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.

“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!

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Are you going to L.G. this summer?

I am……………..J.T.