is that this site…let alone Shambhala Int.
wouldn’t be there if not for the relationship that
the Vidyadhara had with his students.The time and energy and commitment that we had is the iceburg
under the tip we see here. We’re not just talking
/debating from a frivolous point of view. Some people
feel (rightly or wrongly) that their efforts are being undermined, so that energy is part of the discussion here, and something we’re working through. I feel
the openness/wisdom/confusion manifested here is
very rich and has a flavor of the soup cauldron we
were all cooked in by the Vidyadhara. I welcome even the attacks from some individuals….it re-
minds me of how I used to be, and hope I have
progressed a little from that….(not that I hope there are more reminders).
“the world is on fire and this is what you got?”
No, tibetaphile….everything you have that you call “Shambhala” is what “we got”. What do you have
to offer beyond what you already have? Many
older students gave up careers (at least) to work for the Vidyadhara. I hope you have the inspiration to do
the same for Sakyong Mipham.
“There are literally hundreds of students who would love to share your insight, hear your stories and drink in the experience that comes from having studied at the feet of the Great Vidyadhara”
Part of the reason why this is not happening more is
that teachers must be approved by the central authority. Some teachers that taught for the Vidyadhara are not approved to teach in the mandala
because, perhaps, they are seen as not towing to a party line. I’m not suggesting this is right or wrong, just that I know it’s happening. We all know of examples. I wonder what effect a “Trungpa track”
would have, if sponsored by Shambhala International? I don’t think it’s possible.
The sense I’ve had is that a Kagyu post-seminary track (by counting malas) is still perfectly fine, just one has to request it explicitly from the Sakyong. Or so I’ve heard from the last few years of seminaries, since the new track emerged. I’ve heard of people making requests to differ from the main track and all were accepted to my knowledge. However, there is also a sense of all of the new tantrikas gathering energy to do thing together – as mutual support – so it’s not recommended to diverge from everyone else. And there are more reasons to stay on the main track.
Part of the view is that we need more post-seminary study; and so instead of sending people off for three years (or ten or twenty) to finish their ngondro by count we should meet in group settings by time. Part of the ngondro and sadhana by time track logic is that it requires tantrikas to come back for more group retreat, and the reason for that is both to bring people together more to build community (compared to solitary counting) and also to ensure that people are continuing to study with senior teachers as they go along. Instead of getting haphazard education in each ngondro and sadhana, to progress one now has to spend a months worth of time at least with an acharya (most likely) studying the practice in a group setting, and studying the view. This is also true when one does kagyu ngondro by time and vajrayogini by time. People I’ve talked to who have come to those group retreats for vajrayogini for example have expressed the study aspect to be deeply appreciated.
But I’ve never had the sense that the recommendation was more than a logic-based and reasoned recommendation. If someone felt strongly, and some have, I experienced an explicit sense and spoken view that they should ask the Sakyong for permission to do something else and the folks I know who requested things were all granted permission. In some cases, the requests just went to Ashe Acharya Rockwell who approved requests. Though who knows what you’ll get when you ask your guru something, right?
Tisch, Thanks. I do also feel great appreciation for everything that has gone on before. The younger students would have nothing without those who bravely engaged the Dharma when it was truly new to this culture.
“the world is on fire and this is what you got?”
“No, tibetaphile….everything you have that you call “Shambhala” is what “we got”. What do you have
to offer beyond what you already have? Many
older students gave up careers (at least) to work for the Vidyadhara. I hope you have the inspiration to do
the same for Sakyong Mipham”
Wrong thread bro!
and I am very fortunate to have a guru / sangha that has not made it a requirement to either be independently wealthy or live hand to mouth flaking around in a recession. The Shambhala path should never get in the way of ones path to manifesting in society as constructive member of it.
As a second generation Buddhist… I too was cooked in that “very rich soup cauldron”.
Parents that were on retreat all the time and fellow Sangha kids being neglected.
Second Generation Buddhist know the magic and the hellish repercussion of the first generations theistic devotion.
Making a livelihood for myself in my late 20s will yield far more sanity then “giving it up” for a Tibetan lama.. who does not really want me to give these things up in the first place.
Katherine,
Thanks for your reply about Shambhala Training. However, what does it mean for something to be “open to non-Buddhists”? I’ve seen two different takes on that.
I have only been to four Levels. The first was taught by a student of VCTR who is not a student of the Sakyong. He said it’s very important not to use Buddhist language when teaching Shambhala, and he very sweetly corrected one attendee who wanted to use Buddhist terms during a group discussion. He said the Shambhala teachings are very naked and, just for the weekend anyway, can be understood without reference to Buddhist terms.
I thought the weekend was fantastic, absolutely amazing, and I had dreams of all the people I was going to invite. I was so excited. For instance my hairdresser is about as far from being a Buddhist as you could get, but I told her how valuable that weekend was, and she was intrigued. The same with friends and relatives. Everywhere I went, I met people whom I could envision attending a Level One weekend. The whole city started to look different.
Then I had three Levels directed by students of the current Sakyong. They taught that Shambhala is a type of Buddhism, nothing more or less, and they said it was a relief that they could finally proclaim that now and teach Buddhism using Buddhist terminology.
While I’m happy for their relief, I’m also sad at all the people who would not feel as comfortable going to a Level One if there’s the explicit presumption that doing so makes one a sort of Buddhist.
If you went somewhere that looked like a Christian church, and everyone there was Christian, and they said this weekend we’re going to give you training in Christianity, and thank you for choosing to sign up for this, Christianity has so much to offer you, come back in a couple months for more Christian training and bring your friends… well, how would that feel to you?
It might feel great if you were already Christian, or wanted to become one, or if you were a rootless, confused person with no prior connection to any heritage of any kind, and looking for a new religion. If you were not a Native American or all kinds of other things.
Personally, that wouldn’t appeal to me, and anyone who thought that such a weekend appealed to “non-Christians”, I would say such a person has an enormous amount of self-deception. Such a person might be using their Christianity as an excuse to be stupid and blind, and I would be highly cynical about any teachings coming from someone like that. It would be a joke, a farce.
On the other hand, I love spending time surrounded by Christians, as long as they don’t think I’m with them in order to be converted, or that I’ve signed up for “Christian Training” from them. There can be tremendous fertility in those situations. It keeps people on their toes. It’s alive. It’s fresh. It’s attractive.
Sorry if I got carried away there.
On a more personal and softer note, when I was with my old teacher for many years, one day it dawned on me that I really didn’t want any new people to show up, even though I was always acting as though I did. I secretly was terrified of new people showing up, making me look bad, and disrupting the cozy situation that I tried to establish for myself.
My faith in my practice was weak, but my hopes in my ability to control the teacher and keep him to myself were strong.
Wow, that was such a horrible, horrible thing to see about myself. I guess the truth is not always like a flute solo.
This was awesome:
“Hey Hey Hey people! Youch. Hey look, this forum – any forum – loses its power if people start going on attack mode. Let’s follow Charles’ suggestion and recommit to mindfulness. We may get emotional, but let’s remember our Hinayana vows: to try to clean up more messes than we create. Please remember respect.
And kudos to the sense of humor evident in so many posts. Ashoka, Edward, etc, thank you. Sense of humor is key ingredient in non theistic morality: its presence is a sign that the path is being engaged. Its absence is perhaps a little ‘wake up call’ and a sign that lots of mercy and plenty of quarter is called for. Let’s give each other room to be a little confused, and love each other any way.
To all you heart-bruised Ronin, you are loved, and you are part of this community and will be, guaranteed by the mutual bond of Samaya which CTR committed to each and every one of you, when you took to the path of laying down your weapons of ego. That intrinsic *belonging* is basic space that will never desert you. Enjoy! Now just trust yourselves and stop complaining so much!
To all you eager Shambhalian Buddhists, bemused by forums like these, don’t seek an end without considering the means. Just as a Goal without a Journey is the failing psychology of God Realm, so too does Shambhala fail if it seeks to “shake off” the wisdom of doubt. Doubt is the soil from which wisdom sprouts. Have patience and stop trying to get somewhere so quick.”
To all the People who thought my post was mean:
This is a crossroad here folks. It goes to the crux of the matter. To look to those as a spiritual guide with no more realization than ourselves, to never investigate the teacher, to go along and keep up other’s delusions about themselves,, who use their “credentials” to say and do what they want, and is derisive of others views, to let these things happen, while sacrificing real compassion, clarity and intelligence which is all of our birthright, our real inheritance right here, right now.
Well, I would say that is real theism, really thick, thick, theism folks.
As for the older students theism, you are right, Tibetaphile, we all go through that stage, but we didn’t loose our intelligence when we looked at Trungpa Rinpoche face, it was like looking at our own face, not an other person, “outside of ourselves, not another world “outside of our own mind”. It was an immediate , direct transmission. Nothing needed to be said.
Your thick theism still sees the “world out there” and “you” as the central character, doing “something” to save “it.”. Its a conceptual chain that will bind you, even if it appears as gold.
Robert
Robert, who are you talking about, Ashoka or the Sakyong? Either way you are off. Ashoka was not claiming to be a spirtual guide, just a concerned citizen whose views, I might add are fairly well thought out. The students of the Sakyong are not his students based on credentials. Have you talked to all of them about their experience? Highly unlikely. You seem to be suggesting that everyone other than you is full of sh##. That is a shame.
Robert, don’t knock working for the benefit of others. It’s not a new technique, you know. the worst poison might be thinking you hold an absolute view when you don’t.
and being a “long term practitioner” can be a nasty credential. when CTR talked about “grandmother’s finger”, he didn’t mean your grandmother giving you the finger.
Dear Robert
did you not read my post?
I have a strong feeling that you might have had a trust fund at some point in your life.. just a hunch.
I am not trying to save the world. I am trying to pay the bills. Pay attention to your world.
How on earth am I not suppose to call people like you bitter?
“(’dis’ in your language)”
hahahahahahahaaaaa. oh wow. the generation gap element at work in this comment thread is worth the price of admission in and of itself. hippies talking to cat people.
ahhhh. well hey. happy new yearz. haters.
hey Robert I only just now saw what you wrote. i’m not mad or offended, i just have two things to send in your direction
1. the only reason you and i even know each other, have any kind of history together, is because we’re two of the handful of people on this planet who care, who really care, about Taggie. think that one through, man.
2. wow i am glad you are not anyone i ever had to relate with as a family member.
there is such a rich field of things for the two sides of this….”schism” to talk about with each other. i mean even on a basic level there are great conversations. i mean you got people out there saluting the flag Trungpa designed, chewing over lojong training and trying to figure out what it all means. but if the conversation has to start with “I think what you are doing is fucked up”, there is nowhere to go… I think some of the problems that SOME of you have with the direction of Shambhala since the Vidyadhara’s death could partly be based on who you are (or more likely are not) relating to within the mandala. you’re missing out. everybody is sort of missing out. it’s fucking sad. but whatever, this is just how things go. everybody’s got their treasure chest.
Robert I’m not waving any “tulku” label anywhere. that’s ridiculous silly talk. i’m the one who lives with that, and i think i know a little more about what it doesn’t mean than you do. thats in your head, not mine. i came here to talk. and i am definitely feeling like i should never have done that. i wasn’t going to post again but i needed to respond to that nonsense you wrote. this is the internet….you’ve never even met me. but in some ways that post did remind me of some things about the Vidyadhara’s sangha and growing up in it that I do not miss, that were utterly out of control and crazy. this has not been an easy community to grow up in for many, many young people.
oh yeah ps, the both of you. i work at a job and live in a world surrounded by people who aren’t buddhist. you live in crestone colorado. who is really out of touch here, hm? i don’t go waving my “tulku credentials.” i live in new york, how far you think that would get me? you are the ones who brought that up, with your creepy advice about what i should do to “live up to the name” by doing something completely antithetical to the vision of this Guru you’re using to justify your aggressive trip. i’m sorry, you two are both tripping. this is embarrassing.
yo edward, Suzanne thinks you “got it”
what more do you need son!
Robert, you are creeping me out.
help me ashoka, these pervs are really addictive.
tan maleficio, cabron.
“help me ashoka, these pervs are really addictive.”
tibetaphile, I’m not sure what you mean by “pervs” here. Could you elaborate?
The youngsters come again with another salvo of slander, calling people “haters” and “pervs”..what a
valuable contribution to the dialogue!
On the other hand, I sympathize with the feellngs
of those that grew up in the community..yes, the sangha started out as a bunch of crazy hippies…but
really you didn’t grow up in an environment much different from others at that time who weren’t Buddhist. I wonder if some of the venom is not your own resentment from the past, from your own life?
Yes, please, if you think all that’s happening here
is twisted and perverted don’t waste your time here.
On the other hand, if you want to continue to mud sling, be assured that you won’t gain much respect.
Ashoka – it has been interesting reading your posts and your thoughts relating to Shambhala Buddhism…….tho I am still not entirely convinced of your position……
I suppose still where I would have issue with you is where only Buddhists are allowed to do the werma sadhana….tho there are now in the world many people who are not Buddhists practicing this sadhana – will be great to hear from them…….plus I still feel you dont have to become a Budhist to practice a shambhala ngondro -other ways could be devised to develop a ‘secular/other religions ngondro’………remember reading about a Zen Buddhist who had a kind of a vision of a protector (tho I can not unfortunately quote you the book)……..plus the drala concept under other names is prevalent in other religions and none…..I think my own ‘religious experience’ was Buddhist but it was only when I met Budhists that I somewhat confirmed that………so I think experientially there are other ways to reach what the Sakyong is trying to reach with his conception of Shambhala Buddhism………I just want to open up this path to as many people as possible in fact the whole world and still the ‘Buddhist’ tag feels like a kind of hindrance………how would you open up the teachings to everyone aka a possible world ‘kingdom/queendom’……..and in a way that people could go further on in their paths.
Looking forward to reading the post by the Catholic practitioner on his experiences of practicing the werma sadhana.
……..plus I really must state that I find the posts by older practitioners very informative as to what happened in Boulder with Trungpa……..so I hope they keep posting………
best for the new year
Rita Ashworth
stockport uk
I think the term hater was appropriate. Perv; a little left field. Ashoka has been attacked a lot, he deserves to defend. Tibetaphile, well whatever, a little cranky, probably not enough coffee. But people should really go back and read Ashoka’s suggestions. He makes very good points for the most part, and y’all were young once too. Likely way more agressive.
I think the term “dharma brats” is appropriate, and that’s a term you chose for yourselves, so, good work!
“really you didn’t grow up in an environment much different from others at that time who weren’t Buddhist.”
my….god. I wonder…do you really believe that? Check the stats brother. How many of the second generation of this thing have had serious problems with drugs or emotional issues? A lot of people are still picking up the pieces of being raised in the Shambhala community. I feel mostly lucky, but the utterly permissive attitude toward drug use, alcoholism, and inappropriate sexual behavior that the children of the Vajra Sangha were subjected to is something that damaged a great many of your children. Some of us could handle it and turned out okay, others did not. Jesus, SMC in like 1993 was a completely horrible environment for a child. I feel I turned out relatively well, but I am close with some people who did not. It was not the “crazy hippies” that were the problem (actually those are the ones from your generation I really like), it was the incredibly aggressive alcoholics running around everywhere trying to fuck sixteen year olds, thinking that their nastiness and overly intrusive behavior was somehow part of their vajrayana practice. The way Robert chose to address me is a perfect example of that.
I’m sorry that my jokingly calling you “haters” upset you. I have raised a great many points on this site that essentially have gone largely unaddressed and was approached as if I came here only to play the role of agent provacateur, which if you go back and read what I’ve written here was never the case. Some of you are so sensitive that you couldn’t handle even the least bit of rawness in the dialogue and chose to become defensive and insulting. I will look at how I approached this conversation and reflect on where I lost my mindfulness, but some of you should too. Robert Chandler you lost your mind here, bad. Are you who I’m aspiring to end up like? This is what I’m missing out on, studying with the Sakyong? Thanks but no thanks.
I also don’t speak for tibetiphile, but I do know who he is and I also know he’s someone who’s sacrificed huge amounts of his time to staff and work for Shambhala instead of getting schooling or starting a career. He has paid his dues to be part of this conversation.
This got really upsetting and dark somehow. If I had a part in that, I apologize, but this was not just me. I think you should browse around this website with a clear mind and get a sense for the tone and feel of it. There is no joy here. I understand that you need somewhere to talk through how you’re feeling, but you chose to create a public forum with an open comment function. If this is the way you’re going to welcome people with differing views (young students no less!), there is a problem. I really do empathize with you, losing Chogyam Trungpa in the prime of his teaching abilities changed the entire history and trajectory of the sangha. I can’t imagine the loss and loneliness that must have caused you, and the directionless that you have felt since his passing. But when he talks…and he talked a lot….about the dralas and lineage and the universe being with us, I believe him. I am one of the people who believes that there is magic in this lineage, and that his passing was part of the karma of getting the Shambhala termas into the world. I believe the Sakyong is holding it down for that lineage. It took me a while to get there, to see that, but I feel deeply grateful to him at this point. I will probably study with other teachers in other situations, there is a lot of wisdom out there, but for the Vidyadhara’s legacy and his life’s work, I owe the Sakyong a great debt.
So now you have heard my perspective, for what it’s worth. I am only one person. But I like to talk and have conversations. I have opinions like all of you. I feel that my opinion was not welcomed here, and I am going to make this my last post unless there is something I really need to respond to. I think the big question, from my perspective, is what reconciliation means. If you all have “demands” my guess is it’s not going to happen. But that really shouldn’t preclude you from getting out and meeting some of the Sakyong’s students. I bet a lot of them would love to hear about the old days; it could be a tremendously nurturing environment to grow old in if you give it a chance. The network of people in the sangha has been tremendously nurturing and I am extremely lucky to have it; every friend or girlfriend who has been exposed to it have said the same thing. I think it’s sad that you decided to jump into a self-imposed exile and then spend your remaining years on this earth on things like this website. I’m not talking to you as a Tulku or a Mukpo, just as a fellow praciticioner.
I am going to try and exercise a little bit of discipline and avoid commenting since it hasn’t worked very well for anyone. Good luck with your paths. On the bright side, it looks like we’re all going to get another go round with all this.
re: werma sadhana – i think an anthropologist would define “religion” as simply any set of beliefs coupled with a set of rituals or practices. by that definition, a completely “secular” shambhala training is just another new religion, if it’s detached from buddhism. but one that is highly overlapping with buddhism from both the beliefs point of view and the practices point of view.
so then to say that shambhala training is “secular”, is that more trying to say that it doesn’t require you to give up your beliefs or that it doesn’t look quite so religiousy? i’d question both views, since the training is in shifting one’s beliefs and gets more religiousy as you go along. the werma sadhana is a pretty esoteric ritual, shaped in the same form as pretty esoteric buddhist practice.
so calling it all secular seems more of a gray area. Or more that the so called secular path just looks more secular on the outset, because it can be explicitly called “not-buddhist” even though any taxonomist would put them side by side on the same family tree.
i’m not arguing for calling it all explicitly “buddhist”, just questioning if it was all that secular to begin with.
“I think the term “dharma brats” is appropriate, and that’s a term you chose for yourselves, so, good work!”
Well we’re your children John. So, good work!
Rita I’d love it if you emailed me. You are basically the only person here who’s really tried to engage me at all, but I’m no longer comfortable posting here.
ashoka.mukpo@gmail.com
Short answer, from my perspective (and this is what I said with my first post here), I think the concept of Kingdom and a Monarchy is much, much less palatable to secular westerners than Buddhism is. Culturally, Buddhism is a source of great fascination and curiousity. People have a visceral reaction to the idea of Monarchy, let alone a group with mountain centers that has a military. I mean THAT is the part of all this that freaks people out, not calling it “Buddhism.” I am not out of touch with people, as I said before most of my friends and colleagues are not Buddhist. But they always want to know about Buddhism. They always have questions about the Buddhist side of things. I made the mistake of telling one colleague about MPE a few months ago and she literally thinks I’m in a cult now, and said that the masculinity and inherent violence of that form would prohibit her from being involved. So I really think the idea of “Buddhism” turning people off is a bit of a red herring. If anything scares people away it’s the forms that the Vidyadhara created, and I think we all individually need to reconcile those forms to ourselves (at least for anyone who still feels a connection to that side of things).
What I meant by that. Ashoka, was that a lot of people of your generation rejected the hippie lifestyle of their parents and opted for “straighter” lifestyles. So that was a cultural phenomena not limited to the Buddhists.
My daughter spent summers at SMC and has wonderful memories of that experience. Your right: some children handled that environment better
than others….but that’s the case in general in the world. I think what I’m trying to say is that the experiences your pointing out that were detrimental to
the youngsters are common to the world…not good, of course, but the fact that so many of you decided to take up the buddhist path in spite of all that says something else entirely.
I want to thank you for your posts, Ashoka, you make good points. But
I don’t agree that there is no joy here. People could look at the
“Dharma brats” site and might come to the same conclusion…but I know
a lot of the trash talk there is all in fun. Please keep posting.
thanks for giving me your email ashoka – I will have to think about the questions that are formulating in my mind………
dunno still think you should post here……..mark is really good in giving his opinion on things in a regular manner and I have learnt alot from his posts on this website………and others – I will have to copy Davees reply to me and have a think about that as I am on a library computer………..plus yes I like robust debate………even if it gets scratchy………..uk parliament gets scratchy all the time………
tho maybe also on another tack a break is called for……..for a bit/tho not I hope for ever…….aka the don season………….
well best for the new year
rita ashworth
John, the dharma brat comment is just silly, comes from army brats of course, and has been in the community for at least 30 years. Are you sure it didn’t come from the parents? That is much more likely than it being the self-applied monniker of a four year old.
Also, I have to share an experience. I have been AD for four Level 1′s in the last six months. In three of those cases not a Buddhist term was used. In one, the one taught by the most senior student of VCTR, the normal threefold logic of level 1 was barely eluded to, and basic goodness(the centerpiece of the level) was mentioned so briefly that people had not even thought about it by Sunday morning. Meanwhile he brought up Buddhist concepts throughout, the most esoteric being nyams(temporary experiences during meditation) which is one that many advanced Buddhist practicioners haven’t really grappled with. The participants seemed okay, but if they were asked what Shambhala was about they probably had no idea. At the beginning of the level he lamented being called to teach leass often, and I was sympathetic, but if you are going to ignore the level’s content and just teach whatever, well no wonder. There is openess and desire for Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings, but if someone can’t get over the possibility that the inbreath might be useful in shamatha, that is a personal problem. (It does work, and the other techniques are still taught, this is holding to a fixed view, not lamenting a sweeping change in doctrine.) The nature of the dharma taught has not changed.
This site is a real wheel spinner. I like the Idea of dialouge, but any opinion that does not bash the Sakyong is met with agression. Where is this discussion?
Would it be appropriate if someone decided to teach that all VCTR taught was to dress up and have dinner parties? There does need to be some oversight.
Finally, students old and new are welcome, always have been. Those who feel shut down have likely been unwilling to shift some very fixed ideas. Sorry, the dharma is still the dharma. NBD, DRM, and in conclusion CCL. have fun.
John I know they’re common. SMC summers were the highlight of my childhood. I feel I was fortunate to grow up in the sangha. But I think in the spirit of honesty we need to admit that there were some things about the Vidyadhara’s social milleu that were borderline traumatic to be around.
When I was 13 (!!) someone at a banquet gave me a “drinking lesson.” That lesson involved loading me up with glass after glass of wine until I puked behind the meal tent. The guy told me the next day that my “lesson” was “don’t drink too much.” And he laughed.
Truthfully that kind of moment made me who I am today, mostly for the better. I have some vices, but I’m not an alcoholic or an ex-drug abuser or someone who suffers from mental illness. But there are a lot of people who do struggle with those things within the ranks of the “Dharma brats.” I’m not trying to guilt trip anyone, just wondering aloud if some of what was changed after the Vidyadhara’s death, needed to be changed. I have long felt sad about the loss of some of the “wildness” (if there’s one big beef for me, that’s it), and how things seem routine and pacificed…and almost spa-ish sometimes at SMC… But without a guy like CTR around to relate with that wildness, you have young unsupervised kids passing out in ditches after stealing cooking wine from the walk in freezer, and I’m not sure that kind of thing isn’t MUCH more damaging to the Vidyadhara’s legacy than calling Werma a “Buddhist” practice (isn’t it a sadhana?).
Pretty much every dharma brat I know was more heavily into drugs, alcohol, and early sex in a FAR greater proportion than the general population. Most of us turned out great, perhaps even partially as a result of that. But I think if we’re going to discuss the faults of the current manifestation of the Shambhala sangha we are going to have to look at how it used to be as well. Not to point fingers at all! But to try to figure out why we’re where we are, and how that relates to these changes that are upsetting everyone so much.
First you love your parents, then you understand them, and then, sometimes, you forgive them . . .
I’m not mad at anyone. The generational element here is being overblown. I’m 28, far past the age of being angry at anybody’s parents, mine or anyone else’s. I am extremely thankful that the sangha exists and for all the hard work everybody put into creating it.
Askoka,
Your gentleness and clarity prove that you indeed seem to be a true tulku with so much potential. The elders could be a bit kinder to you, and on their behalf, I apologize, for any harsh words directed at you.
These folks really cared for their guru, and really, no need to attack Robert either, did you notice his softening a bit “we looked at Trungpa Rinpoche face, it was like looking at our own face, not an other person” pure devotion- so he must be capable of love, however aggressive at times, we all hold those tendencies too.
It seems like everyone is giving a bit, let’s all exemplify enlightened society, and it starts first with seeing each other potential and goodness, and indeed, sometime we have to look hard.
obi wan
this is the internet
you dont even know ashoka
calm down.
My goodness. What an intriguing thought: that all this aggression and resentment towards what is being said by the older generation on this site has its roots in resentments from childhoods wounded by growing up in the Vidyadhara’s sangha. Is that the hidden implication in what Ashoka said here?:
“I think if we’re going to discuss the faults of the current manifestation of the Shambhala sangha we are going to have to look at how it used to be as well. Not to point fingers at all! But to try to figure out why we’re where we are, and how that relates to these changes that are upsetting everyone so much.”
How do we go about trying “to figure out why we’re where we are, and how that relates to these changes that are upsetting everyone so much” without looking at “how it used to be as well”?
Ashoka, are you suggesting that the changes were made, to a certain extent, in reaction against how it used to be? I wonder: do you think SMR made changes in order to accommodate the need to heal the dharma brat generation? Were they his first students? I’m ignorant on this score. I don’t have children.
Osel Mukpo himself was a dharma brat – no disrespect intended – and it could be argued that he had the worst childhood of all the dharma brats. I’ve always felt sympathy towards him regarding the conditions of his childhood, which was traumatic in a number of ways.
But I never looked at what he’s done from the perspective of the dharma brats. I’ve heard vague references to the different needs of the younger generation, a different time, different karma, etc. I simply never thought or heard about it from the specific perspective of the kids of CTR’s sangha because I’m not a parent and got busy with grown-up concerns outside the sangha shortly after CTR died.
So I’d like to hear more about how we go about trying “to figure out why we’re where we are, and how that relates to these changes that are upsetting everyone so much,” in relation to “how it used to be” from your perspective.
This seems like a fertile line of inquiry.
Hi all! Lots of things to comment and contribute on, but for the next week I’m letting the outflows rest in their own nature, so to speak. Meanwhile, if you have extra time, look around the site (check the Archives).
As a gift I offer two posts I made early on:
The Ashé Windhorse
and
Tilopa’s Open Sesame
Cheers!
Ashoka, I was agreeing with you some of the sangha at the time of CTR did inflict harm on some of the young ones…no question. And some people actually thought they were practicing Buddhism in doing so…no question.
At least, we didn’t get to the point of carrying around AK-47s like the
Osho’s people….thank goodness for the kasung!
Suzann based on the way you chose to approach me earlier, why would you think I have any desire to entertain dialogue with you now?
But I also cannot help myself.
“Ashoka, are you suggesting that the changes were made, to a certain extent, in reaction against how it used to be?”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’ve long thought. Some of the emphasis on Mahayana on the Sakyong’s part I think is a direct reaction to the way that some of the older students choose to interact with others and with themselves. Emphasis on “some.” I think the Vidyadhara was trying to get a lot out before he passed away, but the Vajrayana indulgence in things like aggression and hostility to others is something that I experienced throughout the time I grew up in the sangha and frankly if someone hadn’t gotten a handle on it I think you’d have a situation that nobody in their right mind would want anything to do with in the absence of Chogyam Trungpa.
I am not trying to do generational warfare here. These teachings are powerful and sublime and of course hard to figure out. I’m just saying that the environment of the sangha in 93 and 94 was not one that I personally miss. I’m not sure how it was in 1979, or if any of the holdover things I saw in the early 90s were just based on post-Regent hangover or if they had some roots in your era. I really don’t know.
Wow this could just go on and on and on… There really is a lot to this. If it wasn’t such an emotional thing that people got so upset over, there would be a lot to talk about.
I really am trying to stop posting. I do not feel that I want to have a conversation with you, it doesn’t seem like that’s what you want and you were quite rude to me earlier.
I will leave on this note. Read this person’s post. Read it again and again, and then read it again. This is a NEW student talking. I hope you all realize that your generation is just one of many in a line of dharma praciticioners… But what this dude Silas says here is deserving of serious contemplation and consideration. I think it is basically the pith. He hit on everything.
“As as a relative newbie to the Vajra sangha it pains me that such discontent still burns on within the community. Contrary to views expressed in an earlier post my inspiration for taking Samaya with the Sakyong was to connect deeply with the lineage and teaching of VCTR. Having made that decision I feel the current direction of the path is steering me towards the cream of the cream of what the Vidyadhara revealed for us.
Time is a compounding factor now influencing allot of decision making – particularly for me. Personally, I would prefer to go traditional route of Vajrayana training. However, I cannot deny the lingering feeling that we as a society and planet are moving into a time of BIG change. The luxuries of time and money to practice Dharma are precious indeed. HH Karmapa has made it clear that all our energies must now be directed towards uplifting our world. A timely mission, not different from KOS, that brings me to tears.
Personally I really appreciate and savor opportunities to practice and hang with ‘the old dogs’. Even if they should not feel they have official influence in the direction of SI, there is a very real generational transference of wisdom and good heart that needs to happen between senior practitioners and neophyte warriors for this noble lineage live on.”
Greetings all.
Parachuting in here – don’t know if I have anything meritorious to offer but parachute appears open so here goes.
Up until recently, have not had much interest in joining this sort of discussion but read Charles’ article and a number of the responses and have become intrigued.
Punch line first: On a heart or bones level, I am so far not understanding the view that a problem has occurred with the current Sakyong’s approach. I do however undertake to explore further and keep listening to other’s views on this.
I am very much a loyalist Trungpa student, having attended Seminary, Kalapa Assembly, and Magyal Pomra Encampment with him. I practice daily, emphasizing sitting, tong-len, Chakrasamvara, and Werma practice along with a few others. I very much yearn to keep discovering and re-discovering the Vidyadhara’s teachings and manage to do so at least in fits and starts. Most recently, I attended the high-energy weekend presented in Halifax by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche based on the Transcending Madness seminars by the Vidyadhara. Although I much enjoyed HHDKR’s teaching, by far the most compelling aspect of this for me was actually diving into reading the original seminars which I found utterly powerful and challenging…(perhaps I’m starting to ramble a bit here but just wanting to somehow say where I’m coming from).
For what it’s worth to this discussion, I also feel really good generally about what Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche has been doing, pretty much all along. I have found his teachings to be very powerful and helpful – specifically his Cakrasamvara tris, commentary on the Dorje Kasung slogans, his two publically published books, and the Shambhala ngondro practices and commentary. My practice and understanding has been consistently energized by engaging these materials.
I can accept that this kind of response to the Sakyong’s teachings has not been universally shared by old dog Trungpa students (while also knowing that to a considerable extent, it has). What I am so far failing to get, however is why people should feel limited or constrained in their practice by the “Shambhala Buddhism” approach. It seems the possibilities for practice and study are immensely rich, with many avenues open; besides the obvious ongoing availibility of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings in print, film, and various class & practice formats, obviously people have been able to deeply explore their path with HE Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Ponlop Rinpoche, HE Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche not to mention many others. Also, as far as I am concerned, since the notion of Shambhala Buddhism was presented, the dralas are the same dralas, devotion is the same devotion, surrendering, compassion, shamatha-vipasyana, the gap, samaya – all essentially the same as before. The only real obstacle I can see so far is the force of my own habitual patterns.
Anyway – don’t mean to get too soap-boxy here. I honestly want to keep exploring and listening here more than proclaiming. Just wanted to explain where I’m coming from so far. Also do want to mention I am not a buddy of the Sakyong’s and hold no particular position in the Shambhala hierarchy.
I kept a printed copy of the Sakyong’s first presentation of Shambhala Buddhism from the Kalapa Assembly at Mount Allison. I will get that out and study it for problems (must say I did slide right into calling myself a “Shambhala Buddhist” to my non-sangha acquaintances after that and found it a much smoother intro to explaining myself to them in-a-nutshell fashion).
Also, I will keep reading what people have to say + am interested in face-to-face discussions with folks (e.g. Mark S is pretty much a neighbour; maybe I could invite myself over for tea or vice versa…)
I wish us all well with this discussion, not to mention don season – I think our hearts are all in the right place. May it be of benefit.
Love to all, Joe Pratt
I managed to write a gentler comment this time.
It seems like a lot of Buddhists don’t see any problem in folding Shambhala into Buddhism. At my center it’s called “Shambhala Buddhism” which is offered in addition to “Tibetan Buddhism”. New people are told at intro events that two forms of Buddhism are offered.
This probably seems great if you’re already Buddhist. Woot. (I think that means “we owned the other team”.)
But what if you weren’t? Or what if you met someone at work who was Jewish but who you think would be perfect for Level One training? What if you met a Native American who was trying to explore his warrior heritage. Or what if the economy fell apart and the dark age appeared, but most people on earth weren’t Buddhist? What could we offer?
And why did Chogyam Trungpa create non-sectarian Shambhala Training in the first place? It would have been much easier for him not to have done so. I bet it was unpopular with some of his Tibetan colleagues.
I would enjoy articles that explore some of these questions.
Another question. Jewish people sometimes call themselves the “chosen people”. Some Christians feel they’re the only ones going to heaven. Muslims identify the faithful and the “kafir” (infidels or non-believers). Do Buddhists feel that they have the only true religion, and everyone else is barking up the wrong tree?
If that’s true, then it’s amusing for VCTR to have put a non-Buddhist meditation training program into the hands of Buddhists, for them to preserve and cherish.
It’s like asking the fox to watch the henhouse.
(However I must admit that as a newcomer I’m often astounded at the level of hospitality that people in VCTR’s lineage demonstrate.)
Thanks again for everything.
Edward
edward.
relax.
sit.
relax.
eat.
relax.
sleep.
relax.
shit.
relax.
the rest is none of you business.
Wrong, tibetaphile. The rest is all of our business. VCTR did not pour the jewels of Tibetan Buddhism and KOS into our laps for our own self-satisfied, insular enlightenment. He reiterated in a hundred different ways that our charge was to propagate the dharma far and wide with many skillful means in order to help the world. The institution building that he did was to create the infrastructures for many skillful means – to scatter the seeds via many trained students for the benefit of all sentient beings. He wasn’t into institution building for its own sake, to create a fortress to keep the sangha and himself safe from feedback from the world.
VCTR deplored what he called ‘cronyism,’ hanging out together in little cliques, speaking only jargon to each other, sharing in-jokes, making each feel safe and cozy within the in-group. This is what flourished with great arrogance among the Regent and his buddies, and VCTR made it clear that it leads to corruption. I call it ‘herd mentality.’ It is far from the warriorship that the Dorje Dradul taught and exemplified, which depends on standing on your own two feet, with your own direct, personal relationship with heaven and earth, the ancient and primordial lineages, jnanasattvas, samayasattvas and dralas, accountable ultimately to them. This kind of relationship, I’ve found, is best cultivated in solitary retreat – the kind that us old dogs have engaged in.
Edward understands that Shambhala is for the benefit of the world. He is not in it just for himself. He has the Bodhisattva gene.
“best cultivated in solitary retreat- the kind us old dogs have engaged in.”
Um… the young ones go on solitary retreat too.
Your arrogance and cronyism (anti SMR cronyism without fact or credential) is disturbing. Though you are right Edward has every right to express his mildly informed opinions.
Hey yo Suzanne Duarte the lineage holder,
ever heard of this guy ? He’s pretty well known but wasn’t around in the 80s / 70s.. so maybe doesn’t count for you :
Patrul Rinpoche
Originator of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. (1808-1887 AD).
“Remember the example of the old cow: She’s content to sleep in a barn. You have to eat, sleep and excrete – that’s the unavoidable – anything beyond that is none of your business. Do what you have to do and keep yourself to yourself.”
cause he said it.
p.s.
do you know this Edward personally or are you basing this on internet comments columns?
In response to Edward’s gentle post — of course, buddhists don’t have a monopoly on enlightenment / truth. We tend to be proud of our lineage — it is a good path that can make you gentler and less self-centered over time.
The real problem is having a set of beliefs that we fixate on as a solid, conceptual reality — whether you call that “true religion” or “Shambhala Buddhism” or “Radio Free Shambhala” or whatever. That type of belief makes you arrogant and enlightenment on that path tends to be a samsaric version of enlightenment — a world like the Matrix movie that is full of profound jargon (and even machine guns) — with no devotion or compassion,
I think that through pride or whatever we Buddhists tend to think of Buddhism as very good comprehensive path that will carry through to the highest and most subtle stages of the path. And we tend to view theistic traditions as being less comprehensive. I recall that CTR — who very much appreciated Christian monastic traditions — said that Christian practice has a path that can carry at least as far as the 8th bhumi. I appreciate our sangha very much — but there are times even in reading some posts on this board where I wonder whether some of us wouldn’t be better off on a Christian path.
Then again, our minds shift. And in the next post someone is very soft.
If we practice with the right view (essentially putting ourselves last and others first), none of any of this is a problem.
Tibetophile, oops I mean Ashoka, same person, isn’t it?
You quote Patrul Rinpoche’s poem out of context.
This poem was a pith instruction in the Dzogchen view, and certainly not about engaging in the busyiness and confusion of samsaric “religion and politics” which is the direction SI has devolved into, from a solid place of the three projections.
Parts of the poem you left out.
Patrul Rinpoche’s poem, is about not making conceptual demands on yourself, and religious demands, without the highest view.
“Give up everything that’s the point”
It’s not about saving the world or a messianic mission by a group which lacks any realization from the base of emptiness, clarity and real compassion and whose members, most anyway, seem now totally caught up in samsara, while proclaiming they have an enlightened view to bring to “others”.
This poem also addresses not calling a “tethering of the mind” “meditation”.
Its about pith dharma, and discarding everything else.
And it is definitely NOT about what the SI mandala is currently engaged in, and is so far from it, that to quote it as a clever response to Suzanne’s heartfelt post, is so silly it hardly deserves a response.
If you are going to quote dharma , at least have an intellectual understanding about what you are quoting.
This site , that you have brought your puerile intrusions to, is not about what direction SI has gone in, or even what SMR is teaching in itself. It’s this labyrinthine confusion and muddledness of mixing samsaric and dharmic view ( not a coermergent arising , which is very different) , that is what many people are disturbed about, and calling this CTR’s legacy, or even worse, calling it something “improved and better”.
Your quoting this poem, out of context, without the slightest understanding is an example of this confusion.
Like your dharma brat site. Nothing wrong with it, in itself. I am sure you thing it’s quite clever. And I am sure it is lots of fun, as entertainment. But new people come to that site and actually think this has something to do with the dharma or with CTR’s legacy , because you use your “credentials” on that site, and your family connections in the crudest way there, if people don’t agree with you. You viciously attack other teachers that have left, or that are a different stream of teachings. It is a nasty, mean , setting sun site, that has devolved into just more entertainment and distraction in samsara, for a tiny group of dharma brats who seem very, very angry and confused, and that is the message you are really sending out to world : i.e. that this is somehow connected to the dharma and that this is the best the “cream” of SMR’s students can do.
That site speaks volumes about a confusion about what to accept and reject. And the strangest thing about it is that it reflects a kind of theistic nihilism that will be very difficult to work with without a tremendous amount of practice.
Chris c., you don’t even know where you are right now. . .
Oh, well. I’m taking off for the rest of the don season.
these Chandlers are hateful lonely souls.
until these kinds of folks are removed from your discussions.. you will only get more of the same.
I am actually very happy to know none of you are lurking around ruining peoples dathun experiences.
good riddance.
Hey, everyone, this thread is great. Hashing it out! I didn’t read all of them, that would be crazy! Lots of smart people here. I took a break to make some lentil soup and thought I might ask if anyone has any good techniques for making good dough for Momos. Regardless of my experience in India with Tibetans being some of the most spiritually materialistic people I had ever met, re-inforcing my great love of Trungpa and the Shambhala lineage, the Momos things is forever implanted. Tips? I want to make dozens and dozens next Wednesday.
Wow Chris, look at your post about the Dharma Brat website, then re read everything else you vomited all over people through the rest of that post. At least have a little bit of self reflection if you feel you have the ability to so smugly and arrogantly tear other people down. I wasn’t around, but if that is what you took from your guru and that era, then I believe you will find it incredibly difficult to find anyone who will take your word on whether the Shambhala Dharma has been perverted. I wish everyone the best, and we are all brothers and sisters in the Sangha, but you ruin it for the other people who have intelligent thoughtful things to say. People want a discussion, not your arrogant, aggressive vomiting.
I think earlier someone made a post about us having more in common than not. Were is the compassion and kindness? The one thing I have heard most about CTR is that he loved everyone first, tore them down if need be second. I think we might be skipping a step.
anakin: “I think the term hater was appropriate. Perv; a little left field… Tibetaphile, well whatever, a little cranky, probably not enough coffee.”
When I first read this it made me laugh. I assumed anakin was making a joke. But it just occurred to me that this probably isn’t the case.
If so, then this goes to the heart of my own questions here, which have more to do simply with the way people treat each other within Shambhala. And in particular, how this is affected by structures of authority and organizational agenda–by power, group mind, broadly political ambition, and so on.
Tibetaphile actually just called the people who set up this site “perverts”. If one of the latter had done the same, what do you think the response would be from you guys (anakin, obi, tibetaphile, ashoka etc.)? Do you think you would say, “that comment was a little left field; so-and-so needs a cup of coffee”? Um, I don’t think so somehow… (Besides, coffee raises your cortisol levels–tea probably a better bet.)
And yet, what does “pervert” even mean in this context? I actually have no idea, and tibetaphile hasn’t clarified it. But it resonates in powerfully, overarchingly negative ways.
Let’s move on to “hater”. Calling someone a “hater” can be a pretty aggressive gesture in its own right. In any case, and at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious: we all experience aggression and hatred, from child to senior teacher. Does anyone here think, say, acharyas are not subject to aggression and hatred? Really? I’ve seen it a number of times. From kasung too. (Abuse of authority within…Shambhala?! Surely not possible! We’re the exception to the rule! In Shambhala, power will never corrupt!)
In the context of this website, I think calling people “haters” is NOT appropriate. Is there occasional aggression mixed in with the (sometimes quite sharp) criticism? Of course. There are forms of expression I wouldn’t use. None of us here, I am guessing, has abandoned ego. But within the bigger picture that word “hater” is very far from appropriate. Many people writing here are doing so out of quite justifiable feelings of deep sadness mixed with deep frustration. Not everyone has to completely agree with everyone else in order to accept the validity and genuineness of their experience.
Sorry if people might be knocking on the door of an illusion or two tibetaphile, but Shambhala does have some problems. I personally find at least one of them very serious indeed. If you disagree, that’s okay. What isn’t okay is complacency. So if you think Shambhala has nothing to worry about, now and forever, because “God / Buddha / the spirit of VCTR / the spirit of Gesar is on our side”, so that anyone who criticizes us is a “hater” (and a “pervert” to boot!)–then I’d say the whole thing’s in big, big trouble in that case. In my view that would be a perfect example of what’s gone wrong.
1. hater
A person that simply cannot be happy for another person’s success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.
Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesnt really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock someone else down a notch.
Susan: You know, Kevin from accounting is doing very well. He just bought a house in a very nice part of town.
Jane (hater): If he is doing so well why does he drive that ’89 Taurus?
Not so nice seeing the thread devolve into trading insults.
The insults seem more like a split in the sangha than any questioning of practices or policies.
Some have samaya with CTR. Some have samaya with SMR. Some have samaya with both.
I rejoice for everyone who keeps samaya.
I was always taught that the hardest samaya to keep is the one between vajra brothers and sisters….
the sky is thick with purple clouds of sickness
mad haters up in this dark age yo!
i am not tibetiphile chris. jesus. you are so paranoid.
deep breath.
you spend lots of time on the internets. stop taking everything so seriously.
and we’re parsing the term “hater” now, really? guys. lighten up.
wow this got heavy. breath, breath, breath. if you don’t want people to offer alternate views on your site, you should express that. if you do, you gotta work a little on how you engage them. i can be a little abrasive but what i had to offer was genuine and did not deserve the personal vitriol i recieved. old student or no, check yourself.
There’s gotta be some way to have some basic standard of respect for one another in all this. Not everyone is going to study with the Sakyong, and I’d basically convert to Southern Baptism before I studied with Reggie Ray, so why not just accept that there is a gulf there and be kind to each other? I might have my feelings about your interpretation of the Vidyadhara’s teachings, and you have yours about mine, but aggression on anybody’s part won’t change that at all. The urge to tell one another how and why they are fucked up or wrong must be resisted.
Really though I do kind of feel sad for some of you.
How about to purify some of the karma of this thread, anybody who can, donates $5 to this project?
Dear Sangha:
I’m working with Acharya Judy Lief on trying to get The Root Text Project to the next level of completion. You can help! See below:
The Root Text Project is a multi-year editing and publishing project to develop the Vidyadhara’s Trungpa Rinpoche’s seminary teachings into three volumes to serve as a core presentation for current students and scholars and, equally importantly, for future scholars and practitioners. It will serve as the Vidyadhara’s “treasury of knowledge,” and be used as a standard reference by other teachers. It will allow readers access to the Vidyadhara’s sophisticated exposition of traditional dharma, his subtle understanding of meditation practice, and his ability to capture the relevance of the buddhadharma to contemporary life.
The Root Text Project originated with the Vidyadhara, who made it very clear to some of his students that he would like to combine and re-edit his seminary teachings into a three-volume set. He regarded the seminary transcripts as the core statement of his essential dharma teaching, providing a thorough, systematic presentation based on both scholarship and meditative practice. The Vidyadhara envisioned these volumes as textbook in style, directed to practitioners and scholars, both within and outside our sangha. In the realm of publishing, this is the final remaining project initiated directly by the Vidyadhara, so it continuously weighs on our minds.
The original teachings, which fill twenty-five volumes, will be condensed and refined in order to invite further study. They will be heavily edited and rearranged according to topic for clarity. They must be able to stand as fully integrated coherent books. This requires significant paring down, blending and reorganizing of material, pulling out the main threads of the discussion, and shaping the book with headings and subheadings to help the reader follow the logic of the presentation, while still maintaining the voice, style, and provocative insight of the Vidyadhara. In making editorial decisions, considerable research is required, as are frequent consultations with translators and dharma scholars.
At present, Judy Lief and Sam Bercholz persevere as the key force behind getting the Root Text Project funded and completed. The good news: There is a $15,000 matching grant of which $7,500 has been matched. So if we raise $7,500 more, we could secure the remaining $7,500 to complete the project.
To date, the project has received a grant from the Shambhala Trust, mainly to cover computer expenses, some translation costs, and retreat costs. Funding has been provided by Shambhala Publications, Vajaradhatu Publications, private donations, the Trust, and this matching grant. In addition, Lady Diana Mukpo is providing support.
Please help us make this happen! Checks for donations of any size can be made out to CT Legacy Project (with a note on the check saying “for RTP,” a tax deductible donation), and sent to Ashoka Credit Union, Attn: Denny Robertson, 525 Canyon Boulevard, Boulder, CO 80302. Many thanks for your support in preserving these precious teachings.
Yours in the dharma and thank you again,
Jane Kolleeny
Damcho, It was kind of a joke, take er easy there dude. (and people were most definitely hating on Ashoka). Which brings up my next point. . . ASHOKA you evil greedy boy, you ask for donations and then have people send the money to YOUR credit union! Nice try but we see through your treachery. Shame on you!!! (how did you get your own credit union anyway?)
Dear Ashoka:
Your only fooling people who want to be fooled. Why don’t you start cleaning up your own karma, like taking Suzanne Duarte’s picture that you stole from this site, so that you and your cohorts could put up hateful, derogatory remarks next to the picture, about her on your Mukpo site.
You use different monikers, and forget which one you are using, switch back and forth between sites, and on this site, between derisive negative comments, to “oh I am such a gentle Shambhalian” and “I have no idea where all this hatemongering is coming from?.” Poor innocent me”. “Let’s all be gentle now and kind to each other.” Pleeease. You are only fooling the very thickest.
Clean up your own act and own Mukpo site, before you start admonishing others on this site. It deteriorated when you arrived and brought that same energy from the Mukpo site here.
If you really love and care about the Sakyong and SI mandala as you say, and the message he is trying to get across, start cleaning your karma up there. You are doing more to harm to him there, than anything that can be said on this site.
M’kay Chris. Am I Ashoka too? Maybe Suzanne is Ashoka. I am pretty sure Tischer and Skywalkwer are Ashoka, as well as Damcho, Toby, Davee, and You! You are Ashoka too! Yeah!! Ashoka is the debil!!
I’ll leave you all to the sychophants Ashoka, now. Don’t worry. Your comfortable little world will seal over, and you can be cursed again to be only surrounded by yeah-sayers, and those who will tell you that every word you utter is ” brilliant and filled with meaning”, and you will continue not recognizing people who have tried to be really compassionate with you by telling you the truth. We get what we deserve, I guess.
Six years raising one son, abandoned by the Mukpos, is enough for me.
I suggest you let these personal attacks go now, and we will stop here, while you are ahead.
Chris I am not tibetiphile. I have one moniker here, and one on that board. You have issues.
I really wish people related with me the way you think they do. It sounds nice.
I also think you should go back and check the progression of this conversation to see who brought what energy into the mix.
CHRIS
Therapy, not dharma practice, will help you.
Ashoka has no say in what goes down on mukpo.com.. its all the Gesars fault.
OMG this whole thread is Ashoka talking to himself.. isnt it?
Ashoka you fooled me again!
I think Toby actually might be a real guy.. but the Suzanne character deserves some sort of Internet Emmy.
well done my man….. I mean… my master… oh how I adore you…
Wow and now you’re going to take it there. You really have a bad energy Christine.
I will not address the self-indulgent slime that you are attempting to vomit onto me, but I do want to say that honesty is the actual reason why I still ride for the Shambhala sangha. I’ve had more doses of reality from fellow sangha members, lovingly, than anywhere else in my life and it’s basically the main thing I get out of all this. The love, the community, the compassion. You are not trying to be honest with me for my benefit, you are just angry and deeply invested in an agenda. You have dispensed horrible advice in this thread and attempted to push a trip onto me that I have no desire to indulge. Whatever it is you are trying to accomplish it is not working and you are only causing yourself to get upset. I think it’s really time to relax with all this. I will stop visiting your site, and you can stop visiting mine. Fair?
I really was just trying to offer an opinion Chris. And you flew off the handle.
And Ashoka, you don’t have to take on the guilt of your family for abandoning Tagi. It is common for someone to be hated who has done the job that your family should have done.
Don’t worry, It actually gave your mother time to raise you.
But you dont have to thank me, just clean up your act, and it would make it worth it.
Chris.
One name. I have used one name on here, and it is mine. I think a few of you are hypersensitive, and I cannot avoid participating in a trainwreck. It was a bad combination from the beginning. But mods, you have basically allowed people on here to chase me away. If I am your definition of a troll, you are not used to being disagreed with. This is not the way to foster open dialogue…..
Chris….go outside…..have a smoke….take a bath….whatever it is you do to relax….read a mystery romance novel…whatever…..because you seriously need to calm down. That is “right speech?” Jesus you just really need the last word, huh. Okay…..go.
No, start cleaning up your act, by taking Susan Duarte’s picture off you site.
That’s the last word.
He cant take Suzannes picture off the site.
he is not a moderator of that board.
it is the smelly half tibetan mukpo you seek.
Nearly two hundred comments, let this be a lesson to you: NEVER, EVER mention Germans in an opinion piece, we all see what happens.
Hey, Kids, so you’re now trying to practice black magic on me? What do you think we have protectors for? To protect against people like you, as well as to protect our own minds. Who is really being hateful? Who is spewing out purple clouds of sickness? Remember what Milarepa had to go through to cleanse the karma of his black magic? That’s primitive Bönpo stuff, not Shambhalian at all. You’re not doing the reputation of SI any favors, you know.
BTW, my husband is going to sue you for copyright violation.
ashoka: “and we’re parsing the term “hater” now, really? guys. lighten up.”
Gonna hafta disagree here. Sometimes we need to just try and understand where someone is coming from.
I wrote a couple of paragraphs about the idea of being a “hater”. I don’t find that excessive. It’s a highly charged word. Hatred is also one of the three kleshas, so contemplating it is good. Contemplating generally is good. As we know, one of the three prajnas.
It was helpful to me to hear tibetaphile’s response. Tibetaphile says that he / she (I’m guessing “he”, somehow) uses the word because he thinks this website resents Shambhala’s “success”, basically.
It’s useful to know that this is his interpretation, that this is how he sees the motivation of those who set the site up. Which makes them, simply, “haters”.
You call it “parsing”, but I’d genuinely be interested to hear how he is using the word “pervert” also.
We should look forward to clarifying our perceptions and ideas for others, when they ask. I feel that should be something we take delight in, actually.
Sorry for being so earnest.
Actually no, I’m not sorry for being earnest.
About 20 years ago last week, somebody in this thread said, “i really have no idea how things look from your eyes.”
Does everybody on this thread have transmission of some version of tonglen practice? If so, it is possible to know how things look from the eyes of anyone. Dharma Brats have Dharma Brat eyes, talk on Dharma Brat websites. It’s funny and strange to see that world collide with the world of RFS. Old Dogs have Old Dog eyes, talk on Old Dog websites, then BOOM, RFS invaded by churlish youth.
But what is the same? That’s what we’re all here for, and if we don’t stop outsmarting ourselves and each other and get to work on our common path, everybody loses. We have got to figure out a way to talk to each other like grownups, which term, by the way, includes anybody past puberty. RFS was working on that, but wow, really bad dons have been through here. Take a breath, take a break, the plum blossoms are blooming and the finches are singing. There’s a reason why we’re all doing this.
Zer-me
black…..magic…. what in the world are you talking about….
damcho i wasn’t talking about you when i said “hater.” i was using it flippantly mainly at the people who got personal with me for no good reason. i also think that, as convenient as that explanation would be, i don’t think that’s what tibetiphile was getting at.
I really think that this idea of this being a “dharma brats” versus “radio free” thing is utterly out of context. That site is a message board with no specific purpose other than for people to stay in touch and entertain one another. I don’t own or moderate it and cannot take anything down that I did not post, it is Gesar’s board. This website is different, it is intended to foster dialogue and discussion about specific issues. There are articles and comment threads. The other site really should never have entered the picture here as it is completely different.
You cannot set up a site like this and then say, “only certain people can come and participate.” What sense does that make? Isn’t the conversation here specifically most important for newer students, who will be attempting to work with our lineage when the older generation has passed away?
Saying that this site was “invaded” is unfair. If you look at my initial posts, every one was an attempt at a dialogue. But, I do agree, it has not worked out very well for anyone. Taking a deep breath seems appropriate.
Yes, unfortunately the discussion quality has degenerated. Let’s take a bit of a pause here – there will be much more in the new year, don’t worry.
I’d like to act as umdze and request that tibetaphile/Gabe and durr/anakin/various-IDs stop posting comments. And Gabe’s use of Suzanne’s photo on the Dharma Brats forum is puerile, which maybe is okay, but beyond that it really feels spiteful and like an attack. Please take it off/change your profile picture.
The notion of “functional talking” here does not seem inappropriate: this community that is intermittently online to each other on this site is like a bunch of people on zafus all over the world, with an occasional thought balloon comment popping up for all to share. Being “here” is a practice, mostly of openness and implied presence, and that practice includes talking. We have a pretty good tradition of how to use speech, what decorum is, what civil, let alone enlightened society could be, what the atmosphere of court as the true nature of things is. It’s not elsewhere.
Cheers,
Mark
Chris, Robert, Suzann, John, everyone –
I am sorry that this turned out this way. I think we should all take a deep breath and do some mamo chants and contemplate what we got from this experience. I did not intend to insult or degrade you, or your views. You are entitled to them no matter how I feel. I will defend what I feel has merit; I am entitled to that, but I apologize if you feel that you were attacked or insulted. I may not agree with you…and honestly might feel like you have a little bit of a nutty side…but I do respect you, and my goal was not to cause havoc or start a fight. I just wanted to talk. Happy new year to you all.
Oh, hey, I am real, really like momos (who does not!) and I referenced the mamos because:
I got to thinking how a friend once, when advised by a lama to do multiple repetitions of the mamos chants (not during don season), came to their own realization, it might not be true for all, that the majority of stuff on the internet would be easily classified as bad, cheap food. And then I thought how it’s a common decision in tantrika circles to not travel during the don season. And then I thought about how communicating on the internet is a bit like traveling. And then I thought if the purple clouds of sickness in the mamos chant were thick in the sky then all the internet traffic would pass through it and then I figured all of us are in this cloud right now. Not separate, mistaken. The chant ends with the mantra of indestructibility of our samaya. It’s not breakable, we just forget.
I am sorry, it is routinely pointed out to me that the chain of thought that I find completely direct is in fact so indirect as to be incomprehensible.
Maybe, I am off to work and will do it later, people could type in the mamos chant and clear the airwaves a bit! Or if you are a Shambhala Training folk, a windhorse chant! It cannot hurt, I think.
Davee I have been thinking about my reply to your post re secularism, the Shambhala teachings and Buddhism.
There indeed have been many books written on what constitutes a religion in fact I think I remember reading one at college called Religious Belief and Religious Understanding(you could google it).
I think Buddhism as a system of thought, way of life, has certain suggestions about how you can live your life but as to ‘beliefs’ and the veritable question what does a Buddhist believe in – Buddhism has no fundamental ground which you can stand on. You could argue that the Vajrayana teachings undercut all beliefs in a most profound manner. I also think the Shambhala teachings ‘work’ in the same way.
Now as to secularism I meant secularism in its most philosophical form. I have not studied anthroplogy but I have studied some philosophy of religion texts such as Descartes Discourse on Method. Most of the philosophy I studied stemmed from the enlightenment period where people were trying to match scientific method with the possible existence of God i.e. man makes a watch therefore there must similarly be a Cosmic Watchmaker. This was the secularism I was talking about how people use their minds in a logical fashion to enquire into the meaning of life as we know it Jim. Strangely more recent philosophy is veering towards the Buddhist viewpoint on life – such as there being no ultimate cause to things/events/objects. For example, I well remember at college discussing David Hume’s idea of casuality where the lecturer to exemplify Humes ideas lit a match and said where is the cause happening in the lighting of the match – the thing is if you really look you can not discover a cause.
Now could this secular enquiry lead to a ‘religion’ persay with rituals or the theatre of religious spectacle. Well yes I think so – Robin Kornman has alluded to Plato as to having similar ideas that are prevalent within the Shambhala teachings on his google video where he mentions wandering round Washington and seeing all the government Graeco-Roman buildings and thinking of the origin of them all –like they were modern temples.
Some artists have also argued that Art has the qualities of a ‘religion’ such as Iris Murdoch who stated that you could gain more awareness of yourself and your world through writing than therapy.
In the east I think you can see a kind of secular enquiry happening in Rinzai Buddhism with koan study. I had a stupid job in a factory once and contemplated the koan the sound of one hand clapping – I got as far as ‘thunderclap’
The discussion of secularism/religion is also very pertinent today in the UK where we now have a muliticultural and multi-religious society and recently there have been many debates about how religion encroaches on ones own personal freedoms. If you can access BBC Radio 4 you will be able to listen into these debates.
So secularism is also a big subject – I would welcome more debates on this board about it and its encounter with the ‘religious’ world.
……..and I really hope people can listen to Robins teachings on Shambhala over the holidays.
Best for the New Year
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Rita, you raise an interesting subject. Buddhist non-theism has some parallels with some Western secular approaches. Science takes a tentative approach (hypothesis) and tests it through experimentation. The openness in science to allow the world to change concepts is something that a Buddhist can appreciate.
However, I think that there is an unspoken assumption in science that there is ground for objectivity. I think that differs from Buddhism. In Buddhism there is an assumption that the practitioner’s perceptions are not objective or trustworthy. There may be initial inspiration — but our habits are very strong. So there is a need for trust and faith in a teacher and teachings and the support of other practitioners on the path. These are all expedients — but they are essential.
I do think that in Western Buddhism there is a tendency to want to focus on the highest teachings on absolute truth. I think that this may come from the fact that we live in a science oriented, secular, nihilistic society. We are uncomfortable in the West when a Buddhist teacher talks about “prayers.” We are uncomfortable with a guru principle altogether. The worst thing that we can thing of would be to be gullible and misled. Others may disagree, but I think that reflex is a major reason for the existence of this website. But why are we more worried about being misled by a teacher than being misled for the hundred thousandth time this week by our own habitual mind? It just seems less embarrassing and less frightening not to put faith in a living teacher, that’s all.
I tend to think that we don’t put nearly enough emphasis in the West on the expedient practices of the Hinayana and Mahayana. There is a lot to be gained by simple, profound practices that just counter our habitual tendencies. For example, driving blames into ourselves instead of others is such a powerful practice. We can blame ourselves not just for our emotions generated by a traffic jam — but for the traffic jam itself because if we weren’t going somewhere in a hurry there would be no traffic obstructing us. The traffic jam wouldn’t exist.
Offering incense (or money) is also such a powerful practice. Tulku Urgyen had an amazing answer to a question as to why he established a monastery. He did not say that he built it so that practitioners could practice. He said that he built it because when three or four monks are gathered together it creates an opportunity for donors to give. Then he went further and said that “It doesn’t matter if the monks misappropriate the funds, that is their problem.” Creating the opportunity to accumulate merit for donors (whether based on blind faith or misguided faith or not) is the important thing.
Ultimately, that is the problem that I have with the approach of this website. The website helps a little in countering blind faith or eternalism — viewing Shambhala Buddhism as a salvation. But I don’t think that eternalism is the chief obstacle to dharma practice in our sangha or in this culture. I think that nilhilism is. And if that is the case, many of the opinions expressed here go a long way toward discouraging dharma practice. Very little here offers encouragement or inspiration for practice.
I should mention in fairness that the other potentially helpful thing about this website is the opportunity for an honest, generous and kind exchange of different ideas among sangha members. Given the quality and tone of the don season comments in this thread, whether this website can achieve that is at least an open question.
Dear Jim:
You wrote:
“But I don’t think that eternalism is the chief obstacle to dharma practice in our sangha or in this culture. I think that nilhilism is. And if that is the case, many of the opinions expressed here go a long way toward discouraging dharma practice. Very little here offers encouragement or inspiration for practice”.
It appears that you are admonishing this website , and do not see some of SMR students and the energy of nihilism and negativity that they brought here. Which I referred to as a theisitic nihilism. A theism, that seems to believe in nothing but an abstract principal, that can’t really touch them in any way. So they can carry on, unabashedly with nihilism, unaffected. ( I of course am not referring to the students that SMR has that are truely devoted and manifest that and I am sure are an inspiration for others to practice).
Did you know that, the picture is still up of an older practitioner, on the dharma brat site? Are you as concerned about that?. A flagrant disregard of even the moderator’s asking that picture be removed. I find it a blatant disregard of other’s feelings. She has asked that it be removed, as has the moderator. That was totally ignored. What does that say to you. about what highly visible SMR students are doing on another website?
There seems to be a blindness to any and all negativity occurring within the SMR group organization, or if the negativity is generated by anyone representing the SMR organization, a blind eye is turned.
Some of us did react strongly because in our experience with this energy, (up close and personal ,by the way, and long-standing), only a wrathful approach works.. They would have continued and continued increasing the negative comments and been more and more derisive. The “kind” approach does not work with that energy. It is seen as a weakness, again from my experience. They would not have stopped deriding everyone that didn’t agree with them unless some of us got angry with them.
All of us are a mixture of positive and negative energy. And it will be, until the day we reach rainbow body and our karma is exhausted.
No one group has a monopoly on the good. In fact, if a particular group sees themselves that way, as defending some hinayana /mahayana view that only they, in particular, understand now, and admonish others with that view, then of course it will make people angry and frustrated. Its a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality, to many of us, I am afraid. A claim to some higher understanding of compassion which many people are trying to communciate here, has not happened , and is not now happening in the SI mandala, except in people’s own heads. It is not people’s experience of this mandala. Sorry.
Furthermore, the SI mandala is determined to quash any and all criticism of itself, but has no problem , in defense of itself and its direction, being highly critical and territorially defensive, even abusive to others who have a different view. I have been even physically assaulted when I wouldn’t say SMR was my teacher, and although that is quite a while ago, it leaves one affected for many years.
That is why, I assume this website was started, to find a place where “unconventional” views vis a vis the SI mandala could finally be expressed, that’s all. It is disconcerting that there is still an attempt at censoring these views and so if an overreaction occurred, I apologize. There is a certain PTSD effect from years of righteous theism, “my way or “I’ll make you see my way” and the energy of the dharmabrats “we are right and why can’t you see this?” was like a flashback of that.
Chris
Also: When asked about the Buddha’s tooth and couldn’t one reach enlightenment if one had even blind devotion to a dog’s tooth, Tulku Urgyen’s son, carrying on his lineage, in a question and answer period, said “No” that was not true, that it was very important to examine the teacher before committing oneself, and that “blind faith” or blind devotion” is not a good thing and will not lead to enlightenment even with the best of intentions if you are following someone who could lead you astray, or did not have realization. So examining carefully was important. So that myth, that we all long-held, was expelled.
Certainly expecting unquestioning devotion being transferred from students of CTR to the current Sakyong and forcing this, then admonishing us, if this didn’t happen, has not been a helpful thing and has led to much much confusion. How could it not?. No realized teacher would be advocating that, as your post seems to suggest. I am sure the Sakyong is not advocating that.
Up to twelve years of investigation is recommended in Patrul Rinpoche’s Words of my Perfect Teacher. Only when one has examined thoroughly , and then gives one’s committment is a samaya bond then formed to see only the good qualities. Even then one is not blind to the human qualities.
I think there is great confusion among Westerners about devotion, and what it means. I think this is because, particularly with those of us starting on the Buddhist path in the 70′s and 80′s, there was much confusion between east and western views, much cultural confusion that we are only beginning to clear up. There was blind devotion and a theistic approach that simply tried to emulate what we saw other Asians doing without understanding what was the intention. We are only at the beginning of really understanding what is real dharma and what is cultural overlay that we can’t really know.
In a question put forth about this to The 17th Karmapa , he was asked about these cultural differences, he said the dharma isn’t cultural, and that cultural trappings eventually fall away. I think blind devotion is one of them, and the next generations of students will approach devotion with a much more investigative awareness, so once having thoroughly investigated, a real devotion, whole-heartedly can take place.
Chris, thanks for your post. You articulate a syndrome I have also experienced in spades. When I have a chance I would like to write a longer comment on it. For now, I’m very sorry to hear you were actually assaulted for being true to your experience. There is zero place for that in a dharma community. I hope it was dealt with thoroughly, but suspect it wasn’t at all.
Jim, I’m not sure I agree that nihilism is the greater obstacle in SI and in our culture. I’m aware that a line to that effect shows up somewhere in one of VCTR’s talks, within a specific frame of discussion. But in a still larger context, aren’t nihilism and eternalism inseparably two sides of a coin? It seems to me anyway that whenever one is inhabiting one of those realms the other is always present as the deeper “reason”. So that we tend to pulse back and forth all the time, borne on the waves of hope and fear. I’ve seen teachings to that effect also but can’t put my finger on them at the moment.
I found this very helpful to give a more aerial view of the different generational preconceptions and experiences that “babyboomers”, “generation me”, and Generation X have brought to Tibetan Buddhism and their resultant expectations and relationships with a spiritual teacher. It doesn’t quite explain the seemingly fervent need for SMR students to have everyone believe as they do, but it might help for them to see that people can be at a different developmental stage along the spiritual path in the way they relate to a teacher and that it changes depending on the contextual cultural time and the maturity of the student.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/published_books/spiritual_teacher/pt3/spiritual_teacher_17.html#n68c4b151e8bbd6193
check this out, I love this thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF4_KZfIfVI
“If you wish to make a donation (in any amount) to the Shambhala scholarship fund to ensure the magic continues to be accessible, especially at this time where it may be more difficult for some to participate in programs. Please click here and make a note in the…..”
From Lodro Rinzler’s e mail to sangha announce this morning.
Chris -thanks for puting up that web article – I will make a copy to read.
……..hmmmm – religious faith and the role of the teacher…..a big subject too………will have to think about that too.
Initially was thinking of Luther when you said stuff about faith….think primarily he was against the indulgences(religious ceremonies) that the Catholic church brought out in order to help people in their entry into the ‘next world’- his prime teaching was on faith alone to enter into a true religious life with God.
The discussion also seems to have strayed into devotion when talking about secularism………….dont really know about that as of yet perhaps we should take a step back from that………I think the Vidyadhara from reading stuff on the Chronicle Project website was asking people to be really logical in the way they first approached the teachings and his manner of teaching is very logical too……….I would see his teachings more as an uncovering of our relationshop with people/objects/things in samsara…….so that we gradually tune into things as they are……..I dont think this equates to faith in a theistic sense……..so I think with my mention of secularism I was trying to get back to basics.
……..will have to think on it a little.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Rita and Jim, thanks for your earlier comment about what constitutes secular or religious, and how modern western philosophies relate to that. I think this is a big topic, and relevant because it’s probes the edges of the changes at Shambhala International and the merging of buddhist and shambhala terma presentations.
We use metaphysical language often in Buddhism, like that there is ‘nothing’ truly existent out there as a substantial basis – from the madhyamaka approach – or sometimes a kind of idealism – that everything is mind ultimately – and variations like that. I’m not sure why Buddhism got into metaphysics, since the point of Buddhism seems to relate more to one’s relation to phenomenon and reactions to phenomenon, and to epistemology, but not to the underlying nature of phenomenon. Maybe like most religions there was a historical need to “explain” the world and you just have to answer people’s questions. And I can see how using metaphysical language might be a skillful means to undercut our assumptions about phenomenon (and the “self” especially). But as Buddhism enters the 21st century west, I think it needs to be more clear about any claims on metaphysics as skillful or more likely needs to drop them entirely and shift toward more phenomenological and epistemological terms instead. Otherwise it doesn’t properly enter into conversation and is stuck in the 19th century. That is my personal opinion currently at least.
On the secular topic, i find it meaningful for a tradition to call itself “secular” in a conventional sense, meaning perhaps that one does not have to swear allegiance or renounce allegiance to another tradition in order to engage in it. This seems part of the issue when new people come to say Shambhala Training or Shambhala Art. Are newcomers asked either explicitly or implicitly to become Buddhist to engage fully or if they go deeper? I don’t think there is a black and white answer to that, it would vary on their expectations. If I take an art class at a shambhala center, the degree to think it is a “Buddhist” thing probably varies person to person and also if there are things like chanting involved or if everyone there is Buddhist. If the Art program is explicitly “secular” than that’s interesting also in that we’re making a distinction *for* people that some things are secular and some are not. I’m not sure this makes something less like they’re part of a Buddhist context though, just that they’re explicitly secular *within* a non-secular container. In summary, I’m starting to think that we both can’t really call ourselves entirely secular yet calling certain programs secular still creates a dichotomy and implies that the rest of shambhala is not-secular and therefore participants in the secular context are always separated from the core… UNLESS you either remove Buddhist from the core identity, or you try to create an identity that there are two cores, two schizophrenic halves perhaps, that happen to share a house but disavow their mutual history and interdependence (does that even work?) Just calling a particular program secular basically can’t really disconnect it fully from the non-secular parts if it is still part of the whole. Though you can design anything as secular and that does say something about the expectations for participation and what values and practices it might include, for example one doesn’t have to take refuge to learn ikebana. But I think teaching ikebana at a shambhala center still connects it to Buddhism by being taught at a Buddhist center. The only way to me to change that would be to remove Buddhist as the core identity of Shambhala and sideline Buddhist to be another practice like ikebana.
Personally, I have found this entire discussion to be both refreshing and inspiring, mainly because of the fact that none of it has been censored and that no one has been physically prohibited from posting, despite any spoken, unspoken or sub-conscious preferences of participants and moderator(s). Watching these comments arise almost has the feel of practicing Shamatha and just seeing the thoughts and energies that come and go. Since there are no censored comments, there is the feeling of treating all thoughts the same as they arise.
On the relative level, I feel like I’ve learned more about some of the different energies that are at work in our lineage. Mindful communication should be requested and encouraged. At the same time, minimal censorship feels like the opposite of cocoonism to me and more like direct reflection. In between the various aggressive comments, there are mindful comments that strike a beautiful contrast.
since generation gaps were introduced, you might find this article interesting. it’s written by a five year practitioner in shambhala, i’m not sure how that contrasts with the berzin archives author and their perspective on vajrayana teacher/student relationships. this is more about shifting culture to me, and one person’s take on it, in particular the next generation:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/02/20/dharma_in_dive_bars/index.html
Dear Davee and Rita: Thanks, these cultural viewpoints really help clarified for me ,so much of our different experiences in a cultural/generational context, and really helped me step back a little , with a more objective, bird’s eye view of our histories and why we might be in this communication dilemmna.
Cheers,
Chris
Hi,
Does anyone have a copy of the Vidyadhara’s poem “Never Flinching”?
T.
Um, I don’t buy the generation gap thing.
When all the negativity was flying back and forth on this page, is it just me, or was there a huge amount of clarity and insight being expressed?
What we need are some Indian tea boys on this website.
It is not expensive to be handsome
To build rainbows is very cheap
Peonies compete with chrysanthemums
Blue sky has never been painted
Gold is golden by its own dignity
Giving is as satisfying as biting a melon
Loneliness is satisfying because it doesn’t compete with anything
Pine trees have never been built
Tiger lilies and spider chrysanthemums dance together
We are not afraid
If we were so, we wouldn’t be here together
Achievement is not a product of ostentatiousness
Never get tired of drinking jasmine tea
Longing makes you so satisfied
Combing your hair makes you want to comb further
Let us be fearless like misty clouds arising on a beautiful mountain slope
Let us watch the crescent moon
Let us watch the golden rising sun
Come and join us
Come and dance together
Wicked is skinny
Virtuous is fat
As time goes on, let us grow up and not be insulted.
“Never Flinching”
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche
October 31, 1984
Kalapa Manor
Davee, thank you for the link to the Joiner article on Salon.com. I found it very interesting, although her references to the ‘hippy tie-dyed’ style of the first generation of Dharma practitioners, that the younger generation of Dharma teachers are supposedly reacting to, seem silly. In CTR’s mandala, the hippy style was shed in the mid-1970s. It did not persist in any shape or form, to say the least. So perhaps it’s a myth that the dharma brats find useful, by way of contrast, for making the dharma relevant to contemporary pop culture, but that doesn’t mean that contemporary pop culture is any less degraded than hippy culture. Nevertheless, I am pleased that Ethan Nichtern and Noah Levine are attracting students and teaching the relevance of dharma to the younger generation.
This question arose for me, however: are they channeling students into the SI mandala? If so, how is that going? Is it working?
Another thought related to what’s gone on in this lengthy thread: wouldn’t it be helpful to these new students attracted to Ethan and Noah’s circles to at some point get the history of the roots of the dharma stream they are teaching? Wouldn’t it expand the sense of dignity and confidence that arises from serious meditation practice for new students to REALIZE the historical depth of the lineage they are receiving? It certainly meant a lot to the students of CTR to feel personally connected to this crazy wisdom/Rimé lineage and to know the stories of the teachers of that lineage.
To be identified with the trials of Tilo, Naro, Marpa, Mila, Gampopa, the Karmapas, and the Rimé movement in Tibet made our path feel more ‘adamantine’ as well as rich with meaning. This lineage is passed on through devotion. Devotion to the lineage makes our practices very intimate and personal. This devotion is an inseparable part of the practices we have been doing for decades. For myself at least, that is the reason I have so stubbornly refused to go along with the changes that transformed Vajradhatu into Shambhala International.
There has been an implication communicated by supporters of SMR to CTR loyalists that what CTR taught – which began with the ‘teachers of the lineage’ seminars when he arrived in No. America – is no longer relevant to the ‘karma’ of younger generations. And that those of us who refused to go along with those changes were ‘stuck’ and ‘fixated.’ There has been a put-down of us, not always subtle, btw, implying that we are no longer relevant unless we take up the new path introduced by SMR. The disregard for what the changes in the SI mandala have meant to our lives has been shocking, which is probably why it has taken so long for us to find our voices.
But it isn’t just our personal pain at seeing our practice centers and sangha transformed into places where we are disregarded as irrelevant, it is loyalty and devotion to our teacher, and the profundity of realization that comes with following his path, that motivates us to resist. That is my view, at least. There’s nothing ‘hippy’ about it at all.
Everything that CTR taught was fresh and up-to-date, not just for the 1970s and 80s, but for the sense of continuity of ‘enlightened genes’ in deep time. The profound realization of the continuity of enlightened genes that we ‘inherited’ from CTR is endangered by the spiritual materialism of pop culture. The enlightened genes have a history of devotion that has always been dedicated to future generations. That is the deep time perspective that CTR’s teachings always communicated – always. How could we forsake that? Somebody had to stand up for that. In fact, he taught us to stand up for that.
Our lineage forebears, including CTR, sacrificed a great deal to maintain lineage continuity, each in their own way, for the sake of future generations. So the continuity is important to those of us who understand its meaning. To see it eroded has called forth a response. Radio Free Shambhala is the place where that response is finally being voiced. The mean-spirited derision and intentional disruption that have been brought to this site by SMR supporters has only confirmed that they are missing something in their training. Enough said on that for now.
Marguerite, thank you for the link to ‘Love Dogs.’ Rumi’s poem is a beautiful expression of the ‘unrequited devotion’ and the ‘tender heart of sadness’ that CTR taught.
Edward, thank you for the “Never Flinching” poem. Just so.
Dear Edward:
I love you. The Shambhala mandala is very lucky to have you. you are not a new student to CTR’s teachings, no way. Another life perhaps.
Susan, I believe CTR did appoint you to be a protector. You inspire that energy.
I slipped into dualistic concepts at an attempt at “harmony.” A residual of old self-doubt.
This is not the time for that. It is the time for confidence that you both expressed, even if the buddhas of the three times rise up against you.
Thank you, you both restore confidence.
Dear Susan :
Thank you for totally expressing protector principle. Again, you have amazed me. I didn’t think it was possible.
Thank you, Chris. I appreciate your insights too. These things build up in my breast, provoking my ‘throat’ to speak through my fingers. I do hope my words inspire confidence in the teachings of the mahaguru Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. Perhaps now is the ‘time’ with Uranus opposing Saturn in the skies.
Ki Ki So So.
Hi,
(I’m copying a portion of my comments from another RFS post.)
I just read all the often brilliant and often painful comments on this thread. I’m happy to see that there was some return to civility, here.
I know that this won’t be the end of this, but I do hope for more mutual respect—or maybe confidence–with regard to all the opposing views. One thing I’m quite sure of is that anyone who derides the current SI scene with an implication that the Sakyong is not doing his father’s work, but is engaged in superfluous activities, will be challenged by many who have profoundly benefitted from the Sakyong and SI as it is. (Alternately, of course, if some bring up that the Vidyadhara’s older student’s are basically out of touch, another war will erupt.) There needs to be some recognizance that brilliant things are going on, right now. My wife just got back from staffing Sutrayana Seminary (with John Rockwell and Suzanne Duquette) and she brought back a treasure—a great document, a syllabus, that is a brilliant blend of both Sakyongs. It’s the future, and it manifests the distinct reality that these Shambhala Sakyongs are not going to be separate and distinct.
So I say this: if you believe that such a thing just can’t be possible, you are simply mistaken. To truly believe, as is posted above; “When the Sakyong’s loyal students conflate Trungpa Rinpoche’s terma and methods with the Sakyong’s terma and methods, that to me is a little off…. The real issues seem to be with the organization which appears to have mutated from a kingdom into a corporation…” is only possible when one is completely bereft of direct, personal contact with the current scene. This has to be said: you really can’t know what current students are experiencing by keeping your distance. Actually, I think it’s fine to keep your distance, if that is what your heart and mind requires; but to dismiss so much goodness can only be done through our old friend, ignorance.
I find it interesting that practice under the Sakyong is so rarely referred to. For instance, I don’t believe that one can really, truly understand and and feel the subtlety, heart, intelligence and skillful means of the Sakyong without engaging in the Primordial Rigden Ngondro. To miss this, is to miss the light in the picture, and just see shadows.
I completed the Kagyu Ngondro 20 years ago and finished half of my Vajrayogini practice before making a detour for a number of years to study with Khandro Rinpoche. I really wasn’t connecting to the Sakyong or Werma practice at the time and felt a bit confused about my path, but when I received the Rigden ngondro and completed it, I felt that I was back home.
I know many other students of Trungpa Rinpoche who have similar appreciation for this powerful practice and feel the indivisibility of the father and son gurus. It puts the -she into the Ashe, touching the wheels of the vision of enlightened society down onto the ground. I have practiced 3 different ngondros and their respective sadhanas, and for me, this is by far the most poignant, demanding. pragmatic and transformative practice I’ve ever engaged with.
Trungpa Rinpoche said, “If you want to understand my mind, practice the Werma Sadhana”. Similarly, if you wish to know the Sakyong, do the Rigden Ngondro—you may see–as many of us have–that what he did is so very good and brilliant. It’s nothing less than a direct uplink to the Vidyadhara and his vision of Shambhala.
I’m not saying this would end criticism of the Sakyong, but I am saying that without having this experience, one will not know the Sakyong; one’s conclusions will fall far short of a deep and comprehensive understanding of what he is accomplishing.
As the inestimable Dorje Dradul said on Shambhala Day 1981:
“We need further effort. We cannot expect that because what we are doing is right, therefore, we have the right to have a red carpet unfolded for us. In fact, if we study the histories of past warriors, we find that the great warriors suffered enormously because of their diligence, because of their righteousness, and because of their virtue. it was not that they were wicked, and therefore, they were punished; they suffered because they were wonderful. The more profound their understanding, the more the attacks against them were, the more sharp and precise.”
This could be regarding anyone on this thread…..it definitely is in regard to the Sakyong. Many of us know this, and our experience deserves being examined and recognized as being real and true.
May “the excellent peace and happiness of the new golden age, The Great Eastern Sun, the glory of Shambhala, May be realized quickly without obstruction.” Dorje Dradul of Mukpo
Cheers,
Alan Anderson
Alan Anderson wrote:
So I say this: if you believe that such a thing just can’t be possible, you are simply mistaken. To truly believe, as is posted above; “When the Sakyong’s loyal students conflate Trungpa Rinpoche’s terma and methods with the Sakyong’s terma and methods, that to me is a little off…. The real issues seem to be with the organization which appears to have mutated from a kingdom into a corporation…” is only possible when one is completely bereft of direct, personal contact with the current scene. This has to be said: you really can’t know what current students are experiencing by keeping your distance. Actually, I think it’s fine to keep your distance, if that is what your heart and mind requires; but to dismiss so much goodness can only be done through our old friend, ignorance.
Since I was the person who wrote the posting quoted by Alan, I would like like to show the rest of the sentences he excerpted.
“that to me is a little off…. but that is just my outsider’s view.”
My outsiders view. In that view, lineages can have many tertons, and each of them have their own terma and methods. What’s wrong with that?
next:
“The real issues seem to be with the organization which appears to have mutated from a kingdom into a corporation replete with branding strategies, concerns over market share and capitalization, staying on message, and even older workers being nudged out of the door to make way for those whose fealty lies with the new CEO….”
This was in large part informed by articles here and elsewhere. It is perhaps a bit harsh in tone, but looking at it from an outsider’s perspective, it is not a huge leap. To an insider, it might be uncomfortable to even consider.
There are quite a few “outsiders” who post here. It is one of the few venues for the outsiders and the insiders to interact. I don’t think it is bad for them to interact, but it might be uncomfortable at times.
And as long as I’m being self referential I will further mutate something else I posted a bit upthread:
“Some have samaya with CTR. Some have samaya with SMR. Some have samaya with both. Some have samaya with others.
I rejoice for everyone who keeps samaya. I aspire to do it myself.”
Happy New Year!
Michael Sullivan wrote:
‘There are quite a few “outsiders” who post here. It is one of the few venues for the outsiders and the insiders to interact. I don’t think it is bad for them to interact, but it might be uncomfortable at times.’
In nature, the place where two communities, or two ecosystems meet, is considered to be very special. For instance, where the land meets the water, you might find a “wetland” with all kinds of fertile things going on, a tremendous increase in biological activity and diversity. Turtles, birds, frogs, dragonflies, all kinds of stuff that are only found in the transition zone, the fringe of each larger system.
Unfortunately, human beings sometimes don’t see the beauty of wetlands, think they are a terrible waste of space, and fill them in with earth to make usable, productive land out of them.
I’ve been reading this site and the dharmabrats site for several months precisely because they both, in different ways, are very informative and stimulating and quite a contrast to the corporate blandness of shambhala.org .
However, I have to say that some of the venom expressed in this thread, particularly towards ashoka, has had the contradictory effect of making me feel much more sympathetic to SMR and the “direction” he is going than I previously did.
Karma is a funny thing.
Here’s a new website that’s an amazing treasury of dharma teachings: Online Dharma Classics.
This site contains videos of many of our own teachers, including Chokyi Nyima, Tsoknyi, Mingyur, and Phakchok Rinpoches. And more: Dilgo Khyentse, Dzigar Kongtrul, and Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoches; Pema Chodron, the Karmapa, the Dalai Lama, Ringu Tulku, Sogyal Rinpoche, Thich Nhat Hanh . . . It’s a fun site to explore to see what you stumble across. Most videos are 5-10 minutes long.
Check it out at:
http://www.onlinedharmaclassics.org/
I have thought about devotion since one of the above posts brought it up.
At the present time I think I see devotion as a willingness to practice the dharma practices that I have been given in order to ‘see’ and experience my world more clearly. I mean seeing the world more clearly in the sense of the Shambhala Art theme-true perception of reality.
I also bear in mind stories I have heard about devotion in the sangha and the interactions that the Vidyadhara had with others when he was alive.
I particularly remember Rinpoche admonishing the Regent to speak up in meetings and to not leave it up to him to make all the decisions. I am also aware that the Vidyadhara at times, as he stated in the Torch of Certainty, was not teaching in the ‘right’ way as in the UK. So I don’t regard the Vidyadhara as infallible in way he lived his life but I do recognise that I will investigate all his teachings as thoroughly as I can.
I think I am also aware of the fact that even if you take an oath of office within a Buddhist organisation to protect the teachings this doesn’t mean you can abandon your own conscience in how you relate with conflict. Loyalty at the present time means to me thoroughly investigating how far I can go with the predominate Principal in any society – enlightened or not. I don’t think I am hedging my bets with loyalty in this fashion rather I am using my intelligence about situations and people.
I know I am in the Vidyadhara’s world …………Buddhism is not something you can actually give up……I mean in the sense that my thinking is permeated with the ‘concepts’ of the religion but hopefully I can be cheerful about that. I will also not give up my own culture the western tradition of philosophy and investigation, and a liberal society. I deeply feel these traditions are compatible with a ‘religious or enlightened’ society.
So how do others view devotion and the role of the teacher?
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Dear Rita,
I wanted to respond to your good comments about devotion., I always thought that devotion was the head of meditation, as it were. Being an emotional type anyway, devotion plays an important role for me in my practice as well… and not just via emotional devotion, either.
The guru embodies the energy of the lineage, and we have practiced vajrayana practices with that sort of theme all these many, many years. It is fundamental to “have” that “sense” of energy, brilliance, and whatever it is that comes through to us in that way.
Now ultimately, I suppose you could say that the backdrop of all the various gurus’ minds is the same since it all comes from the Dharmakaya…….yet we have to understand what our samaya is for ourselves, and be aware of important differences between teachers, and work with that in our journey and in our own way.
I agree with you that you have to follow your inner voice, conscience or whatever in this regard… Especially, since the Vidyadhara was our root guru, and he came from a traditional point of view yet with his own VERY unique twist and his special grand vision for the world as well, I feel it is my path and samaya duty to further study whatever teachings he gave us….. to understand what he gave us as much as possible, with the traditional background there at the same time. (if that makes sense!!)
thank you for your comments they inspired me.
Tsondru
Depends on what level…H, M or V. But trust seems to be a factor…
which comes from experience with the teacher…contact….or,
could just be the presence of the teacher. At the level of devotion,
there seem to be love, trust, and awe. It eems to me that takes place
over time.
As a member of the community and a student of the Vidyadhara, afer reading your many thoughtful comments and reflecting i have this to say:
blah blah blah blah waaaaaaaa.
BLAH BLAH! Bob Loblaw la la.
You know i can understand there is a lot to process and that things are evolving and we need to assess where we are at, but when i read this stuff I have to wonder if any of your practice is really very fruitful.
Generally most of you are assholes, and the jerks who think it’s the other people that are assholes are also assholes without really knowing it themselves. It’s a mean chain, with lots of crying the whole time, and no one is actually right.
What did CTR mean to you? You had better recognize that and honor it and stop shoving it in other peoples faces, pretending just because you have a dharmic connection you’re better then someone else or that you don’t have shit to work on still.
Sit your asses down. I just put you on time out!
I find it amusing when people come to this website, criticize other people for criticizing other people, and then announce in a lofty manner that it’s time for everyone to stop the communications they’ve been engaged in, and state that posting comments on this website is a waste of time. And then criticize people for not having more insight into their own personal actions.
I find some of the articles on this website helpful. And I find some of the discussions irritating in a way that might be helpful as well. I see myself in a lot of the participants.
I wouldn’t read stuff on this website if I had a different forum to discuss certain things.
My old teacher said that if you try to avoid the irritation of other practitioners, or avoid dealing with political issues, it could lead to trouble, just as doing the opposite could (neglecting practice or trying to be entertained by political issues).
Gesar, you made one of the first posts on this website in days. The discussion had all dried up!
Maybe what we need is more poetry.
As far as honoring VCTR, I just want to invite some non-Buddhists to sit with me somewhere and consider some of VCTR’s Shambhala teachings. That’s it. This website is helping me consider and discuss certain things that relate to that goal. However, if I’m going about this all wrong, I’m completely open to correction or suggestion.
Being told that such a discussion is wrong or a waste of time feels… it feels like someone is trying to shut me down because of their own irritation. That might not be people’s intention, but sometimes that’s how it feels.
Having said all that, I can’t begin to imagine the pain that someone would feel who was intimately related to VCTR in seeing certain discussions occur on the Internet. And I hope I can keep my own discussions to a minimum and use proper respect when I do so.
‘Generally most of you are assholes, and the jerks who think it’s the other people that are assholes are also assholes without really knowing it themselves. It’s a mean chain, with lots of crying the whole time, and no one is actually right.
What did CTR mean to you? You had better recognize that and honor it and stop shoving it in other peoples faces, pretending just because you have a dharmic connection you’re better then someone else or that you don’t have shit to work on still. ‘
Dear Gesar and Edward
I would say yes and no to the above comments-yes we all do have alot of shit to work on -thats a defacto fact but I have also learned alot from the contributors on this thread re the relationships people actually had with the Vidyadhara in that respect I have been inspired by their relationships with him, their devotion and their intelligence.
What did Vidyadhara mean to me – that is an evolving question basically at first I wanted just to practice the vajrayana teachings and I had been convinced by his writing, poetry, philosophy that he had an ultimate hit on reality……as time has gone on I would say that this take on reality has permeated my life even more………at times for example one of the slogans just pops into my head for no apparent reason —–like that one
‘Dont be predictable’ at other times I just dream about him……….so I suppose you could say that is case of some devotion.
I dont think anyone in this thread wants to be ”right” – I think we are exploring things…….that’s why I like this site -its also more inclusive than the dharmabrats site and older teachers are really giving good teachings here……its been great hearing Mark’s take on things.
So I will continue to check the site to see what is going on whilst working with the shitty vicissitudes of life.
Best for the new year
Rita Ashworth
rita ashworth you are alright in my book. what kind of hippy were you? i bet a fun one.
i think Gesar’s got a point. i’d been slipping on the cushion a little and this whole debacle got me back on it. sometimes i think the conceptualization of the teachings into something worth arguing is just a way to avoid their inherent loneliness.
Yay Ashoka!!
Meanwhile, at this point, my tendency is to skip over and ignore the nasty stuff, (who needs to wallow in muddy klesha stuff anyway, it’s getting pretty old now..)
I like to read the informative, thought provoking and inspirational posts that appear in this forum by all kinds of students who post.. old and new.
I appreciate so many of the people who post. Sorry to say that I am writing with a secret pseudonym to protect my identity, I really am sorry about that!!!
Tsondru
Ashoka —-I was not a hippy but I have known some in my life…….particularly when I worked on a magazine in Bournemouth, a very conservative English town in the early eighties…….some people I knew in the town had dropped out in the sixties -one man I knew, Bernie just lived on the streets – we had long conversations in the public gardens about lots of things……..he was a real gem.
…..the house we rented to produce the magazine in was built in the nineteenth century – Aubrey Beardsley had stayed there when he was ill…we fought the council to not demolish it but I googled it recently and it has gone……….many of the people I knew then didn’t make it into the eighties-Ellis a really great illustrator and Richie…….a royal defender of the weed sucumbed to life as we know it in our royal realm……I think when I see pictures of them in my mind producing that magazine into the wee druggy hours they would defend everyones right to be heard and recognised………hence keep posting people if you want to say something good,’lonely’ , nice………..
again best for the new year
rita ashworth
Calling people assholes is just the kind of asshole comment that assholes love, because it gives them a chance to be more of an asshole…so, thanks Gesar! I think Gesar is cute and loveable and I like it when he jumps in to the stew…
Thanks Ashoka.
I also started sitting more, after reading Ms. Duarte’s comments about solitary retreats.
This whole discussion made me want to sit more… something about it feels hopeless and like a dead end. Which is refreshing. You people are great at sucking all the hope out of me, thanks a lot.
I forgot to mention that I really appreciate comments and stories from VCTR’s older students. Thank you. Sometimes it seems like my old teacher… “screwed me up” in some way that I don’t quite understand, and the only cure seems to be sitting, reading VCTR’s books, and readings stories from his students.
denault blouin….”slow on the uptake”….that is a nice piece….definitely.
Given the passion and pain involved in this discussion, my apologies if this seems trite… I was involved in a very painful family squabble for over ten years and this would have probably seemed trite. Still it is true. The following is a CTR quote that I saw on the Chronicles website this evening.
“Purification is learning to relate with the problems. Does a problem exist or not? Is the problem a problem, or is the problem a promise? We are not talking about how to get rid of problems or impurities here, as though we were suddenly surrounded by piles of garbage that we want to clean up. That is not the point. The point is to discover the quality of garbageness. Before we dispose of our garbage, first we have to examine it. If we approached purification as simply trying to get rid of our garbage, we would do a great job of emitting spiritual pollution into the atmosphere.”
Greetings everyone:
It has been interesting to see how the insight and good wishes of the sangha have unfolded through this web site. My good friend Mark Szpakowski and I have had occasional chats over the last year regarding how much of a community environment can be created in a web based format. He takes the general position that you can do a lot in a cyber/web format and I generally go with the old school notion that a community really needs a bricks and mortar environment. I have enjoyed the exploration of this theme with Mark and also found it satisfying to contribute a main article to “Radio Free Shambhala”.
I would like to go further with the principle of sangha-ship by presenting a proposal for the consideration of the sangha and students of the Vidyadhara and Shambhala. I will be somewhat specific here, realizing that there may be good suggestions forthcoming that would result in modifications to what is said below. It is also possible that the following plan may meet with general approval from people and that this idea could go forward in a straightforward manner. The proposal is to:
Have a Vajradhatu Style Group Retreat to Practice and Study the Teachings of the Vidyadhara
Location: Province of Nova Scotia – - – Time: Summer 2009
A. I would propose this be undertaken with the following philosophical understandings-
1. That the sangha would do so recognizing that Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is the true holder of the lineage of the Shambhala Sakyongs and, as such, has the duty and samaya to represent the dignity and goodness of Shambhala in the presentation of his office. This duty of the Sakyongs relates to manifesting Great Eastern Sun culture to those abiding as citizens of Shambhala and the world at large. The Sakyong is, furthermore, wonderfully supported in this sacred responsibility by the presence of the Sakyong Wangmo.
2. That the social and political theory of the Kingdom of Shambhala recognizes the diversity of the aspirations of its citizens as may be held by individuals, families and communities guided by the principles of basic goodness and the vision of the Great Eastern Sun.
3. That with consideration of the principles mentioned above, in Shambhala society, various valid spiritual traditions, both Buddhist and other traditions will be respected and nurtured. Furthermore, that some students of the Vidyadhara, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche may want to create a sangha situation that focuses on the teachings and spiritual traditions presented by Trungpa Rinpoche in a manner very close to the way he taught during his lifetime. Trungpa Rinpoche presented these teachings variously under the names of the Kagyu, Nyingma and Shambhala lineages and also as the Vajradhatu tradition.
4. That a true sangha, so convened, must take the responsibility to maintain an attitude of a tamed or shinjanged approach in conduct and in speech according to the basic teachings of the Buddha. The sangha needs to also maintain the gentleness of Shambhala and a common sense of civility and respect that would be held in esteem in the broader reaches of society.
5. That the issues of practice and textual traditions fundamental to any valid Vajrayana tradition be respected in the manner taught by Trungpa Rinpoche. Furthermore, the issues regarding the process of vajrayana transmission will need to be addressed by the sangha as the process of the change of generations continues. This issue can be worked with in a gradual, respectful and intelligent manner.
B. The following considerations pertain to convening a Vajradhatu tradition group retreat and relate to the format of practice and study.
1. The retreat be held in a modest but comfortable facility in the province of Nova Scotia for about 10 days during the summer of 2009.
2. That the retreat be organized with an emphasis on group sitting practice, listening and discussing recorded talks of Trungpa Rinpoche. Also, the schedule would have Vajrayogini and Werma sessions for practitioners already having those transmissions.
3. That certain understandings would be accepted and adhered to by any individual participant regarding the participation in the program. Those would relate to attendance at the meditation and study sessions, observing good conduct and meeting prearranged financial and work commitments.
C. That in order to expedite the proposed program, a working committee be requested to do the practical and administrative work to accomplish the group retreat. [Important Note - NONE of these individuals (accepting myself) have been informed in advance of this request]
1. Ken Friedman – coordinator for tape plays of Trungpa Rinpoche talks and the related discussion groups
2. Charles Marrow – coordinator for meditation practice sessions and shrine room protocol.
3. Mark Szpakowski – general dekyong and coordinator for communications.
4. Andrew Speraw – coordinator of facility and finances
5. Other interest contributors can be included
This concludes the proposal for a Vajradhatu tradition group retreat. I fully trust the intelligence and good wishes of the Sangha to consider what has been presented in a balanced and mature manner. As a request / suggestion for web comments…..I feel that given the practical (and visionary) nature of this particular topic, that those responding include their full name, city or town of residence and a method of contact, i.e.phone number or email address.
Thank you for your interest.
Charles Marrow
545 Main St.
Mahone Bay Nova Scotia
Ph: (902) 531-2491
Thank you, Dudley Jackson! Great quote for this situation.
Last night I was reviewing an email exchange I had over 5 years ago with a vajra brother I’ve known for 34 years, who is an Acharya, and I found this concise little statement about dialogue that I sent to him. I don’t know where it comes from, but it seems relevant to our sangha, and has seemed so for a very long time:
* True dialogue empowers all the voices who are present and thus is one of the most powerful tools we have for holistic social healing and transformation. But as a powerful tool, its use requires consciousness and care. Those who seek a more just, wise and sustainable society need to be aware of the power dynamics involved in and around any dialogue, and always ask
* Which voices are excluded from or constrained inside and outside this dialogue?
* What constraints are placed on the power of the collective voice that emerges?
* Whose interests are served by any exclusions and constraints?
* Does this dialogue enhance or discourage further dialogue?
Ongoing dialogue among peer citizens to explore common problems and opportunities tends to serve the general welfare. It can therefore be used strategically — and even institutionalized and empowered — to counter the power of special interests.
Dialogue among adversaries reduces conflict. It can therefore be used strategically not only by communities to maintain peaceful relationships, but by special interests and powerholders to ameliorate conflicts that threaten their power.
Why are these simple truths about human relationships so difficult to learn and practice? Why do we practice and/or submit to rankism within our sangha, at the expense of the general welfare?
Thank you, Charles Marrow! My god, what a splendid and delicious idea! And so well stated. My heart leaps. Tears come to my eyes. I’d like to suggest inclusion of the Sadhana of Mahamudra in the program.
Since I am in Europe, I don’t know whether we (husband and me) can make it, but I am definitely interested, to say the least. Forgive me for not including my email address, but after the misuse of my photo, I would like to avoid the misuse of my email address. Mark has it.
With gratitude,
Suzanne Duarte
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Gesar and Ashoka,
It’s such a delight to hear of you guys….
Whenever you guys wanna come down here to Amsterdam to hang out, don’t hesitate to let me know!!!
Much love
Greg
Charles Marrow’s comment on the possibility of holding a Vajradhatu style group retreat this summer has now been published as an article on its own. Please comment there on his suggestions.
The comment thread on this article, with over 240 comments, is getting unwieldy.
- Mark
I just want to comment on Michael Sullivan’s comment of February 11th, 2009 5:24 pm. I see two problems with the assertion that one’s root guru has to be someone you’ve seen “live.” The first is that none of us is in a position to speak about another person’s experience. More to the point however: In saying that Trungpa Rinpoche can’t be Mark Bourdon’s — or anyone else’s — root guru because they never met in the flesh, you greatly underestimate the Vidyadhara.
In the GES,
Parlan McGaw
“Generally most of you are assholes.”
Gesar, not too long ago I stumbled upon something you posted in the dharmabrats forum last September. Its honesty inspired me. I looked further and came upon a lot of free and open discussion there. Silliness too, and some “asshole” comments. But also the spirit of Trungpa Rinpoche. First thought spontaneity, outrageousness, lack of political correctness. All qualities the sangha needs, things I feel it has kind of lost. It was great to see a little of that spirit still alive.
Anyway, basically every criticism which has been made of SI in this forum was mentioned in that post of yours, so I’m puzzled at what you’ve said here. Here is what you said a few months ago:
–”My level of belief in what is going on in this community is around 12%. I like what CTR taught and I plan to take what of it makes sense in my life, I’ve just come to the realization that I’m in no way interested in the organization and its crappy system.
Specifics? Please don’t get me started.
What is the big deal with people just saying it outright ‘I’m not interested in what’s the Shambhala lineage as it stands.’
A few points that bother me.”–
Followed by about a dozen criticisms such as “shamatha changes”, “lavish life style”, “fear in members of people who don’t like the Sakyong”, “questionable message”, “some scary people making decisions”, “marginalizing of CTR” etc. Exactly the issues being raised here! So I’m really puzzled. You had the freedom on your own forum to discuss them. That’s all that people seek on this one. If Shambhala has genuine strength and health it will pay attention.
Gesar, I enjoyed watching the trailer for your upcoming tulku movie. (I clicked on Gesar’s name above and went to his youtube page.) It looks like it should be interesting. Is there a release date?
At the risk of doing violence to your trailer by taking one sentence out of context…. I thought it was interesting when the nice Tibetan man (sorry, I don’t know his name) said that if we’re not careful, the tulku system is going to ruin Buddhism.
I’m not sure what he meant by that (I’ll have to see the full-length feature film to find out), but it reminds me of some discussions we’ve had about tulkus.
It also reminds me of something one of the Sakyong’s “senior students” at my local center told me. He said that the Sakyong is free to change anything he wants about CTR’s teachings, because “he’s also a Rinpoche”.
The way he said that seemed a bit… odd to me. It wasn’t his faith in the Sakyong himself that he pointed to, but his faith in the infallibility of the title “Rinpoche”.
I think he stopped my mind when he said that. I literally couldn’t think of anything to say, so I thanked him and excused myself.
Well, there’s certainly plenty of interesting, fertile stuff in this sangha. Lots of good juicy richness.
Parlan McGaw wrote:
“I see two problems with the assertion that one’s root guru has to be someone you’ve seen “live.” The first is that none of us is in a position to speak about another person’s experience. More to the point however: In saying that Trungpa Rinpoche can’t be Mark Bourdon’s — or anyone else’s — root guru because they never met in the flesh, you greatly underestimate the Vidyadhara.”
Deciding that a dead teacher you never met, no matter how skillful or enlightened, is your root guru is IMO an exercise in projection and wishful thinking, without all the inconvenience of that teacher pulling the rug out from underneath your neurosis…. The genius of CTR was precisely his ability to undercut wishful thinking and fantasy.
It is the same as declaring that Padmasambhava is your root guru. And by saying that I am not belittling either CTR or Padmasambhava.
Remember who Yeshe Tsogyal prostrated to — her living teacher!!
It’s not a matter of “deciding” or “declaring.” Neither is it projection, wishful thinking, or fantasy. It’s experience. You have yours; other people have theirs. And since you don’t know what others’ experience is, you are IMO, belittling Trungpa Rinpoche.
I’ve often wondered what it is like in a large monastic system such as Tibet, where one’s “root guru” was also the head of a thousand person monastery. You probably don’t get much interaction with such a person, and therefore not much rug pulling, unless you went out of your way to seek that out. More likely the rug was pulled out by the many khenpos (professors) you worked with more as well as all of your fellow monastics.
We have I think a romanticism that a close personal relationship with one’s teacher is essential, like the stories of Marpa and Milarepa. But after Gampopa scaled things up with large monastic systems I wonder if has ever really been like that – tulkus aside.
p.s. Suzanne, I still owe you responses to your questions above. Will get back to those soon!
from Rangjung Yeshe Dictionary:
Root guru (rtsa ba’i bla ma).
” A practitioner of Vajrayana can have several types of root guru: the vajra master who confers empowerment, who bestows reading transmission, or who explains the meaning of the tantras. The ultimate root guru is the master who gives the ‘pointing-out instruction’ so that one recognizes the nature of mind. [RY] ”
The head of a monastery often gives empowerments, reading transmission or commentary on tantra — these are mostly group activities that many can attend. The ultimate root guru is the one who wakes you up. It isn’t about choosing, but about the meeting of minds in the pointing out. And not just any pointing out – not just attending a ‘pointing out’, but the one that actually results in recognition of the nature of mind by the student.
That is why we study with live teachers. They can give the wang, lung and tri. And they can say the right thing at the right time that enables us to recognise the nature of mind.
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu talks of receiving many initiations from highly regarded teachers in multiple monasteries, yet he didn’t realize the nature of mind until he met his Root Guru Changchub Dorje – a simple country doctor who was semi-literate. But he woke him up!
Let me put it this way: Maybe the Vidyadhara is not as dead as you think he is.
Ultimate root guru? Is that something like a “Root root guru”? If so we could have three tiers now: gurus, root gurus, and ultimate root gurus.
In this youtube clip the interviewer asks a related question of CTR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxk5JFsbJA
Re: ultimate root guru
It wasn’t my definition but rather that of the very respected translators at Rangjung Yeshe. My teachers always used the “ultimate root guru” definition as the only one.
I liked the video. Especially when he talked about the environment in terms of “the teacher, meeting the teacher and having a relationship with the teacher…..”
re:”Let me put it this way: Maybe the Vidyadhara is not as dead as you think he is.”
CTR is alive to those who he gave transmission. That is why he placed such emphasis on it and made it a rather large undertaking to receive. It isn’t just reading books or watching youtube videos. There is also having the karma to actually meet him. The “Brief Encounters” section of the Chronicles site is full of vignettes that highlight what I would consider spontaneous, improvised ‘pointing out’ by CTR.
That isn’t to say that, never having met him, he cannot be a huge inspiration and a driving force in ones practice and study. But it isn’t quite the same. Like he said in the video – “meeting the teacher and having a relationship with the teacher”
I’m really impressed by how you know so much more about my experience than I do. It’s humbling.
Actually it is I who should be humble in the presence of someone who can have a relationship – a Vajra relationship – with someone they never met. Not to mention receiving pointing out and realizing the nature of mind! I rejoice in your Supreme Devotion and Stainless Karma!
The “transmission” chapter in “Meditation in Action” talks a bit to this point, where Rinpoche says that the transmission appears to come from an external person to protect against the ego, but really the transmission is not given to you. It’s an interesting chapter.
And depending upon how you feel about the multi-lifetime system, Trungpa Rinpoche is very much alive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUY_zKAWjEU
Damn, I loaned mine out and never got it back… It might be time to get my third or fourth copy of that great book! I really like going back and finding hidden or coded references (especially to dzogchen) in material I thought I studied many years ago.
When we use the term transmission we often are referring to ritual activity in the form of words and actions from an external entity – the teacher. But actual transmission only really happens when realization and understanding occur in the mindstream of the student. The teacher may be broadcasting but unless you can tune in the signal, you don’t get the music.
As regards the newest Trungpa, perhaps the “no live interaction necessary” folks should ask him about that time he pointed out the nature of mind to them – ah, but wait – why bother? Since actual personal contact isn’t necessary for them, they would just be wasting his precious time.
BTW, I would also posit that the obvious devotion and loyalty shown to the Sakyong by his personal students on this site is further proof of the value / necessity of a relationship to a live teacher.
Hee hee. I’m starting to enjoy all the snarkiness here.
And at the same time, having a glimpse of the nature of mind probably isn’t even enough. Say you go to a random weekend and Amma gives you a hug and you have an experience, that doesn’t necessarily make her your root teacher really. Seems like it’s a mix of both the environment creating glimpses of mind, which could be occurring continually or from memory, and also having an ongoing connection to that lineage and path and personal journey. More than having a teacher hit you on the head and then having to follow that person just because they were the first glimpse you noticed. Though I think some people chose romantic relationships that way, for better or for worse.
I don’t know if I personally conflate those things with having a teacher there to point out blind spots and pull the rug though. Unless you are a kusung. Which is not to say that isn’t darn helpful. I just think that’s another thing to be grateful for if it is possible and present. In the large monastery situation, where you have two minutes a year with your root teacher, I suspect it is the khenpos who are messing with you more and calling you out. But the same function could be in the environment basically. Here in the West, maybe our spouse really serves that role?
Davee,
Thanks for pointing to “Meditation in Action.” It’s excellent.
Cheers
Davee, all I’m saying is that if the khenpo is the one that wakes you up big time, then the khenpo is your root guru, even if he only has a middling title. Even if you wish that someone more exotic or famous was your root guru.
While we’re at it, I’m also of the opinion that Tibetan Buddhism in general has gone into somewhat of an inflationary spiral as regards titles…..
And actually, since the vast majority aren’t monastics, I kinda like the idea of spouse as rug puller. But of course pointing out isn’t simply ass-kicking, it is more shocking you out of your cocoon and at that instant holding the mirror to your mind so you can see it.
Sure. Khenpos are great! Acharya Rockwell once told me a way Rinpoche used to pop your ego was by giving you a big title. He’d call people “Ambassador” or even send you as a delegate to another country, and I can only imagine there was just no hope that your ego would survive such ridiculous treatment. Imagine if we were all told to call you “Your Eminence” from now on. Hilarious! Perhaps the Acharyas feel that way.
The vajrayana is so odd. Must have a root teacher, whatever that means, then suddenly you end up at an abhisheka being crowned a buddha. Now that’s an inflated title.
Uh oooh! Ooops! Owies and Ouches! Technicians of the Sacred
– Indigenous Voices offer this perspective. Please listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqcyRNezssU
This always brings tears to my eyes:
Http://sealevel.ca/buddha/
HH Dudjom Rinpoche’s “A Prayer to Recognize My Own Faults and Keep in Mind the Objects of Refuge.”
Similarly, Patrul Rinpoche’s “Advice from Me to Myself”
http://sealevel.ca/patrul/
FULL MOON
Big and round
like how Pashtun peasants
rap canteloupes with their knuckles
to test for ripeness
or squeeze
gently bruising the rind
for an answering aroma of sweetness
honeydew
my heart
is clutched and questioned
are you rough and ready
in the right place
swollen with vajra pride .. great love – appreciation for all
open
silvered like the moon
in rich
Joyous Embrace in Space.
Such loveliness is Freedom
Awake in the dream.
Peace.
I want to thank most of the people who are writing in for their thoughtfulness, knowledge, and historical accuracy.
I admit that though I am a longtime practitioner, I may be somewhat “eccentric,” but here’s how this all works for me.
I began with the Vidyadhara in 1977 in Boulder, and no other teacher could ever have reached my stubborn, unconventional heart. I still consider him my heart guru — there is no one like him. He was a genius.
I began sitting, went to Naropa, and took several years before I was even ready to take refuge, which I did, with the Vajra Regent. He gave me my refuge name, which I love: Ngejung Trintso (Renunciation Cloud Lake.) I was then blessed to take B.vows with VACTR (Tsondru Youtso).
Then I had a long and wandering path. I started Shambhala Training because it was what everyone was doing, and didn’t much take to it. I found the teachers, at that time, arrogant, dismissive, and uncurious. I hated the jargon. I thought “basic goodness” was hogwash. (As I said, an arrogant young girl). I just wanted to be a buddhist. I didn’t understand any need for ST.
Fast forward many years, to the year 2001. After marriage and love affairs and being distracted and scared of the sangha and many twists and turns (but always practicing), I was fired from a job in NYC and went to Karme Choling. It completely turned me around. My practice finally was internalized, serious, deeply rooted. I rediscovered the shambhala teachings, and loved what they had to reveal. I was suspiscious of SMR, but met him many times and liked him. I always disagreed with some of his views and plans, but somehow I didn’t find that a problem.
Finally, in 2003, I went to the first European seminary in France. I was and am studying with Khandro Rinpoche, who has changed my life forever, but I accepted pointing out from SMR. I didn’t find any problem or contradiction. He was very powerful, almost transparent with power, in that setting. And he was very kind to me.
Since then, I have been interested in the changes. I don’t care for a lot of them, but I don’t feel any need to respond to each and every one. I paused in my kagyu ngondro, did the shambhala ngondro (beautiful), attended Rigden Abhisheka (amazing), and then returned to my regular kagyu ngondro, which I am now close to completing. I would not dream of abandoning this practice — it is my heart. VACTR is still my heart guru. I love and respect the Sakyong. And Khandro Rinpoche gave me my life back at a very dark and difficult time. She is brilliant and kind.
To me, there is just no conflict. I practice as I wish, the dharma is my heart and not a hobby, and I feel incredibly blessed to have had such amazing teachers, all of whom have helped me so much. I’m aiming now for Vajrayogini, not worrying about Scorpion Seal.
Am I doing something wrong?
Khandro Rinpoche says that all buddhism can be summed up in two words: “Be kind.” I would agree. I also believe in rigor and accuracy in practice. So I’m always learning.
Awesome….
Are you going to L.G. this summer?
I am……………..J.T.
greetings everyone,
i love this conversation.
my husband and i have been in the sangha since 1988. so we dont quite fit in as ‘old dogs’ but we are not young puppies, some of whom seem quite razzle dazzled and so full of youthful enthusiasm that i makes us chuckle. there is a difference between between being blinded by the light and a more seasoned devotion which involves critical thinking. my husband and i have had a mantra for years that goes: they only request we leave our shoes by the door, not our brains.
by way of brief background: we met at 94 seminary, took samaya with the then sawang and have bounced in and out of the sangha a few times. he’s now an MI and on his way to VY abhisheka and i as a sadhaka, just began the hoops of guide training.
i just returned from guide training in berkeley two weeks ago. there were 25 of us and i was clearly the only sadhaka. in fact when i asked rather complex questions related to offering meditation instruction and tantric view and i wasn’t sure i could represent the ‘shambhala buddhist’ brand i was told and i quote: “you are the only one here w. that problem and therefore we’re not going to address it.” to clarify, this was not a comment by the acharya teaching the program, but one of the ADs.
the acharya teaching made it very clear that as guides we are representing the lineage. being the smart ass i am, i could not hold back: so i raised my hand and asked ” what lineage?” and the answer i received was “the shambhala buddhist lineage”. I then asked “what is the shambhala buddhist lineage? why are we requiring shambhalians to become buddhists and how am i as a sadhaka supposed to represent the shambhala buddhist lineage?”
and the reply i received was something to the effect: those questions are beyond the scope of this weekend. oh.
so i then asked: if we are being asked to represent ‘the lineage’ and these questions are beyond the scope of the weekend, then what questions are within the scope of the weekend?” i figured i had nothing to lose at that point. bounce me out onto the streets of berkeley. who cares? i was met with ‘we’ll talk about this later’. and of course, we never did. fortunately that acharya is my MI so we will indeed have a more indepth conversation. i brought the questions up for the benefit of everyone but apparently i was in a roomful of true believers. some of whom probably have genuine devotion and committment. but i really wonder how many have taken the time to truly examine what is being asked. hell, now we’re told we should tell meditation students they only have to commit meditating 10 minutes a day. are we simply caving into the dark age? i came away wondering if this isnt simply evolving into mcdharma: fast food drive through meditation.
part of me has perpetuated the story line that these are degenerate times and require a radical response hence the whole shambhala buddhist gig. but now i’m not so sure and i’m grateful to have a place i can share my doubts, continue to practice & trust wisdom is in the mix.
Thanks for sharing Meg.
In desperate times, wise people seem to meditate more, not less. I remember reading about CTR traveling through the Himalayas to escape the Chinese, with limited provisions and old people dying left and right, and CTR would stop their progress so they could all meditate and go on retreats while their food ran out.
That takes courage and confidence. Watering down practice is easy. It’s part of what makes a dark age dark.
A radical response to dark times is what CTR and his Khenpo friend did in Tibet while they were waiting for the Chinese to completely overrun their country. They broke traditional rules and made the core pith practical teachings available to common people who had previously been denied access to them.
Creating Shambhala Training and making it available to people of all faiths or no faith– that is an extremely courageous and generous response to dark times. Interfering with that training, or restricting who has access to it, seems to be somewhat… un-good, as Jon Stewart might say.
Thanks Meg. You and I have similar doubts. I deal with it in practice by sitting with the conflicting thoughts. It is harder if you are an MI, depending on how strong the doubts are. I do think you have to be honest about these things. But that does not mean solidfying the doubt.
A couple of years ago, I started keeping a picture of the Sakyong on my puja table. Personally, it seemed a provocative thing to do. It has been slightly helpful in a long term way in softening me up. My wife says it is like joining the Kasung when you have a thing about the military.
It is probably a mistake to judge what other people are experiencing. Maybe some people are “true believers” or not applying intelligence to their practice. But it is hard to generalize. If someone is a “true believer” other than having some compassion for that — why should it bother you?
It is nice meeting you here. It sounds like you will be a great MI.
I do think as an MI you should reconsider your resistance to recommending 10 minute sessions. A daily practice is a very powerful thing — even if it is only 10 minutes a day.
thanks jim. i appreciate your comments. i’m in a process of sorting out and some of what i have written reflects not having an outlet for any kind of dissent, questioning or disagreement anywhere. and you’re point is well taken: why should the true believers bother me. fair enough. what’s difficult is to be in a situation where if i am the only one questioning things, there’s clearly a message of ‘what’s wrong with you~where’s your devotion’ type of response. and as an MI (which i am not yet) it has been made clear to us that we are representatives of the lineage.
i take that message to heart and i ask myself, ‘what am i representing…where is my integrity in this process?’
as for photos: the sakyong has been my main teacher since 1994. but it has been an uneasy ride and i’ve kept my concerns to myself or confided them to the “wrong people”. i’ve been accused of being quite hard headed, told to practice more and contemplate doubtlessness. in short, i feel spiritual teachings and jargon were used to dampen any threat people might have felt by my questioning.
and as for 10 minutes a day: yes, i agree it can be powerful for someone to do that. 10 minutes is certainly better than nothing and a good place to start. but if what we are offering is just better than nothing, what are we offering?
Meg says:
and as for 10 minutes a day: yes, i agree it can be powerful for someone to do that. 10 minutes is certainly better than nothing and a good place to start. but if what we are offering is just better than nothing, what are we offering?
I’m inclined to agree. When I received my first meditation instruction (in 1980) I was told that to sit an hour a day was optimal, if that wasn’t possible to try for at least 45 minutes, and if I couldn’t do at least half an hour not to even bother because it would be useless. I believe that was the standard instruction at the time.
My own experience has been that to meditating for 10 minutes doesn’t give my mind time to begin to settle and that I am not so much meditating as thinking I am meditating.
We live in a speedy age, and I fear that we are becoming part of that rather than counteracting it.
In this vein, I am wondering if the format of dathuns has been changed. Today I offered a nyinthun sitting at my house for some local people as we are not near a center. One participant said she preferred a two hour session as three hours was hard for her. Somewhat surprised, I pointed out that she had recently done a dathun at KCL, and she said yes, but that was different; there were a lot of breaks. This morning, we didn’t have any cushion time longer than 25 minutes without a walking break, and most were shorter, so I don’t know what her dathun was like. I hope we aren’t giving in to the dark age.
yeh i was advised to do 45 minutes per day as well and in the morning and to keep a record ot it aswell.
the ten minute thing -could work-but perhaps 15 minutes would be better -
I think in 15 minutes you would feel a little more into your environment and mind.
meg I was wondering when you voicing your ‘dissent’ what was the attitude to this of other people in the room and indeed if any avenues were explored where you could voice your ‘dissent’.
True believers -interesting turn of phrase -in some respects I would like to be a true believer -but I dont think this is point of any religion anywhere-does doubtlessness mean that you dont doubt or rather that you are willing to work with the teachings – I am willing to work with CTR’s teachings as given to me in the past but re some of his actions I really do have questions about them. For example why was he not more open about the Regent’s behaviour -he could have given more of a lead in people working with him…….perhaps he should have set more ground rules for example.
The nubs of religion are behaviour in the world and a willingness to look honestly about the institutions, people you are involved in and perhaps at times to say no to the way they are manifesting in the world.
I think true believers are more found in the states due to the colonial expansion there and people regarding the church as a source of learning and refuge. I think at the present time the US is still more of Christian society than Europe where the enlightenment happened. Indeed our literature is full of doubters witness Camus, Satre and in the UK Colin Wilson and so many recent playwrights like David Hare, Steven Poliakoff etc, etc.
yes I do believe the ‘true believer’ concept needs to be more explored in America – so it would be interesting to have a discussion on it.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
VCTR quote. The context is Dharma Art but he addresses the topic of lineage and lineage holders:
“The training and discipline you have received is completely inherent; you possess it completely and thoroughly, and it’s now up to you how to present it. It’s the same as the wisdom of the lineage, which is handed down to a particular lineage holder, and that lineage holder exercises his own authority as to how to present it to his particular generation.”
I am not a student of the Sakyongs. But that’s not his fault!
Sherab Gyatso has raised an interesting point.
First, the issue of whether or not one is a student of the Sakyong’s or not shouldn’t invoke a model of blame, either a teacher’s or our own. If it is a Buddhist school, that’s almost irrelevant. One makes a connection or one does not, and any effort to force that from either side is highly questionable
If the goal is to teach a particular dharma, then that is the job of the teacher, and certainly he or she will have their own style. That does not give them the authority to make stuff up which is not in accord with general dharma or the lineage in which one professes membership, or to claim authorship of other teachings, or to claim teachings are from a particular source when they are not, or to mix them up like spices in a soup to please current trends. In short, there are limits to the freedom the next teacher in a lineage or succession has.
But I also don’t think the role of Sakyong is the same as that of spiritual teacher. I’m not sure it can be if we are talking of enlightened society. A society is simply too large and diverse to expect all members to adhere to whatever teachings are the current state sanctioned outpouring. If that is to change with every succession, and all members must adhere to the newer version every time there is a succession, then there will simply never be a stable society to speak of. It’s an absurd notion, if we give it some thought and have any understanding of culture and tradition.
Within a school members have a choice to join or not, and it does not hold sway over people’s lives in terms of taxes, infrastructure, resources, but can and does control the ability of people to participate in that particular school based on their beliefs. Indeed that is the standard Tibetan Buddhist model, and we can find many examples of that in religions, clubs, and special interest groups all over the world.
But a Sakyong is supposed to be responsible for all the citizens, not only those citizens who have vowed to follow his particular current version of specific teachings.
That function fails when the church and state is essentially the same thing. Then all citizens are indeed required to adhere to the latest version of teachings and practices, regardless of what came before, or they are not allowed full participation in the society.
Then the holding together of a large community or society, becomes partial and fractious. Blame, if we must use that word, or the primary cause, does not belong to the citizens.
This seems to be an ongoing problem with mixing the development of a society, with the practices and path associated with vajrayana Buddhism. The two are not in conflict exactly, may even complement each other, but cannot be regarded as the same sort of practice in any way I can see.
what?