The Genuine Chögyam Trungpa
March 25, 2009 by Bernard Weitzman 
Print This Post
Commentary by Bernie Weitzman
I address what follows to students of the Vidyadhara, Chögyam Trungpa, Rinpoche.
The years since Rinpoche’s parinirvana have been uncomfortable for many of his students. Many of us have felt alienated from the community and from the Sakyong’s teachings. We have, of course, dealt with the situation in individual ways. There are, though, commonalities. Some of us have continued to participate fully, some of us have withdrawn, and others of us have continued to teach but have kept ourselves otherwise distant.
A concern that has become increasingly acute for me personally is that Rinpoche’s unique vision, the world altering presentation of the dharma that was my gateway, my access to sanity, is in danger of being lost. I heard many teachers before him, during his time with us and have heard many teachers since Rinpoche’s death. It is clear to me that, if not for him. I would still be wandering in search of a teacher.
I have recently found a significant level of comfort with and confidence in the path the Sakyong is developing. The new format for Shambhala training will, in my view, be a truly fruitional movement in the direction of Trungpa, Rinpoche’s vision. The retreat sequence, climaxing in the Scorpion Seal Retreat, moves Shambhala training and the Kagyu and Nyingma practices into a potentially enriching dialogue — but it’s a step towards that dialogue.
In order for that dialogue to unfold, we students of the Vidyadhara need to enter the discussion. The way is open. We are free to teach within the community. Frank Berliner has coined the topic heading that I feel we all might use: “The Essential Chögyam Trungpa.”
H.H. Karmapa once said to a group of tantrikas, “Your teachers plant yeast in you. It grows and expands in you. Pass it on to your students.” Each of us is yeasted. Each of us has a unique “Essential Chögyam Trungpa.” Let’s pass it on to the current generation and join the Sakyong in fulfilling his father’s vision.
Bernie Weitzman is in private practice as a psychotherapist in NYC. He became a student of Chögyam Trungpa, Rinpoche in 1972, and has taught at Karme Choling and at the NY and Philadelphia Shambhala Centers.
Hi Bernie,
> The new format for Shambhala training will be a fruitional movement in the direction of his vision
This line confuses me. What do you mean by “fruitional”? Also, what is this new format for Shambhala Training?
> The retreat sequence moves Shambhala training and the Kagyu and Nyingma practices into a potentially enriching dialogue — but it’s a step towards that dialogue.
What do you mean by “potentially enriching dialogue”? What is a dialogue as you use it here, and who or what is being enriched? How is the retreat sequence a step toward that dialogue? Why do you say “but”? What is the significance of what you are saying? I’m afraid I’m lost as to the specifics here.
The sense I get from your article is that the elders from the Vajradhatu days and other VCTR students who do not follow the current Sakyong are contributing to the loss of VCTR’s teachings. Is that it, in a nutshell?
I can understand why, if you are now comfortable with something you were not comfortable with before, you would want all your friends to see it as you do. Could you elaborate on why you have become comfortable, or should I use the word “clear,” in other words what you understand now that clarified your prior confusion (”discomfort”)? (I am not sure what you are trying to express, but I don’t think it is “comfort.”)
Many thanks
–Suzanne/Tsondru Namkha
Hi Bernie,
I agree with Suzanne T. about the questions your article raises. However, my own question is about this:
“In order for that dialogue to unfold, we students of the Vidyadhara need to enter the discussion. The way is open. We are free to teach within the community. ”
Yes, we students of the Vidyadhara need to enter the discussion. But is the way really “open” if we must follow the current curriculum? I have heard that we teachers, trained by VCTR, now have to jump through a bunch of new hoops and be vetted by the new teacher’s academy in order to teach in Shambhala Centers. To me, that does not mean we are “free” to teach within the community, it means that we are less free, in fact excluded, unless we are vetted.
But then, if we jump through those hoops and are approved to teach by Judith Simmer Brown, is what we teach going to be undiluted Chögyam Trungpa? Or will it become a sanitized version because the younger students can’t really ‘take’ the undiluted dharma we received?
If you feel ‘comfortable’ with the new format for Shambhala Training and the teachers academy, and feel completely free to present the genuine CTR, good luck, sir.
But I don’t feel comfortable with the implication – if that is what you are implying, as Suzanne picked up – that the Vidyadhara’s teachings are being lost BECAUSE some of his students refuse to follow the new path designed by SMR and SI. Something seems quite fishy about that logic.
Suzanne D.
I am not blaming anyone for anything — not at all. I do think that senior students have an enormously important contribution to make towards the preservation of the heritage of VCTR.
I have not, personally, encountered any obstacles to teaching at the Shambhala Centers. If that is in fact what is coming down, I’ll reconsider my position.
One problem the elder students of VCTR encounter when relating to
the current Shambhala mandala is being approved to teach. Loyalty to Sakyong Mipham is a requisite, which does make sense. However, many
who aren’t exactly eye to eye with the situation are excluded. So the question becomes, what should one be loyal to, one’s own understanding of the teachings as we’ve been taught by the Vidyadhara, or Sakyong Mipham’s path, which has many of the same elements, but different emphasis?
Connection and inspiration can’t be faked. Loyalty without those is just
a hollow ideal. I became a student of the Vidyadhara in spite of the fact that I was more attracted to Zen than Tibetian Buddhism, because I was attracted to him and what he was teaching. I was never so attracted to
Mipham Rinpoche, Should I think there’s something wrong with my devotion to my root teacher? This has been implied to me by an older
student loyal to Sakyong Mipham, I think it is an important question
that many are unclear about.
When I read Robin Kornman’s talks, I hear the echo of the Vidyadhara.
I felt the same when I heard some of the other older students teach. It’s
that feeling of the teachings striking your heart. To me, that is an example
of lineage.
Is it a tragedy that excellent teachers such as Dr. Kornman and Reggie
Ray have felt it necessary to go off on their own, or is it part of a
natural process? If Shambhala is an umbrella for various traditions,
why couldn’t these (and other) students loyal to the Vidyadhara have
been included, somehow, no matter what direction Sakyong Mipham takes? I think it makes more sense if one sees that Shambhalai is more of
a political institution than a Buddhist organization….or family, for that
matter.
Dear Suzanne Duarte,
Who are you to suggest that younger practicioners cannot “take” the true Dharma? How many students, new or old have you even seen face to face in the last several years? Even if you have, what gives you the right to judge someones ability to practice? I grow tired of your agression and arrogance. You have no basis for these statements. Shame on you.
Will
Hi Bernie,
Hi Bernie,
Thanks, that helps! I truly did not understand the point of your email, and yes, the rhetoric, I guess that is the word for it. Your response is truly helpful — it lays out exactly what you found bothersome in the past and that you feel you have seen the Sakyong change.
Perhaps I should have written you offline. Maybe then it would not have sounded hostile and unfriendly and offensive. I’m just a tech writer trying to parse sentences.
So, if my tone didn’t invite dialog, why did you write back?!
Thanks again for doing so!
XO from the old days,
–Suzanne
Sorry, William, but that is the rationalization I have heard for many of the changes: that younger students are put off or scared by the way Trungpa Rinpoche taught or did things, or by the protectors chants, or by . . . you name it. I’ve heard this several times – from people who were CTR students and are now following SMR – when I have asked why changes have been made that have essentially completely changed the face and character of the mandala. I’m not judging anyone’s ability to practice, but somebody is – or there wouldn’t have been so many changes in the way the teachings and practices are presented. Think about it.
Sorry about the tone, but really I don’t see these things having changed so tremendously in terms of the directness with which ego is threatened. The inbreath as a response to someones fear? Not likely. No significant changes have been made to the protector chants. They are still being said, people seem to not remember that the manual has always suggested that the protectors be said only in a predominantly Vajrayana context. I find Rigden Abhisheka to be as scary, if not more so than VY, if only because there is even less of a bridge to the true nature of mind, one must just make a leap. I don’t think it is a good Idea to rely on conjecture as a basis for drawing conclusions. So much of what I have read on this site could be cleared up if people only did a little research. The changes being made are not to coddle unworthy students. It is a truly unfair criticism, I have found that on the whole the younger students enter Seminary having studied more, with greater understanding than ever before, and have a strong commitment to genuine practice. Please take a deeper look than relying on what you have heard.
-Greetings_
I will do a little bit of “cross polination” here…there are still little bubbles of expression of interest for the Vajradhatu Tradition Group Retreat and it seems like a few people are still thinking about it. Also, there is an interesting variation on the initial proposal (please see the article by that name to refresh your memory, i.e.
A. It could still be held in Nova Scotia as initially proposed
-or-
B. It could be held in the UK or Holland as the majority of those with a fairly definite interest are residents of those two (almost) adjoining countries.
Please circulate the update and basic retreat idea as you are connected and inspired to your friends. Also, a little note from those who are interested to me at charlesmarrow@yahoo.ca would be helpful, even those who have expressed a previous interest as the European based option may change perspectives.
Thanks- Charles
Dear William, I don’t believe I know you. Were you around when the Vidyadhara was alive? Re: the protectors chants, when I was on staff at Karme-Chöling in the early 80s I distinctly remember that ALL the protectors chants were recited every night during Dathun, and that I had to explain them to the Dathunees. So when you say that “the manual has always suggested that the protectors be said only in a predominantly Vajrayana context,” I wonder what your timeframe for ‘always’ is.
When you say, “I don’t think it is a good Idea to rely on conjecture as a basis for drawing conclusions,” what are you referring to? When I mentioned younger students, it was in the context of a question. A question is not a conclusion.
When you say, “The changes being made are not to coddle unworthy students. It is a truly unfair criticism,” first of all, I didn’t make that criticism, and second of all, I didn’t mean to imply that. If any criticism was intended, it was towards those who rationalized the changes on that basis – that is, defenders of the changes.
When you say, ” I have found that on the whole the younger students enter Seminary having studied more, with greater understanding than ever before, and have a strong commitment to genuine practice,” what era are you comparing current students with? How long have you been around? I ask as someone who long ago prepared students for Seminary. so I have some knowledge of how prepared students used to be.
Suzanne D.
Hey, John Tischer, thanks for bringing this up:
“One problem the elder students of VCTR encounter when relating to
the current Shambhala mandala is being approved to teach. Loyalty to Sakyong Mipham is a requisite, which does make sense. However, many who aren’t exactly eye to eye with the situation are excluded. So the question becomes, what should one be loyal to, one’s own understanding of the teachings as we’ve been taught by the Vidyadhara, or Sakyong Mipham’s path. . . ”
The answer to that question, of course, defines the reason that many of us have stepped out of the mandala – at least that is true for me.
Bernie, if you are listening, your loyalty to SMR may be the reason that you “have not, personally, encountered any obstacles to teaching at the Shambhala Centers.” I am not questioning whether you also are devoted to the Vidyadhara. I believe you are. But I suggest you ask Eric Spiegel about the new rules. You may find that things are not as open as you assumed, and that your urging of us old dogs to teach is asking something that is more complicated than you thought.
Back to John: “If Shambhala is an umbrella for various traditions, why couldn’t these (and other) students loyal to the Vidyadhara have been included, somehow, no matter what direction Sakyong Mipham takes?” That’s a very good question that I and others have been wondering and asking for quite a long time. It’s one of those questions that remains glaringly unanswered.
But when you say, “I think it makes more sense if one sees that Shambhalai is more of a political institution than a Buddhist organization….or family, for that matter,” what does “it” refer to? Does “it” refer to the non-inclusion of students loyal to the Vidyadhara? Would you care to elaborate on the rest of that sentence?
Suzanne D.
Hi Suzanne,
What makes sense in terms of the exclusion of certain older students is if that
exclusion is meant to make certain the position of the Sakyong in a political sense, that it reduces controversy and burnishes the brand…which is both
business and politics. The “it” is the attitude that subscribes to this point
of view…which seems to be a paradigm far different from the Vidyadhara’s.
I don’t think it’s the younger students that can’t handle the teachings.
Thanks, John. I get it and appreciate your making the point.
Does anyone know what the “new format” is for Shambhala Training? Just curious.
Bernie,
It might be helpful if you say more about
and also about
Cheers,
Mark
Thanks Mark. Responding to Mark’s suggestions above: The new Shambhala curriculum, particularly the six, weekly meetings to explore the teachings given during each weekend of Shambhala training seems like a truly deepening and enriching approach, as does the contemplations of the dignities as currently presented.
The Scorpion Seal Retreat is a one week form of the bardo retreat. Although I’ve read a little about it, what I have to say is based entirely on my understanding of teachings I received from VCTR. Apparently the capacity to visualize matures during this retreat. The maturation of the capacity to visualize is basic to enabling the emergence of vision as the joining of heaven and earth which is, in turn, the ground for fulfillment of the capacity for skillful means. I don’t imagine this possibility is likely to be realized for many, if any, of those who will do a one week retreat. On the other hand, those in our sangha who have completed the full bardo retreat become, potentially, the vehicle for dialogue with and further evolution of the Scorpion Seal graduates. This is a means of further transmission of the teachings of VCTR.
A second point, perhaps equally abstract and obscure, is that the rainbow body, the fruition of synchronization of body and mind, is said to be realized in the bardo retreat. If, in the Scorpion Seal Retreat, there is even a glimpse of the rainbow body (and I feel it is very likely that will happen), the deepening of the capacity to understand and share the dharma, the opening of the heart that will take place, will be significant.
Suzanne, sorry to be unclear, the protector chant guidline is for city centers, they are still said daily at Dhatun, Seminary, Land Centers and most urban centers, though some opt not to on some days to increase the length of the sitting period or to ease the public in. It is definitely not something that has been excluded en masse.
John, I don’t think that requiring more training for experienced teachers is a political move. While it is a pain in the ass, people need to understand the new curriculum. Bernie makes a good point that it is all going towards deepening what is already there. I read a comment about a teacher just kind of freestyling on another thread, I think this is what is trying to be avoided. I sitll feel many of the complaints here have to do with people going off half cocked on rumours, and latching onto certain words and phrases rather than looking at what is really happening. Anyway, wish you all the best. Yours in Dharma, WM
In response to Suzanne Townsend’s question to the new Shambhala Training format, and Bernie’s explanation that “the new Shambhala curriculum, particularly the six, weekly meetings to explore the teachings given during each weekend of Shambhala training,” this raises another question for me — to you, Bernie — and a very partial response to Suzanne.
This is complicated, and I am actively in the process of trying to find out more. I should know more after this weekend. Bernie, I think you are referring to what I will describe in this post: Lion, Tiger, Garuda, and Dragon. What you say is somewhat inaccurate, unfortunately, and that may be the way it was presented to you. It’s my understanding that these classes are not just going into more depth, or detail, about the Level that students have just completed. There is more to it than that. Please read on.
About the new curriculum, what has been added (and this is called, informally, “the new curriculum”) is a series of 4 classes that happen between Levels 2 and 5. There are no classes between Levels 1 and 2.
These are called: “Tiger, Lion, Garuda, Dragon.” (Sound familiar?) They are optional; however, they are being encouraged by Shambhala Training staff.
Since I haven’t actually seen the curriculum yet (in spite of my requests) I can only tell you what I know: Each of these levels consists of 6 classes, so this is probably what Bernie is referring to. They are a mix of Shambhala and Tibetan Buddhist teachings. They begin with some basic hinayana teachings and progress to mahayana, and go as far as shunyata. One question for me is how students with no previous experience will be able to distinguish between the Shambhala and the Buddhist materials. Stay tuned.
In the past when I’ve asked at my local Shambhala center about the changes SMR makes to VCTR’s work, I’ve been given one of several answers:
* He hasn’t changed on iota of VCTR’s work.
* By making radical sweeping changes, he’s doing what VCTR secretly wanted to have done.
* He’s free to disregard anything VCTR said or wanted– obviously!– because other gurus gave SMR the title “Rinpoche”.
* He’s more Trungpa than Trungpa– each change he makes is an increased Trungpa-izing of what VCTR left behind.
If you hired me to be your political strategist, I’d recommend that you pick one story and stick with it. Perhaps you should claim that VCTR secretly gave oral instructions to SMR to demolish many of the things VCTR created– for instance, Shambhala Training as a non-sectarian, non-Buddhist program open to all.
Like any decent politician, pick one story and stick with it. At least, if that’s the goal, to be politicians.
(I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but as a newcomer to all this, I’m offended when people seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth, while claiming to be able to teach me about genuineness.
Hopefully any mistakes I’m making or things I’m seeing wrongly can be cleared up here, and if that’s the case, I apologize.)
Suzanne Duarte, it seems that the gist your response to William is that his views are irrelevant because he wasn’t around in the 1980s.
As one who was around in the early 1980s, I think you would do well to pay attention to younger students. You might even give up the idea that you know more than they do. There are many strong practitioners developing in the Shambhala Centers and the atmosphere these days is much gentler and kinder — with less arrogance among senior students than was often the case in the 1980s.
BTW, the new format for ST (piloted in Boston and elsewhere) involves classes on Buddhist and Shambhala teachings between levels. There is also an effort to keep groups together through the levels. It is a work in process.
re: Scorpion Seal:
My understanding of Dark Retreat / yangti in a dzogchen context is that it functions to jumpstart both thogal practice as well as practice of the night or dream yoga. I have only done 24 hours, although a number of friends have done 7 day and one has done the full 49. I aspire to do more in the future.
It is also said that it is best to do a short retreat (24 – 48 hours) first to see if you can handle the practice, as some people have real difficulty – even to the point of breakdown. It will be interesting to see how this practice manifests in the Shambhala mandala….
William,
I respectfully disagree that the retraining is not a political move, although it does make sense to train teachers in a new curriculum. It is both, actually…and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it…if one follows Sakyong Mipham, it’s probably necessary. Politics is not a big word in this context.. it’s just trying to have things go your own way.
Aside from the overall corporate turn of Shambhala,
the change in the way the teachings are presented
are subtle and hard to pin down. I’ve seen some older
and some newer teachers since the changes have
been in place, and my only vague observation is
that there seems to be a shift away from the sense and more reliance on the words of the teachings.
Not to be critical of you, Bernie, but your ideas about
the Scorpion Seal Retreat reflect that….what the
outcome of the retreat is supposed to be….how
wonderful it is. There’s lots of come on and less
nitty-gritty in what Shambhala is projecting to the
world now. It might be completely necessary to get
anyone interested in the teachings in these degenerate times…I’m not smart enough to see that, if that is the case.
My old teacher said that being able to be real– with ourselves, with one another, and able to resolve interpersonal issues– was a prerequisite for more advanced practices. He said we had to become human before we could become “spiritual”.
He said if we started seeing colored lights and rainbows before we learned how to be decent human beings, we’d be in a mess of trouble– worse off than when we started.
As far as students being gentler and kinder these days,
perhaps they are, or, maybe not. The cynicism of the old days was actually a means to protect the teachings! You really had to want to hear the teachings to wade through all the crap. I know one person who was rebuffed at every turn. When he finally met with the Vidyadhara, he was told that the process he went through was meeting the protectors, the guardians of the mandala. That was a different time and a different teacher. Perhaps the teachings
are being protected in a different way now.
Great story, Mr. Tischer.
My old teacher once said something about obstacles. He said we might find that we have unbelievably difficult people to deal with, problems and hassles of all kinds. He said “You should know that I put those obstacles there, for your sake.”
Bernie, the Scorpion Seal retreat, as described in the root text, is a four-week retreat. Like all the Shambhala practices (lungta, stroke, werma, …), it is a form of raising windhorse, starting with a week of purity and simplicity, to a week of gentle intellect, to a week doing nothing and enjoying phenomena, to the final week of entering the primordial mirror (via darkness retreat). It is presented for the benefit of people who are caught in the sickness of the dark age, in its own language, let’s call it “CTR Shambhala” language.
This language tries to be as direct as possible, “is self-existent in its own way”, so as to be able to communicate with people whether or not they are buddhist. Buddhist practitioners such as myself can of course have helpful and illuminating discussions about how Essence Mahamudra and Trekcho relate to walking in the woods letting loose your mind and delighting in color, etc, but this is not necessary, and certainly not a requirement, especially if it serves to filter out Catholic and Native American Church and other non-Tibetan-Buddhist practitioners in this age from receiving and practicing this transmission. That is the “confidence of Shambhala”.
For me that’s the heart of it: the Shambhala teachings do not define a new Buddhist sect or lineage, but a fresh approach to connecting with and practicing the sacred in this secular world regardless of religious ism. That’s how I heard it from CTR, in private and personal, in small groups, and in public. But more importantly, I see this as describing how things actually are, and what this 21st century world really really needs, and what really motivates me personally.
My own feeling (mileages will of course vary) is that it would be dishonest of me to bind myself with the current Shambhala Buddhist path, including its take on the Shambhala path from Training through Retreat, as being essentially a Tibetan-Buddhist path, because I don’t share that view (and it _is_ about the view).
And meanwhile, as I was reminded by a young friend, “there’s nothing to protect”. And that’s a big field
Perhaps we need a little more of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY_Ylj87e3g&feature=related
“Perhaps the teachings
are being protected in a different way now.”
EXACTLY THANK YOU JOHN. BOOM. I couldn’t have said it better than that. That was pith.
Is it really appropriate to be discussing the specific format of the Scorpion Seal retreat, on a public forum with people who haven’t recieved the transmissions? Would the Vidyadhara have liked that? It’s one thing to talk about Shambhala principles, but it was not the Sakyong who came up with the idea of restricted materials. I don’t think that’s a good look…
Edward, wasn’t your prior teacher someone that you had serious problems with? I didn’t know him, but what I’ve read about him, does not sound like a guy that Chogyam Trungpa would have liked very much. Why do you keep referencing him? Can you shoot me an email, brother? ashoka.mukpo at gmail dot com.
Bernie, a close friend of mine did your Jung program in New York. She really liked it.
Hi Ashoka,
Sorry if I’m going off topic with some of my comments– if that’s what I’m doing.
I did have immense issues with my old teacher. It was and is a complex, love-hate relationship, in many ways. On the other hand…
I remember hearing that when Fabrice Midal was doing research for one of his books, he was so shocked and offended by some of the stories he heard that he almost quit working on the book.
And I think my favorite book about VCTR is one with a green cover that was banned by SI.
So we have to be careful about how we talk about some of this. It’s not like there’s a simple, clean, beautiful thing that we have, that we can snuggle up with and show to people, like a beautiful resume or report card. At least, that’s not how I see it, and I’m looking for people who see it the same way.
But yes, I have issues… and part of the reason I like interacting with students of VCTR is to help me work through some of those issues. I think it’s wonderful when we find people that we can learn from, or cross-pollinate, or whatever.
Email me sucka! Really.
To Barbara Blouin,
There is now, in the new Way of Shambhala curriculum, a series of 6 weekly classes between Level I and Level II. It is called “Meditation In Everyday Life.” The continuity between the Levels does seem like a good idea, especially in terms of community building and an opportunity, at the outset, to sit at least one night a week with a group.
An ongoing concern of mine moving back to Boulder after 15 years in Tennessee looking after a bedridden parent is what I have referred to as the “erosion” of the presentation of the Vidyadhara’s shamatha/vipassana technique in Level I, the only occasion you are likely to get his sitting practice technique anywhere in the “mandala.”
Personally, I think the proper presentation of the Vidyadhara’s sitting practice technique is more important than any possible envisioning of the “rainbow body” (not to mention pondering what all these teachings have to do with the 90,000,000 people elsewhere in the world who are going to die as a result of the imposition of the liberal/neoliberal economic model on the world, some of us who have long supported that large scale “replica of me” trip), and I recall the Vidyadhara, in one of the early Meditation Instructor training sessions he presided over in the mid-seventies how his teacher, Jamgon Kongtrul of Sechen, bemoaned the fact no one in Tibet sat anymore.
Done on retreat, for extended periods, with the proper attitude, that sitting practice as he taught it becomes a Mahamudra or Dzogchen practice. This had occurred to me quite a few years back, but participating in an excellent Mahamudra Practice Group in Boulder, with the investigations (I think of them as “conversations with the ‘watcher’”), that fact has become ever more clear to me.
In April, with, hopefully, an acharya or two on hand, along with the Resident Director of Shambhala Training, those of us who expressed this concern with the presentation of the Vidyadhara’s sitting practice in Level I will have a meeting to discuss it further.
On that occasion, I will also bring up a related fact: that at the outset of the “Meditation In Everyday Life” classes directly following the (now abbreviated) Level I weekend, there really isn’t any nourishment given to the Vidyadhara’s practice technique: you get this little sprout on the weekend, and it’s pretty much left to fend for itself–no water, fertilizer, sunshine–and you go directly to the Sakyong’s Turning The Mind Into An Ally. Isn’t the Vidyadhara’s sitting practice and its implications worth a night or two of care before turning to Turning The Mind Into An Ally?
Best,
Jim
Jim Hartz! I’ve wondered what happened to you. (We were friends at RMDC in the early 90s when I was S. Head, remember?) Great to see you show up on this site. Thank you for sharing your views on “the “erosion” of the presentation of the Vidyadhara’s shamatha/vipassana technique in Level I, the only occasion you are likely to get his sitting practice technique anywhere in the “mandala.”” You make some very important observations that confirm what others of us feel about what’s happening.
William McAllison said, “I sitll feel many of the complaints here have to do with people going off half cocked on rumours, and latching onto certain words and phrases rather than looking at what is really happening.” Well, Jim is looking at what’s really happening from an informed perspective.
However, William’s complaint about the complaints on this site brings up something else I’d like to address. “Going off half cocked on rumors, and latching onto certain words and phrases” WITHOUT ACCURATELY READING what is actually being said on this site is exactly the reason I question so many of the responses of defenders of the present regime. I have observed in some of the threads on RFS that the younger generation shows up and throws around what I consider to be half-cocked rumors, urban legends, the new Shambhala folklore – particularly in reference to ‘the old days,’ how it used to be – with all the certainty of true believers. There seem to be a lot of such rumors, which are expressed as absolute truth by people who weren’t, or couldn’t have been, there at the time. And these urban legends about the old days, the way things used to be when the Vidyadhara was alive, often seem to imply that things are much improved now: that the students are better educated and trained, better practitioners, gentler, kinder, and overall that SMR has improved on VCTR. When those of us who actually studied with VCTR question these assumptions, sometimes the true believers in the current regime show up – sometimes in force – to hurl insults at those who dare to question SMR and SI.
When I question assumptions and beliefs, as I did with William, and counter them with my own experience of having been there, I’ve been accused of being ‘arrogant.’ For example, this from Jim Wilton: “Suzanne Duarte, it seems that the gist your response to William is that his views are irrelevant because he wasn’t around in the 1980s.”
Jim is overlooking the fact that I was questioning what William said with regard to TIME, when he used such words as ‘always’ and ‘more than ever before,’ as when William said, “I have found that on the whole the younger students enter Seminary having studied more, with greater understanding than ever before.” I had to wonder what William was basing these statements on, so I asked how long he’d been around. I think it’s a fair question. But Jim missed this point and and thought I was dismissing William’s comments as “irrelevant because he wasn’t around in the 1980s.” No. I was actually questioning the assumptions about “before” that are behind what William was asserting. And that is what I find myself doing a lot with defenders of SMR/SI who express beliefs that I find questionable. Then a tangle ensues because the defenders often take things out of context and go off on tangents.
For example, Jim goes on to say, “I think you would do well to pay attention to younger students. You might even give up the idea that you know more than they do.” These two sentences are loaded with misapprehensions based on an inaccurate reading of what I have said. I asked (3/25, 3:05 pm), “[If students of VCTR] are approved to teach by Judith Simmer Brown, is what we teach going to be undiluted Chögyam Trungpa? Or will it become a sanitized version because the younger students can’t really ‘take’ the undiluted dharma we received?” William misunderstood the question and assumed I was saying “younger practicioners cannot “take” the true Dharma.”
That was an excusable misunderstanding, so I clarified by saying (3/25, 4:51 pm), “Sorry, William, but that is the rationalization I have heard for many of the changes: that younger students are put off or scared by the way Trungpa Rinpoche taught or did things, or by the protectors chants, or by . . . you name it. I’ve heard this several times – from people who were CTR students and are now following SMR – when I have asked why changes have been made.” In a further exchange, I clarified further by saying (3/35, 5:51 pm) that I wasn’t criticizing younger students, but if criticism was intended, it was towards those who rationalized the changes on the basis or assumption that younger students find the direct teachings of VCTR hard to take. In other words, I take issue with my generational peers, some of whom are teachers within SI, who made such claims in defending the changes that SMR has instituted.
I am taking the trouble to unpack all this because I anticipate that the rumor that I disregard younger students – because I think I “know more than they do,” as Jim Wilton said – will continue to circulate, when in fact I was casting doubt on those who told me the younger generation is put off by the genuine CTR.
However, I would like to invite younger students who come to this site to read more carefully and to question their own reactions when their beliefs are called into question by older students. I think the folklore within SI needs to be questioned. When that happens on this website, it seems to evoke inaccurate, imprecise reactions. The inaccurate reactions may be a cover for unquestioned assumptions.
When the older students on this site, including myself, make statements and observations based on our own study, practice and experience within the Vidyadhara’s mandala during his lifetime, we DO know more than younger students. We know more about our own experience. That our study and experience sometimes contradicts urban legends within SI seems to be very threatening to some people. What a great opportunity to practice contemplation, rather than reaction, as the logong slogans suggest. Eh?
VCTR taught precision as a mindfulness practice. I’d like to suggest that the dialogue on this site would be better served by greater precision and mindfulness in the comments.
In pursuit of the dharma (truth),
Suzanne D.
Togyal practices are to be done traditionally after years of stabilization in Treckcho practice. In fact, if you do not have stabilization in Treckcho, then you will be just kidding yourself, and engaging in conceptual Tobgyal.
First you have the view pointed out of Treckcho by a qualified, Dzogchen master,( who carries that lineage,and has stabilized him or herself trekcho and tobgyal), then by practicing ALOT, conviction arises in the view, i.e. that this is it, this is all, and one needs nothing else, except to practice non-meditation, non-distraction, and then by practicing ALOT, i.e. remaining in non-distraction, non-meditation, usually 3 hours sessions at a time, just resting in the view, 10 hours a day on retreats, confidence in the view happens. Because you can now self-liberate any thing that arises in the mind or the phenomenal world,they are no longer separate, and like a hand drawing on water, the arising of thought and and the self-liberation of thought happens at once. You have not a scintilla of doubt anymore about the view that was pointed out because you now experience everything as empty, luminous and unobstructed. Nothing that appears in the phenomenal world including your most subtle concept of you, will hook you anymore. You realize that it is all mind. Impermanent, empty and ever changing, encompassing everything without bias. It is pure appearance, all of it. Then you can engage in Tobgyal.
Without this doubtless view of Trekcho having been stabilized, one cannot reach the core of Tobgyal.
Recognizing and stabilizing rigpa is the key point here, i.e. stabilization Trekcho. Because once you have true realization that the world really is empty , and luminous then you can engage in tobgyal.
Amazing that one could even imagine that you could move to Tobgyal practice without years of solitary retreat and realization of Trekcho.
Most of us imagine that we are in rigpa, when in a three hour session we may be lucky to have a second of real rigpa arising. Instead we pretend that a state of ” lethargic shamatha”, as Tsele Natsok RAngdrol says, “a perky face with insensitive mind”, a “rigidly fixating mindfulness, a rampantly unrestrained thought activity, giving chase to the flow of thought, or thta an intellectualized mental fabrication is the real state of meditation. It is extremely rare when someone gains a definitive certainty” in rigpa. That’s according to a master of trekcho and tobgyal whom Chokyi Ningma R. and Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche says give the pith instructions in the Great Perfection.
I actually cooked for someone who was doing a dark retreat, 10 days each, her third one, after 25 years of Trekcho practice in retreat , under the direction of Namkai Norbu Rinpoche. This was her preparation for Tobgyal practice.
I guess, if you feel you have mastered awareness, then good luck to you all who are moving on to tobgyal.
I find it a scary thought that there will be even more people out there “imagining” they are doing tobgyal practices , after imagining they have mastered trekcho, but hey, this is the age of spiritual materialism. Add another credential to your belt.
My understanding is of course just merely intellectual, and I myself have not a scintilla of realization of trekcho, since , from my own experience I still get hooked by my thoughts and my experience in the phenomenal world. I wouldn’t even attempt tobgyal practices until that is no longer true. But I guess that is just me.
re: Chris Chandler’s post
I absolutely second ALL the caveats in Chris’s post, and only mentioned thogal and dream practice upthread to give some context for dark retreat in general.
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche himself did not practice thogal until many years after he was instructed in it, and only then because of indications in dream. He had however done the full dark retreat while still in Tibet.
So, as I said, it will be interesting to see how SI will handle dark retreat. I’m not sure how much experience in that practice there is within the SI teaching mandala. The problems some people encounter are serious, and were re-emphasised just last week in a webcast retreat by Norbu Rinpoche.
Chris – BTW was the person you cooked for Nancy?
Michael, her name was Lydian.
Mark -thanks for the overview of the Scorpion Seal retreat -that was very interesting – I dont think you gave any secrets away but then I suppose we really have to be very circumspect about these things as Ashoka states……I could see other traditions using such a format – doesnt the Catholic church approximate such formal retreats as given by the Scorpion Seal……..I think they do similar retreats.
Re loyalty to the Sakyong – I am not trying to wriggle but could there be two kinds of loyalty -yes older students may need to retrain somewhat but could not they still observe their ‘first’ loyalty as being to the Vidyadhara ie in taking an oath of loyalty to the Sakyong perhaps the oath could be different for them and emphasise the Vidyadhara more. Perhaps there could be a formal body set up to discuss differences – as it seems from these posts the SI organisation is not completely sure about the format of Shambhala training itself.
As for me being a Brit I dont have a choice in being loyal ……I will die a subject of the Queen – its stamped in my passport! Plus grugdingly the Scots also have to say the oath of alleigence to the Queen in the Scottish Parliament but I think they do it with their fingers crossed! The British crown has wiped out alot of the monarchies in the world including the Irish – I think their last King was crowned on the Hill of Tara near Drogheda, incidentally I finished my prostrations there at the old centre of Dao Shonu(Moonlight Young Prince)- as it was called by the Vidyadhara.
People might also want listen to Bonnie Rabin on the Chronicle Project – she is also a psychotherapist and remains in SI but has decided not to take the Rigden Abhisheka so there are many differing views about the whole thing in psychology circles. I do admire psychologists somewhat as they are dealing with crazy people all the time and I have known a few of those in my life!
I still think there needs to avenues within SI to be left open for all paths to flourish and I agree with Suzanne it would be better if SI could be an umbrella organisation for all the teachings that the Vidyadhara gave.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Rita, by “Suzanne” did you mean me? I never once thought that SI should be the umbrella organization. I think it could be a party of equal but not of higher status. It could co-sponsor… but I believe the whole thing is impossible at the moment.
I’ll try to remember to post as Tsondru from now on so as not to mix up the Suzannes.
To Jim Hartz … and everyone else,
Thanks, Jim, for your useful comments. I want to pick up the thread — now several posts ago — about shamatha practice, as it was taught by the Vidyadhara, and as it has been and is being (??) practiced since it was first introduced.
Yesterday my attention was brought to a video by the Sakyong about shamatha (I guess it’s shamatha?? not really sure) called How to Meditate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMLM2zVRbM
I was going to withhold my opinion, but that’s hard for me to do, being that I’m opinionated. I do not think that what the Sakyong is teaching here is shamatha. And I am very concerned about that. Among his statements: “When thoughts come, you say, ‘Oh, I shouldn’t be thinking now, because I don’t want to be thinking about that, I want to be paying attention to my breathing, because I know that’s helpful, this is what I want to be doing.’ Just bring some calmness, feel peace and relaxation.”
The emphasis here is on “stress reduction,” “relaxation,” “peace,” and, in general, feeling better. This is entirely missing the point. Sure, I would love to have less stress in my life, less anxiety, more peace, etc. Who wouldn’t? But we older students, AND HOPEFULLY NEWER STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED BY THE SAKYONG, know that the point of shamatha is to simply look at our thoughts, recognize them as thoughts, and follow our breath.
I encourage readers to watch the Sakyong’s video, because you won’t know what he’s doing otherwise. And then, please comment here.
Earlier today, I posted a very brief message on this video on sangha-talk, with the subject line “Is this shamatha?” To my great surprise, the few who have responded so far say that what the Sakyong is teaching IS shamatha. Is it just a matter of perspective? Is the shamatha technique and practice really as fluid as that? If you ask for my 2 cents, I don’t think so.
Barbara
What bothers me most about the quote “When thoughts come, you say, ‘Oh, I shouldn’t be thinking now, because I don’t want to be thinking about that, I want to be paying attention to my breathing….” is that it is encouraging talking to yourself!!!! It encourages discursive thought! If you ask yourself a question, you feel compelled to answer it. And so your entire (WHOLE TEN MINUTES!!! of) meditation is given to talking to yourself.
John, I can see how you might be right about a dual motivation as far as the curriculum goes, that may be true. It may also be fine. I will give you that.
Suzanne, as far as the notions of the past are concerned, many of us, older SMR students if you will, entered the mandala in the bardo between the Regents final days and the beginning of SMR taking his seat. The idea of the past has to do with experience of the culture at that time, as well as with the way things feel now. That is combined, at least in my own experience, with literally hundreds of hours spent talking with and hearing the direct experiences of students who were around at those times. This includes people who are still very active and those who have distanced themselves. It includes people who were very close to VCTR and the Regent, and those who never had much contact. It includes Kusung, administrators, east coast, west coast, european, you name it.
As we were learrning the Dharma, we were also learning the culture. The fact does not change that in the early nineties SMC(RMDC,RMSC) was an unsafe place(phycologically) for young women, and that the sangha had developed a very immature relationship to alchohol and sexuality. This was the relationship that we were taught by EXAMPLE by students of the Vidyadhara. I for one have been very careful about rumor, and urban legend as you call it. The stories have taken on the stuff of myth for better or for worse. I have done my best to differentiate. One example is a somewhat famous story of VCTR having a gun pointed in his face. Either this happend about twenty times, or the story has been changed in an elaborate version of telephone. I have heard so many versions it is silly. My response is always the same: be careful about retelling something you have heard.
This is the crux of my problem here. There is a lot of retelling what has been heard without examination. The protector example is one. Having heard that we don’t say them anymore does not make it true. I see so many VCTR students sharing their experiences in many ways, whether they fully understand the current manifestation or not, and they meet with gratitude rather than scolding. It is a problem when a teacher within the mandala wants to suggest that SMR misses the point, which I really feel is the underlying message of many of the presenters here. (Many do not approach it that way as well.) But when those whose arguments can really be boiled down to SMR is not a genuine teacher have been confronted with the question, “Who are you to judge?” As was asked by Ashoka M and others, the response has been silence.The whole financial article suggests that the whole mandala is an elaborate money making scheme, which is silly when you look at the numbers. The suggestion was made that it is deceptive and designed not to be transparent, and yet when asked Terry R explained the entire system in detail, there would have been no article otherwise. On this thread someone suggested that the sangha is a social event rather than a practice situation. This is not my experience. Community events are for building community, practice events for practice. If this were true we would all save a lot of time and money by skipping the dhatuns, or the five year teaching cycle that is to lead to the Scorpion Seal retreat. Another poster said he believed things were more about the words than the sense. Also not based in anything. In depth study is required as preparation for direct experience of emptiness(developing tonchi) It is not fair to suggest that people are not grappling with the material(some are some aren’t just like thirty years ago). We have all seen people who have practiced for thirty years and not understood anything, and others who have made amazing strides, it is an individual experience and cannot be generalized too much.
There has also been a consistent implication that SMR students are engaged in some sort of blind faith. How do you know? Were you there during that late nights that I and others spent crying alone wondering whether this is the right path, or the right teacher? Do you know where the conviction arises from? We are dealing with ego, as we all know, the path is both painful and joyous. The angry responses here often come when our genuine experience with thousands of hours of practice and study, millions of mantras, and years of service are dismissed as blind faith. Many of the other “younger students” grew up in the Sangha, their conviction is not based on urban legend, but their experience and the memories of their parents and the peers of their parents.
It must be painful to see a throne where once sat the root guru inhabited by another. No one will ever present the Dharma as he did. I have a close friend who only recently has seen value in the teachings of SMR after being very devoted To VCTR. While he was not moved by the Sakyong he was always respectful. Never did we have a problem discussing Dharma. But if the suggestion is that what is being taught is not the true Dharma there is no room for dialougue.
What was I saying? Oh yes, I wish you all the best.
BTW I agree with Ashoka that this is the wrong palce to discuss the details of the Scorpion Seal or other restricted materials, it is sloppy and could be harmful the the paths of others.
There is a different sky, a different earth in the Shambhala world from the time of the Druk Sakyong.
Alienation is the feeling this old dog gets from what is called “Shambhala Buddhism”.
Alienation from the petty bureaucratic protocols (by this I mean the more widespread use of loyalty oaths, the requirements for membership etc.) which are quit different from the what we experienced during the Druk Sakyong’s lifetime. But what is even more alienating to me is the differences in the cultural norms between the present Sakyong and the previous one. During the Druk Sakyong’s lifetime many enriching and colorful traditions from around the world were woven into Shambhalian Culture. Nowadays the present Sakyong seems to be looking primarily at Tibetan norms for inspiration.
The mixing of Buddha Dharma and the Shambhala teaching and calling this “Shambhala Buddhism” is very troubling to me. The Druk Sakyong taught Buddhism and he taught Shambhala teachings but he taught them as separate disciplines He clearly equated Shambhala teachings with the Japanese Shinto tradition. There is no documented case, that I am aware, that some one from Japan every thought of creating something along the lines of Shinto Buddhism, though there is a tradition of equating Amaterasu Omikami with the Buddha and other kamis with boddhisattavas, still the traditions were kept seperate.
I too have inquired of senior teachers to explain this Shambhala Buddhism with no satisfactory results.
The present Sakyong claims to come from the Shambhala Buddhist lineage. I still would like to know exactly what this lineage (parampara) is supposed to be.
Hi Tsondru
Actually what I was thinking back to was this quote -it was posted by Suzanne Duarte who was quoting John Tischer(?)
“Back to John: “If Shambhala is an umbrella for various traditions, why couldn’t these (and other) students loyal to the Vidyadhara have been included, somehow, no matter what direction Sakyong Mipham takes?” That’s a very good question that I and others have been wondering and asking for quite a long time. It’s one of those questions that remains glaringly unanswered.”
There is one organisation, Satdharma, that is in the loop to be accommodated at some time I suppose. Perhaps an interim body could be set up to settle or accommodate differing points of view from others, for example, before the Catholic church excludes it must investigate all points of view – surely something similar could be set up in SI. At the present time its still the Sakyong deciding on who should be in and out – perhaps there needs to a more formal organisation to decide on these things.
If I was a mega-buddhist teacher (some hope) dont think I would want to lose all the really experienced people posting on this board I would probably want to accommodate them in some way. Look in the most banal way at all at the colleges at Oxford -they are all part of the University but they each have a different ethos as do the various colleges of the Catholic church.
Got all this stuff about Catholics because my mother was brought up by nuns and it has made me interested in the political structure of the Catholic church.
best
Rita Ashworth
Nice to see Mr. Barnstone here. Once again, the question arises, the central question of this forum: Is what the Sakyong is doing so different from the Vidyadhara, and, if so, is it wrong?
While the debate goes on, Mr. Barnstone’s alienation continues and older students slip quietly (or not) away.
The debate has been good for me because I’ve aired out a lot of stuff.
Going further seems to be what’s difficult, if not impossible, since what
we discuss here, it seems, will effect little change in the way Shambhala does business. And I don’t think it’s a matter of seeing what the Sakyong is doing in a certain way…an “orthodox” way. As Mr. Barnstone, we can
only trust our own experience.
To Barbara Blouin (and Suzanne Duarte),
Firstly, to Suzanne: I’ve appreciated your often cryptic and to the point comments on this site–getting the discussion back on track often–and have long appreciate your work in Deep Ecology: I recall that “Human In Nature” conference at Naropa, which included yourself and Arne Naess. Sorry to see he had passed away recently.
And Barbara: I don’t know you, but have appreciated your incisive, powerful, and to the point comments as well, and glad you are feeling the same stirring–heart stirrings–as I am regards the Vidyadhara’s shamatha/vipassana practice, and its fate.
But, by way of introduction, before engaging with you on the current state of shamatha practice in the community, I should clarify, a bit, my peculiar relationship to the RFS site, and to the sangha generally speaking.
I am trying to take it slow, one step at a time. I’ll try to be brief: some of my dearest friends, more like brothers and sisters actually–like blood relations, without whom I would have dried up and blown away decades ago–are situated in what has boiled down to opposing camps, and I am walking some kind of tightrope between them, it seems, first swaying this way, then swaying that way. How long I’m going to be able to maintain this non-stance “stance” remains to be seen.
So, back to the shamatha practice. My first hiatus was a voluntary one. No one with a sandgrain’s worth of sense would doubt the Vidyadhara’s radical presentation of the dharma in the Western cultural context–or, I should say, I didn’t, and I know very well what “operations without anaesthetics” and “heavy-handed practical jokes” means–: my problem was the Vidyadhara’s politics, not to mention economics, but we can chew that sizeable chunk of blubber some other time perhaps, hopefully. In general, I would say this: had Thomas Merton and the Vidyadhara had the chance to evolve their friendship, the Vidyadhara would have blown out what was left of Merton’s mind–and there wasn’t much left–and Merton would have had a major effect on the Vidyadhara’s–shall we say “politics”–or they would have fallen out of friendship over that. There’s no way in hell Merton would have supported the 1973 Chilean coup, championed Western-style “development,” nor regarded the Vietnam War as “mismanaged.” When I stood up from resigning my meditation instructorship to Judy Lief in 1977 in Boulder, my shirt was wringing wet–you could’ve squeezed a half gallon of water out of it. An awful day.
Between that exit in 1977 and my return into the community at the peak of the Regent crisis in 1989, when I promptly had a heart attack (and as I communicated to the Vidyadhara in 1982 in Berkeley: there wasn’t 15 seconds that went by that I didn’t see his face and think of something he had said), I did retreat after retreat, doing his sitting practice technique, with an attitude that THIS IS IT, Shamatha Or Bust–I will never be doing any other practice. In retrospect, I think that was the right way to approach the practice; it created, ironically–extremely–the right “aspiration” for doing the practice properly.
So, to get more to your point, Barbara: in recent years, it has occurred to me, if done properly, and for long periods on retreat, that “beginning” Shamatha meditation practice that the Vidyadhara originally presented (much to the consternation of students at the time about that weird emphasis on the “outbreath”) becomes a Dzogchen practice. In a nutshell, to use bedrock Dzogchen terminology, without all the bells and whistles, there is sems (mind) and sems nyid (nature of mind). If the practitioner identifies with the outbreath–be’s it–it is sems (mind) that goes out with the outbreath, and dissolves in space, leaving “nobody home” –but sems nyid, nature of mind! That’s another thing–like the term the “watcher”: you don’t hear the terms “gap” or “nobody home” anymore.
I think the key, here, is IDENTIFYING with the outbreath, BEING it–not follow, watch, focus, concentrate on–though I know some advanced practitioners prefer “follow” the outbreath, rather than identify with it, be it. But the way I was taught it, the way I’ve always practiced it and taught it to others–in my view–has profound implications for later practices. Namely, with “working with emotions”: the way to transmute them into wisdoms is by identifying with the particular emotions–being them: that changes their character entirely, as the Vidyadhara taught. Or when it comes to “pride of the deity,” you don’t “believe” you are the deity, “think” you are the deity, you BE it–you ARE it. Identify with or be: that pulls the plug on “duality” right from the very start for a brand new student.
Now, I am just familiarizing myself with the Sakyong’s technique, and can imagine a usefulness for it in “stabilizing the mind” on a bad mind-running-rampant day. One awful thing about this situation (I must confess) is the fear of saying something “wrong,” critical of the Sakyong. For me, having had 2 heart attacks, an emergency quadruple bypass, new graphs clogging up rapidly, and 6 or 7 other severe ailments, there’s nothing more I’d rather do than go through the Scorpion Seal Retreat, its studies and practices, in a way to mend my relationship with the Vidyadhara. 4 years down the road is an extremely “long time” for me. My only hope is being able to take the shortest path between 2 points, starting with this summer’s Scorpion Seal Assembly, which I’ve applied for.
So, there’s some hesitation with what I am about to say, but I think it is important–and I really don’t have any malice toward the Sakyong: I was the child care person at Tail of the Tiger when he first showed up as a lost in space kid–very shy, a nervous tick in his eye, couldn’t stand Diana, and had been through a grueling several years as a kind of “hot potato,” bouncing here, bouncing there, and cut off from his mother. Then, many years down the road, he’s put in charge of this outfit. He had to give a talk at Dorje Dzong (at the time) in Boulder. He was so nervous, I thought he was going to hyper-ventilate. Then another bunch of years down the road, he’s giving these long flowing dharma talks. At the recent Rigden Abhisheka, which I appreciated very much being accepted to attend, I noticed he was developing a kind of “edge”–which was good to see. One very positive thing about him that I actually wrote about (anonymously) in The Mirror in 1992, was his NOT trying to jump around in his father’s bejeweled dancing shoes, but to go at his own somewhat elephant-like pace.
The fact is, NO ONE today can carry on the Vidyadhara’s lineage–his approach, the heart of it. The only person who might have been able to do it was the Regent–an actual student of the Vidyadhara. But look around at all these Tibetan teachers: look at them, all of them riding these variously decked out “happiness” hobby-horses–there’s the banner of Elmer Fudd riding a pink dragon, Daffy Duck dancing cheek-to-cheek with the CEO of Goldman-Sachs, on an on. Talk about a marketing ploy, THE Tibetan “brand”: “HAPPINESS.”
There’s the line in the sand for me: I’ll never forget the Vidyadhara–and him saying this with tremendous sarcasm–: “Crazy Wisdom does not lead to h-a-p-p-i-n-e-s-s!” I think the Sakyong might want to consider his studies OVER, at some point, soon, and engage more nitty-grittily with his many students. I think that would bring out the best in him, as uncomfortable as he might find the prospect of his actually doing that. Otherwise, constantly going back to India for more teachings, he’s likely to experience some kind of “spiritual” mutation and become the Goodyear Mahamudra Blimp–we can wave to him, as he soars languorously over Larimer county!
Last point, on shamatha: I happened to be AD’ing a Level I at the BSC last year. The Sakyong was spending the day (and putting out alot of energy) giving audiences with the different levels of Boulder students. As a Level I group, we got accommodated in with the “Shamatha” students. His comments were in the context of “peace,” “happiness,” “harmony” to which we have become accustomed–it seems ALL the Tibetan teachers are now presenting things the same way. Now, I had just given my Level I students the Vidyadhara’s Shamatha technique as described above. At some point, the Sakyong referred to Shamatha as an “inner” practice. Hunh? “inner” practice? Maybe the Shamatha he’s presenting is an “inner” practice; the Vidyadhara’s certainly isn’t. I was going to get up, go to the mike, bring this up, but didn’t–figured it’d just add to the confusion of these new students.
A major question for me arises here: is his sense of Shamatha as an “inner” practice somewhat determined by his “inner” politics? That is, the essentially one-head-at-a-time corralling into KOS approach equalling “enlightened society”? Or is it the other way around: is his “inner” avoid-conflict-at-all-costs politics determining his sense of Shamatha as “inner”? What I am foreseeing (and at least one prominent Engaged Buddhist would be in agreement with me on this: Sulak Sivaraksa)–following “Thumper” Thurman’s INNER REVOLUTION and the Dalai Lama’s approach–I can foresee “enlightened society” as this: a bunch of enlightened cherries adorning an essentially turd political economic cake.
Sorry to go on–that’s about it for me.
Best,
Jim
I appreciate Mr. Hartz’ comments. I think it is absolutely great to be maintaining a “non-stance” between two opposing camps.
It also seems to me that your heart connection with both CTR (despite whatever bothers you about his politics) and SMR in taking Rigden abhiseka (despite your well articulated reservations) is very deep.
After watching this video on You Tube, I am now convinced that “Radio Free Shambhala” is a collective vehicle for channelling Trungpa Rinpoche, who , where ever he is, is so fed up , he just had to speak out.
I will give Chris the award for the most outrageous comment
I’ve seen here so far. The interesting thing, for me, is that it
doesn’t not ring true.
Thank you to Jim Hartz for sharing your story and your views. And thank you, Chris and John. Here’s a private comment from a close friend of mine, who unfortunately chooses to remain anonymous, which echoes the spirit of Chris and John’s posts:
“I just read all the postings. SMR students seem to have so much invested in time spent, including the nights of crying over teacher and path, that rather than opening, they have become defensive. There’s a stark difference between VCTR practitioners and SMR practitioners in the postings. This is dividing into roaring lions and herded lambs!”
For those who may not know what the reference to roaring lions means, it has a lot of resonance with VCTR students. The Lion’s Roar was what VCTR called the proclamation of the dharma. It was particularly used in reference to HH Karmapa XVI after his first visit to the US, hosted by the Vidyadhara and Vajradhatu, during which the Karmapa confirmed VCTR’s planting of the dharma in the West. It was a big deal.
In my opinion, if students of SMR don’t know this history, they should. It might help them to understand where we students of VCTR are coming from.
To William McAllison (post on March 27th, 2009 2:38 pm):
Thank you for taking the time to explain where you’re coming from. It must have been very painful to enter the mandala during that tumultuous time, the “bardo between the Regents final days and the beginning of SMR taking his seat.” It was definitely an awful period of great confusion in our sangha. I don’t know whether we will collectively ever come to a clear understanding of what happened, from a dharmic perspective. I can understand this: “The idea of the past has to do with experience of the culture at that time, as well as with the way things feel now.” I can also understand the resentment of the children of my generation, even though I’m not a parent, and their need to blame us for the effects of our excesses and neglect upon their generation. But surely you all also understand that that is not the whole picture.
Like all families, our sangha has a lot of family secrets. That is also true of Western civilization and the human species as a whole: lots of unconsciousnes, passion, aggression, ignorance, and dysfunction. If you think that SI is any different, or that it will save you from having to deal with the crises now unfolding in the world, I am afraid you will be deeply disappointed. Confusion and wisdom, samsara and nirvana are inseparable, as you know.
Humanity’s collective karma is ripening at this time, and time is accelerating. It is a time when secrets and shadows are being revealed, and therefore a very confusing and disorienting time. We are all – all sentient beings – caught up in this collective rite of passage. The dharma is about keeping our sanity by seeking and staying grounded in the truth, reality, which is the meaning of dharma. As VCTR pointed out, deception is the cause of samsara. And, as Buddha taught, we are all responsible for keeping our own sanity by liberating ourselves from delusion. Nobody can save us but ourselves. We do that by getting honest with ourselves, first, and then seeking the truth about the reality we find ourselves in and the reality of the world. We get honest with ourselves and seek the truth by questioning what we’ve been told and relying on our own deeply felt experience.
You say that the arguments on this site “can really be boiled down to SMR is not a genuine teacher. . . . There has also been a consistent implication that SMR students are engaged in some sort of blind faith. How do you know?”
I don’t claim to know, but I do question. We were taught by VCTR to question and to doubt, not to naively trust, so we question. A wise person has suggested that 75% of the human species is in the evolutionary stage of herd mentality, where they do not question authority. He said 20% are in the evolutionary stage of individuation, where they choose and decide for themselves; and only 2-4% are in a spiritual state. To me, that makes sense. One has to leave the herd and individuate before one can get to a truly spiritual state. In my understanding, that is what the path of dharma indicates. In Tibetan Buddhism, the dharma has been refined and diversified through strenuous debate. In debate, you have to have conviction and be able to argue your points and defend them against challengers.
We have barely even approached the arena of debate. It isn’t even on the horizon since it seems to be taboo in SI, where students seem to want to avoid conflict at any cost, as Jim Hartz said. But maybe debate will come. But first SMR practitioners must be able to meet the questions, rather than just reacting as if questioning is violating samaya.
William, you say, “If the suggestion is that what is being taught is not the true Dharma, there is no room for dialogue.” How about if I reframe that assertion as a question? Is there room for dialogue if what is being taught in SI is questioned from a somewhat informed point of view?
Suzanne Duarte and Jim Hartz -thanks for your posts.
One of Suzanne’s posts struck home below:
“We have barely even approached the arena of debate. It isn’t even on the horizon since it seems to be taboo in SI, where students seem to want to avoid conflict at any cost, as Jim Hartz said. But maybe debate will come. But first SMR practitioners must be able to meet the questions, rather than just reacting as if questioning is violating samaya. ”
A brief thought on the above I have been reading a lot in the British press recently about the practice of civility dying due to strains in the social structure which also reflects what Suzanne has said. Could we not at all have an open public debate within SI in a structured format in a hall maybe in Halifax that could be transmitted over the web. There must be ways that we could all come together to see how we can carry the teachings forward. There is so much information and wisdom that the older students have from the Vidyadhara that could be transmitted to others in such a framework.
I agree also with Jim Hartz that the Sakyong must engage more fully with his western students as that is where the bulk of the students are living. Perhaps him just staying in Halifax for a year would be good for the whole sangha as there he could just be his own man.
I am learning so much from this site everyone please keep posting from all the way around the world
best
rita ashworth
I think a good starting point for all this, for practice, for discussion, whatever, is being willing to look at what is, rather than what we want to see.
Ashoka asked if I didn’t have problems with one of my teachers. Yes, absolutely, in large part because I didn’t like someone holding a mirror up to me. I did not want no fraking feedback. (A, did you get my email?)
I think some people might be upset about the same thing happening on this website. When someone shows us something we don’t want to see, we get angry and defensive.
Someone said that the arguments on this website “can really be boiled down to SMR is not a genuine teacher. . . . There has also been a consistent implication that SMR students are engaged in some sort of blind faith. How do you know?”
I don’t know; I just have questions. At the last Level I was at, we were asked to toast SMR’s ability to keep going in the same direction in spite of all the criticism he’s received, and we were instructed that this was a sign of fearlessness. I personally wonder if this is a sign of fearlessness– it seems like turning a blind eye to negative feedback. Is this what SMR teaches? Even if it’s not what he teaches verbally, it’s obviously what some are learning non-verbally. Some would say it’s the non-verbal teachings that really get through to people.
It’s interesting to think how different VCTR was about feedback / criticism. I’ve heard he was always encouraging people to correct his use of English, and asking what they thought about this or that thing he was working on. He may have persisted with some things in spite of criticism (and maybe some of his students misinterpreted this, to their own detriment — alcohol as medicine or medicine?), but at the same time he was always experimenting based on the feedback he got. As a matter of fact, that almost seemed like a cornerstone of his teachings– “pay attention to feedback”. “Your thoughts and obstacles are your wealth, not your enemy.”
I was also told by someone introduced as a “senior student” of SMR after a public talk that SMR is free to make any changes he wants to VCTR’s work, because SMR is a “Rinpoche”.
Maybe I’m completely missing the point, but this sounds like blind faith. Ashoka is a Rinpoche that I admire in some ways, but I’m not sure I’d want him to make sweeping changes to what VCTR left behind. (No offense Ashoka?)
I’m a brand new person, went to my first Level a couple years ago, and I have questions. I imagine I see 100-foot-tall differences between what SMR teaches and what VCTR taught, and I imagine I see discomfort around discussing what those differences are and whether they are the sweeping improvements that some say they are.
People seem to be saying that discussion is taboo, examining things is taboo, asking questions is taboo, and then ask how can you accuse me of blind faith?
I have no problem with SMR as a person. I’ve never met him and I’d never want his job. I just wish people would think twice before making major, permanent changes to the organizations VCTR left behind. Not to mention the sangha he left behind. Where is his sangha?
This is a long and intricate conversation for me to jump into, but it brings some things up for me that occurred in conversation with Robin Kornman that I hope will contribute to matters being discussed here.
Since there is so much about lineage, legacy, politics, and viewpoints in this, I’ll reveal my own background so people understand the glasses I’m wearing. I’ve been a dharma practitioner for 10 years, participating in Shambhala for 6 years (excluding the last 1). When active in Shambhala, I participated as a Kasung, Shambhala Guide, Yoga teacher, and near the end teaching some dharma classes. I’m currently a devoted student of Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche and still very friendly towards Shambhala as a source of authentic dharma and creative lineage. My lack of recent participation has to do with living somewhere far distanced from a center, not any political views.
I met Robin while I was living in Milwaukee for 3 years and became a good friend of his. I knew him up till the day I watched him taken away by an ambulance to the hospital where he lived his last days.
Robin and I talked quite frequently and at length about the things going on in Shambhala International and our local center. I started participating in Shambhala at around 2002 having been heavily influenced by VCTR’s writings throughout my investigation of buddhadharma in the 1990s. Being new to the community but very curious and participatory, I quickly befriended many of the long term committed members of the local center, which is to say I quickly became exposed to a whole realm of viewpoints about Shambhala past, Shambhala present, opinions favoring or criticiszing SMR and his innovations (sometimes regarded as not so innovative). As I became closer with Robin and we began to trust each other, I went to him to discuss some of the questions I had and to become more informed about what the Great Controversy was all about.
Robin expressed to me a variety of his personal viewpoints. He started out quite circumspect and cautious, but the sheer amount of time I spent with him combined with the probability that some of those times involved him being quite spacy on pain relieving medication he was taking for his cancer pretty much ensured that I heard some of his rawest opinions, no holds barred. For those of you who knew Robin, you can imagine the diatribes I heard at times.
However, during the time he was preparing for his talk called “Creating Enlightened Society” that is being transcribed here (for those who are enjoying those talks, I feel compelled to mention that he insisted that Handel’s “Water Music” be played as people were gathering, congregating and entering the room. Specifically, the french overture at the beginning of the Water Music Suite in F Major… find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Handel-Music-Royal-Fireworks-Water/dp/B000004CVN/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1238254480&sr=8-2 He considered this one of the best examples of courtly music. Robin often used listening to and understanding classical music in his explanations of vipashyana) he expressed a viewpoint to me that made the most sense out of all the past conversations we’d had about VCTR and SMR and the great controversy.
He told me that despite some of his former negative feelings about the way things went down in the regime change (such as the way selection of acharyas occured, changes in instructions, etc) he now felt that some of attitudes being held by himself and the other older experienced students were in error. It seemed that everyone was judging SMR on the continuity and comparability of what he was teaching to what VCTR had taught. Robin told me something close to the following: “I now realize that it isn’t SMR’s job to repeat and reinforce what CTR had taught. Just like CTR didn’t parrot the teachings of his gurus. He revealed his own wisdom, followed his own path, and this is what SMR needs to do. It is the responsibility of CTR’s senior students to preserve and propagate what he taught.”
I thought about this a lot because I really felt intimately connected with CTR despite never having met him. I can’t imagine how I would feel having spent a lot of time learning directly at his feet. Also, like someone else wrote in the above comments, I felt suspended somewhere between two camps as I was very devoted and interested in CTR’s presentations of dharma, and also very interested in connecting with the Sakyong and learning what was available there. The view that slowly evolved in me from my own contemplation and in conversation with Robin is that my loyalty is first and foremost to awakening. My devotion is fundamentally to my true nature which I find vibrating in great sympathy to the still strongly ongoing reverberations of CTR’s lion’s roar. I know that under the thick covering of my petty egoic games, CTR, through his writings, his students, his very presence, touched me deeply. So when I look at SMR, I see a warrior with the same commitment that I have, the same devotion to the revelation and expression of our awakened nature. He may not be doing it the way CTR did, but who the hell could? Instead, he is bringing forth what his wisdom tells him is necessary and appropriate to the situations and individuals he finds himself relating to. I see him doing this despite the inheritance of a social / political situation I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. As a result of all this, I decided to stop trying to compare SMR’s unique expression with anything that came before and I started to let him stand on his own. CTR’s ability to reach and inspire me certainly is not threatened and I know that the manifestations of his enlightened mind will change over time as all manifestations must.
Robin had a rocky relationship with the Milwaukee Shambhala center. For the first year I knew him, he never taught there and didn’t really go except for when a visiting lama came by that was one of his principal teachers. I believe that it was the shift in his view (above) that caused him to make greater efforts to repair his relationship to Shambhala and come in from the fringe and start teaching at the centers again. Before his death, he traveled to Boulder, New York, and finally taught in Milwaukee because he felt (as this article’s author says in the first post) that he was yeasted by CTR and he wanted to pass it on IN HARMONY with Shambhala, not outside or opposed to it.
I sincerely hope that the older, more experienced students / teachers find a way to stay connected, to continue contributing, to continue finding ways to honor the legacy they were fortunate to receive. Ultimately, who cares what one’s recognized status is and what one is officially allowed to do? The greater part of the unfolding of my spiritual path and connection happened in the conversations after classes with the yeasty old dogs who were there to support me just by being there. And if you have to go through a ‘vetting’ process, who cares? Its ultimately not about us and what recognition we should receive because we are so and so from way back in the day and ’should’ be grandfathered in or whatever. What is the commitment to? Regardless of what you want to say or how you feel about Shambhala, students interested in the dharma continue to walk through the doors, and that’s the point. I guess the question we have to face is, what are we willing to do to support them meeting the authentic path?
“I now realize that it isn’t SMR’s job to repeat and reinforce what CTR had taught. Just like CTR didn’t parrot the teachings of his gurus. He revealed his own wisdom, followed his own path, and this is what SMR needs to do. It is the responsibility of CTR’s senior students to preserve and propagate what he taught.”
The difference between VCTR and SMR is that VCTR started from scratch in some ways, with no students. SMR inherited all kinds of students and fame and influence from VCTR, along with accepting the title of “Sakyong” – protector of the Shambhala lineage that his father founded. As I understand it, he publicly made a promise to his father that his role as a Buddhist teacher would always be secondary to his role as Sakyong.
I think that’s the crux of the whole thing. It’s not the same as starting from scratch with one’s own students. The very first question I ever asked about SMR was “what is his role in relation to his father’s lineage?” because there seems to be a lot of confusion about what different people’s responsibilities are in relation to VCTR’s teachings.
I think I agree that “it’s the responsibility of VCTR’s senior students to preserve what he taught”. The koan is how to do that.
I think when VCTR took off his robes, it was partly an acknowledgment that he was not going to coast along on someone else’s credentials.
If he wanted to do things his own way, he would have to use his bare hands, not by relying on stuff he’d inherited from someone else to prove his legitimacy.
That way, if he succeeded or failed, it was on him, but at least there was no misunderstanding about who he represented. He did not pretend to represent one investor, in order to get seed capital.
Hi James, very well said! I’m pretty much in tune with what you just expressed, and I suspect most people here are.
However, there is one further aspect you have not touched on, which is what happens if the Sakyong (or his students), while expressing things in his own way and from his own experience and realization, also says that that is exactly what CTR is saying and also ultimately the _way_ he meant to say it (if only the students then had had ears to hear that way)? I think that’s where issues arise: when relative difference is not acknowledged. This takes the form of “when you see me you see CTR, otherwise you’re breaking your samaya (or loyalty) with CTR”, which someone might experience as a bit heavy. There’s even more relative diff that happens regarding control of CTR’s words and language (legal stuff).
Luckily no one can own the absolute root, and no one but each of us by himself or herself experiences it. Your or my guru will not do it for you or me, although he/she will do everything possible to have you do it for yourself.
This may also address the question “who are you to criticize? you think you know better than the Sakyong?” Well, the response is that while I may not have titles/credentials, I have tathagatagharba (bud), I have basic goodness (shambhala), I have some confidence in my perceptions, I have encountered and have some feeling for vajra nature. That’s all. We’re speaking here as human beings, and if we all take off our robes, we all could be Samantabhadra.
Well. . . So much new material, I will have to leave the shamatha question for another post. Just to be clear, I am not a sangha kid. I got into this on my own. I also don’t place blame for the past on anyone, break eggs to make an omlette you know.
First, the anonymous commenter’s bit about the sheep is unnecessarily negative. I don’t feel defensive at all. I am not posting here to reassure myself, but to help clarify what is happening and maybe allow others to enjoy some of the richness that I have.
In response to Edward, since I am the only one who has responded to charges of blind faith, I assume you are talking to me. I am not against dialouge. I think we need more of it, but it needs to be productive. I have been trying to point out that many of the criticisms I have read here are not based in the situation that is actually happening. I was not talking to you at all, but since you bring it up; you make a lot of strong statements that start with ‘I have heard’
Suzanne, thank you for being quite decent in this dialouge. I don’t think that Shambhala, meditation or anything will protect us from the messiness and confusion of the world and am quite aware that it is not the point. I think it is alright to question what is going on, I actually think it is essential. My point in my last post was that I and many others have spent a great deal of time questioning, and continue to do so, but that ultimately conviction grows. Mr. Vitale’s post exemplifies what I have been trying to express. The Vidyadhara’s teachings are the basis for SMR’s teachings, but he cannot be VCTR, so rather than repeat, is building on what has gone before. Whether this is being done well is up for debate, but before that debate can happen we need to see clearly what is going on. The teachings of VCTR are being studied with nearly equal weight by new students. Sometimes I feel like many of the contributors here think that SMR students use Cutting Through, Sacred Path and the Seminary transcripts to start campfires. It is much easier to take shots at a target that we have not allowed to develop a human face.
To be clear, I do not think that you, Suzanne are doing this, but some have been. I only ask that people check their facts before making generalizations that don’t allow dialouge.
Most of the major changes in management style of Shambhala were well
in place by the end of the 90’s. I think it’s wrong to say that the elders haven’t experienced what Shambhala is like today. That experience is why many people went else where. What we wouldn’t know is how newer students experience the mandala if we’re not around them. In my own microcosm, I know a number of people who went to the center here once and would never go again, not because people were cold to them, (old style), but rather because they exuded a sort of phony (hard to know what word to use here) genuineness, (new style). In either case, it’s probably the students’ lack of maturity that is the cause….not a problem that the teacher has created.
I doubt most old dogs expected SMR to ape the Vidyadara.
That is not the issue.
Meditation technique is not the issue. The Vidyadara from earliest times taught that meditation technique should be tailored to the individual. Some may find one meditation technique or another tremendously effective but the different techniques should not be a matter of doctrinal dispute.
Whether SMR dresses in Tibetan Robes instead of western suites is not the issue.
Whether the culture he is inspiring is tibeto-centric or more cosmopolitan is not the issue.
All these are shibboleths.
The issue is SMR’s vision of Shambhala.
The Vidyadara envisioned Shambhala as the container principle.
SMR’s amalgamating Shambhala and Buddhism into one is not the
vision of the Vidyadara.
Hmmm. This is all good dialogue, from my point of view, but a question still remains. I’m not quite sure how to put it now, although it has been discussed in other threads.
James Vitale concluded by saying, “[I]f you have to go through a ‘vetting’ process, who cares? Its ultimately not about us and what recognition we should receive because we are so and so from way back in the day and ’should’ be grandfathered in or whatever. What is the commitment to? Regardless of what you want to say or how you feel about Shambhala, students interested in the dharma continue to walk through the doors, and that’s the point. I guess the question we have to face is, what are we willing to do to support them meeting the authentic path?”
First of all, the question of “what recognition we should receive because we are so and so from way back in the day and ’should’ be grandfathered in” seems beside the point, to me.
The question for me is, whether I would have to compromise my own understanding of and conviction in the teachings I received from VCTR – or pretend to – in order to teach within SI? How much would I have to pretend to go along with what is happening in order to be ‘assimilated’ back into the Shambhala mandala in order to teach? That is the question behind my question about ‘vetting.’
When I came to Amsterdam and encountered members of the Shambhala Center, it seemed clear that everybody was gushing over Sakyong Mipham, no questions asked or allowed. As an old teacher from the Vajradhatu days, I felt very uncomfortable in that milieau and I knew I could not pretend anything at all. It seemed like a bubble in which my very presence would make everybody else very uncomfortable, at least, because I couldn’t cheerlead for SMR. I saw no hope of assimilating. It was a different world than the one I experienced with VCTR. As Ron Barnstone said (Hi Ron!), it’s a different Heaven and a different Earth: “There is a different sky, a different earth in the Shambhala world from the time of the Druk Sakyong.” As another old dog put it, Shambhala has been ‘Miphamized.’
I don’t mean to be insulting or slanderous, but I can’t listen to SMR speak, and I have no interest in assimilating into the way things are now, which feels a little unreal, at least in Amsterdam (and apparently where John Tischer is, too). I spent years learning what it means to be genuine and authentic. I’m not capable of pretending anything for more than a couple of minutes.
I would like to teach Buddhadharma and Shambhala again, but as I have heard, practiced and experienced those teachings. As a dharma teacher, one needs to be able to recommend that students join a sangha. What if there is no longer an existing sangha that one feels confident to recommend?
This must be a dilemma for many of the students of VCTR who trained to be teachers with him, for him.
A couple clarifications of my comments in the context of the most recent extremely thoughtful posts.
ON THE VAJRA REGENT, OSEL TENDZIN: First of all, when the subject of the Regent comes up, rather than moralistic dismissiveness or engaging in some smooth-over operation, I experience guilt–for having flown the coup right at the time–1977–the Vidyadhara went on his one year retreat to develop the Shambhala teachings. The Vidyadhara had told me he wanted me to move to Boulder and stressed he wanted me to “connect with the Regent” while he was away on retreat. There were two edges to that: firstly,the Regent could “protect” me from several stuffed-shirt Board members I had gone out of my way to insult while in New York as part of the Dharmadhatu there, and secondly, as I wasn’t shy to get in the Vidyadhara’s face, I quite certain he felt I might be of use to the Regent in terms of feedback. Also, I had been one of the several people the Regent had told he was going to be the “Regent” back in 1972. So, the Regent is about to give his first public talk in Boulder after being empowered as “the Regent.” I was to be the one other person on the stage, as umdze or something. What do I do? I don’t even show up, or let Lila, the Regent’s wife–who was coordinating the event–know. That was the moment I chose to fly the coup. What a jackass. As I told the Sakyong in a brief interview with him around 1990 at Marpa House–having had a heart upon re-entering the community at the time of that crisis, it was as though a blue arm came out of the “toll booth”: “That’ll be one heart attack, please.” And well deserved.
ON THE SAKYONG: In the same anonymously written little article I wrote for The Mirror on the 1992 Vajradhatu Seminary (was it the last with the same structure the Vidyadhara had developed?), along with the Sakyong’s wisdom NOT to try and “be his father”–especially when he was under tremendous pressure to assume the mantle of “teacher” to fill the “daddy” slot vacated by his father–I also suggested this: “The best way to become a genuine Crazy Wisdom king is first to become a genuine Crazy Wisdom prince.” I think the Sakyong has certainly achieved that. But now what? My sense is: the Vidyadhara’s training was cut short by the Chinese invasion. He was catapulted into the West. After the automobile accident that left him crippled–plus the Western fascination with “magic & mystery” in Tibet associated with his robes–he chucked them in the dumpster, and after a stretch of intense depression, when he felt he couldn’t go forward, he most certainly DID move forward, came to the US, and started to REALLY teach. This was pre-Shambhala. I recall him saying once: “Depression is the most powerful prayer of all.” He was obviously, in retrospect, referring to himself. Plus all the imagery of a vehicle with “no reverse gear” and the sense of a warrior always “going forward” grew out of that time and his experiences then.
What I am suggesting is: unlike his father’s situation, the Sakyong can keep getting loaded up with more and more and more of these teachings. I imagine him inflating with so many teachings, almost like a blimp. My sense is, as his father suggested, the Vajrayana approach is to leap headfirst into the kundzop realm–the stinky relative world of the social, politics and economics–and not hole up in the (”inner”?) dondom realm. But I also think of that as a call to plunge into the chaos of his many students’ lives, make himself more available–activate those teachings he embodies the way his father was compelled to, whether he wanted to or not. His father didn’t have a choice. I think the Sakyong feels he DOES have a choice. As I cite incessantly from the Great Eastern Sun Vajra Assembly (which overlapped 1976-77–at which the Vajra Regent’s empowerment took place), the Vidyadhara said: “Great Eastern Sun vision is enlightenment gone politics, whereas ordinary enlightenment is religious.” When are we–and when are these Tibetan teachers, all of them–going to wake up to that, going to HEAR it? Are we deaf, has our religiosity made us stone cold deaf to that? That’s one thing in this party-line-ish rationalizing rhetoric of “change” that we hear quite often that HASN”T changed, is a perennial problem: theism. Nature of Mind isn’t “inner”–it’s beyond “inner” and “outer.” Likewise, our stress on “center,” especially organizationally speaking, with not much reference to beyond “center” and “periphery,” illustrates the problem.
“Inner”? We might think of that vase image–the space “inside” the vase the same as the space “outside” the vase–as a Garuda egg. Where’s the dynamite, where’s the Sword of Manjushri to cut through–explode–the shell? “Inner”? We’re crawling with “spirituality,” but what about the “temporal”–beyond capturing minds and calling it “enlightened s-o-c-i-e-t-y”?
About 10 years ago, or more, I spoke with the Sakyong. I suggested that our (the U.S.) “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” actually produced on the other side of the planet “Death, Imprisonment, and Imposition of Misery.” This was incomprehensible to him, no comprende, zippo. Perhaps President Reoch was hired to fill that ignorance gap? But it seems, unless the Sakyong has done a little homework on U.S. foreign policy in the real world in recent years–I hope he has–we see how a kind of ignorant Americanism blends nicely with a kind of ignorant Tibetanism: an amalgamation of No-Nothing-Ness, a marriage made in Boneheadville. What kind of “enlightened society” can possibly grow out of THAT?
Anyway, with the phase “rule our world,” we must hope that lack of knowledge–simply, mundane prajna knowledge, study-the-subject elbow grease knowledge–has since been overcome: and not buried under more and more “spiritual” teachings.
Anyway, to conclude: I do think that if the Sakyong engaged more fully with his students–leapt out of that resplendent “inner” he inhabits, represented by a view that asks the question, “What does enlightenment have to do with society?”–the wrong question–he might, like his father (but in a necessarily different way, due to his different innate qualities and different teachers), begin to light up like an intensely magical Christmas tree.
I guess I agree with my old friend Robin’s final view as related above: the Sakyong is not his father. The only way to carry forward the Vidyadhara’s teachings is simply to do it, as best we can, till we’re dead. Lineage is the problem, the aching question–how can the Vidyadhara’s teachings as he taught them survive? Where best to do that is unclear–maybe just ANYWHERE the opportunity arises? But that is not to smooth over operation of what all these actually great Trungpa Rinpoche students have been saying on this site. Some bridge, some accommodation, some new structural arrangment has to be conceived, and implemented. So much great energy and intelligence is being wasted.
Best,
Jim
That was very generous of you, Jim. Beautifully written, too. Thank you.
As for your ending question (and similar issues in Suzanne’s post) — maybe a separate group could form, along the lines of what Charles Marrow proposed. Something like the Luddites. That would be its role, its place — to be the original view, practice and action in the raw — to stay as close to the original words and develop bridges with all other associated doctrines (eg Reggie Ray’s group, the Ojai group first and foremost, including yes even Mr Perks’s group, then all other Buddhist groups, etc) from there, and beyond that unassociated doctrines (eg Merton, contemplative Christianity, Coady Institute, etc) from there. We know now beyond a shadow of doubt that the Shambhala International organization, even if legally sole owners of the words of VCTR, can and will change the original meaning in their view, practice and action. That is their right and could be skillful means for a certain period of time, place, etc. However, it creates a voided role that some other group needs to take on. For such a group to be formed under the umbrella of Shambhala Int. seems to me that that would be a conflict of interest.
Ron Barnstone wrote:
> The issue is SMR’s vision of Shambhala.
> The Vidyadara envisioned Shambhala as the container principle.
> SMR’s amalgamating Shambhala and Buddhism into one is not the
vision of the Vidyadara.
I agree with Mr. Barnstone, this is the only issue.
Well put, Ron.
It really is as simple, and as deep, as that:
- Greetings -
I am still moving along with the idea of a Vajradhatu Tradition group retreat with an emphasis on hearing and contemplating the teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche. All of this is discussed under the article on this site by that name.
It may not be too much of an issue as whether this is the same or different than Shambhala. That is kind of like a madhyamika leading statement, i.e. Vajradhatu is different than Shambhala because we want to further our practice of Trungpa Rinpoche’s original way and we can make the reverse argument that the Vajradhatu approach is the same as Shambhala because it is a contemplative tradition included within the greater Shambhala vision. We can have many variations on these concepts.
Having said that, it is probably a good time to, “Just do it.”. We can get together and study and practice.
I was thinking we will get together and find it will be different than with Rinpoche here or maybe we will really feel like we have connected with his inspiration fully. Anyway, I am curious.
So let’s just do it….
Time: August 2009…..place: Nova Scotia…..expressions of interest always welcome to charlesmarrow@yahoo.ca. For the few lovely ladies who have been in recent communication I will be in touch soon with further details.
All the Best- Charles Marrow, Mahone Bay Nova Scotia
There is still a great fear to speak to the elephant in the room that was manifest in that video.. and I think the older students on this site are very, very kind, actually.
One could argue about this untill we are dead. And we will be very dead very, very soon.
Instead, one could practice together. Before its too late. I think much would clarify as it always does , when we practice. There would be no need to straddle some fence, or have one foot in each camp. I disagree with that, I think it leave one VERY confused. You can’t follow two masters nor can you be schizophrenic. I think the relief of this site, is that after decades, people are speaking clearly and genuinely, as much as they can ,without absolutely screaming out in relief, a primal scream of relief that the compromising, equivocating, repressing, suppressing,denying is FINALLY OVER.
Anyway, We do the Sadhana of Mahamudra , here, twice a month, about 20 VCTR students, and have other various celebrations during the year. Not many, I don’t think people wanted to recreate what was relevant when we were younger Hopefully we don’t need to cling to each other anymore. But we can be cheerful together, and unattached and the more that happens the more we appreciate each other for the unique connection we have which , after all this chaos , disappointment, confusion, has never been split asunder, not one bit. It is stronger than ever. Like any relationship, the more independent we are, the more we can appreciate each other.
Anyway, After 27 years later, from first doing the Sadhana of Mahamudra, to now, I have been blown AWAY by the profundity, clarity, heart and power of this sadhana. Now it really resonates. And the power for doing it together feels like keeping total samaya with CTR . We are VCTR students who have also have studied and practiced with other teachers, since the Vidyadhara died, great teachers, like Trangu Rinpoche, and Mingyur Rinpoche, Adzom Rinpoche, and Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Gangten Rinpoche, Traleg Rinpoche, all STEEPED and realized in Mahamudra-Dzogchen tradition, and even after that, or for some of us, because of that, this Sadhana is , without a doubt , the most profound, brilliant ,glorious, all encompassing, prophetic sadhana, that totally speaks to western students, and our times, and the Vidyadhara is still alive and well and totally present when we do this Sadhana together.
As one Rinpoche said to me, “if you know what direction you are going in, you cannot help but reach the destination.”
Nothing to add really. Maybe some trimming in fact, yet here I am adding a bit more to this section.
Ron’s view about how the Vidyadhara wanted tp present Shambhala to he world has been a concern for many of us since the announcement of “Shambhala Buddhism” in 2000. To many people were just plain to scared to say how they felt what was going on.
To this day, we still haven’t heard an acknowledgment from the current hierarchy that some people were and still are unclear (and even hurt) about the future Shambhala vision. Not ONE WORD. Silence speaks loudly. The Congresses(s) were non binding. It also seems a lot of it is being improvised on the spot. Not a walk of an elephant but of somebody waiting to see what happens next. If we do complete the Scorpion Seal retreat, then what? Do another one? I’m not trying to be cynical, but I just don’t see a long range plan. With the rich Buddhist heritage and Shambhala heritage we have allready inherited, I wonder if we all ready heve more then we need?
Secondly, I’m concerned how people talk so casually about “dark retreats”. There are different types of retreats with different instructions, and a if it’s a dzogchen type of retreat, most definitely, a personal bond where the teacher knows your and your personality.
One contributor here in this section likes to quote dzogchen instructions and make comments as “facts”quite freqently, when they are really mostly coming out of a book or some notes..
We can all make ourselves look like experts in print. I’m sure I could.
Good Day.
Rob
One contributor here in this section likes to quote dzogchen instructions and make comments as “facts”quite freqently, when they are really mostly coming out of a book or some notes..
We can all make ourselves look like experts in print. I’m sure I could.
Good Day.
Rob
There are people who don’t have a proclivity toward Dzogchen, so they believe it is far away, and that people couldn’t really “practice” it or have any experience of it so they can’t believe that one couldn’t even talk about it without quoting from books or their notes.
That only reveals their proclivity and nothing else. But it tends to discourage others , if they do have that proclivity to go in that direction.
That is why I find it so ironic that Shambhala International now has a program even including Trekcho and Tobgyal, since in 2003 the Sakyong was saying people couldn’t practice Dzogchen. There are many Mahamudra teachers who still say that. But since it is now so sexy, and what people want because they mistakenly believe that it is quick and easy and they don’t really have to practice, then they want that teaching.
Sitting for a 3 hour session, 4 times a day without having any reference point is hardly easy. . Most people need something to do. So when they find out how hard it is to actually sit there for long sessions, with no reference point. They get the Dzogchen pointing out, the view, and thats it. And then they go back to Vajrayana visualization practices without the diligence to stay with “nothing to do”.
One of my Tibetan Dzogchen teachers, at a recent retreat said that Tibetans were given Vajrayana practices, because they were rather dull-witted. Like truck-drivers. Simple minded. This was not bad, they understood emptiness pretty well, but didn’t have much clarity. Their environment was dull, greys, and sky and very little color. They needed something to Wake them up, so Vajrayana practices were perfect. If they were given Dzogchen practices, they just fell asleep and they were already half-asleep.
In the West, however, he said, Dzogchen was appropriate, because we Westerners, were well-educated, had sharp minds, were already too awake in terms of clarity, too overloaded with sensory experience, our minds were already too busy, and that Vajrayana practices made most people crazier, with all the visualizations, speedier. . What Westerners needed was to slow way down, relax, chill out, with no goal, nothing ambition , nothing to gain. No progress to make. “Couldn’t care less” Drukpa Kagyu slogan. I think that is why CTR had us practicing shamatha-vipashyana first for so long before we even got to ngondro. He understood this about Western mind.
But because someone can talk the talk, (without referring to notes) doesnt mean they can walk the walk. And that is me. I don’t have a scintilla of realization that is stable, I have to keep practicing, I will probably have to go on long retreats for the rest of my life to have any stabilization, until I die. I still believe, most of the time, that my phenomenal world and the people in it are real, I still focus outward, and get caught. Like even commenting on this.
But I hate to see people discouraged by those who don’t have a proclivity toward Dzogchen and that really isn’t their main practice. So they make comments like those above. It is sad because it can discourage others into thinking that one can’t even step onto the path of Dzogchen and continue in that direction. I think CTR was actually a Dzogchen teacher first and foremost.
Thanks Chris (ahem)
A mutual friend of ours were wondering why if Dzogchen is “the quick path”. If you are good at being fully focused, it can be done in a few weeks (liberation). You really have to be fully focused to do so. It was told straight in my face.
This brings up the question, if both Dzogchen Masters Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Tulku Urgyen Rinopche did several three year retreats, were they doing it out of an expression of enlightenment?
No quotes please (unless useful). I have no answers myself. I think this is Mahamudra meets Dzogchen (good books BTW by both Thrangu Rinpoche and Chogkyi Nyima Rinpoce). Other teachers as well.
Rob
I think CTR was actually a Dzogchen teacher first and foremost.
Bingo!
Chris your whole post was right on the money. I would add that it is certainly possible to attend a formal “pointing out” and completely miss it. And a skillful teacher can turn a mundane situation into a pointing out that the student actually gets. CTR did this a lot!
I also think that CTR’s Shambhala teachings were a pan-cultural exposition of Dzogchen. But that is just my personal take on it, and I don’t have a lapel full of pins.
As to writing about dark retreat, since the Scorpion Seal retreat is being set up as the culmination of the Shambhala teachings, and a major topic of breathless anticipation / speculation in the thread, I think context is useful. No one is writing about the practices done in dark retreat.
To Tsondru Namkha,
Thanks for your kind words above. There were quite a few typos in that last post of mine that I corrected, but forgot to re-submit, so they didn’t take. And several spots where I applied some “sarcasm reduction”–that didn’t take, either. A sometimes good/sometimes bad habit of mine: sarcasm.
It’s good Barbara Blouin and Mark Szpakowski are so level-headed in terms of how to mange this site. And sorry for so much “case history” on my part. I thought it might be instructive–in terms of bad example/good example: things tend to cancel themselves out. It seems we want our heroes–our teachers–to be perfect, and in the real world they aren’t, neither Trungpa Rinpoche nor Mipham Rinpoche–unless we understand “perfection” in some magically, mystical way, that’s perhaps “vowed” in, kind of legalistic?
Sure, all phenomena is primordially pure/spontaneously present. But tell that to the Palestinian gynecologist, resident of Gaza, who delivers babies in Israel, who came home recently to find the bodies of his 3 lovely daughters and their cousin splattered all the living room–parts is parts, as that chicken sandwich commercial once said. Would Chandrakirti agree? “Daughter” is just a “concept”? Karma? Maybe those kids died because they were on the wrong end of a global samsaric mandala primarily piloted by us–us U.S. citizens; us Shambhalian subjects?
As should have been obvious–and its due to my having come into the sangha basically backwards by applying prajna to an interlocking or concentric series of social problems–that I’ve found it easy to take to heart the Vidyadhara’s Great Eastern Sun Vajra Assembly statement that (to cite it again), “Great Eastern Sun Vision ‘enlightenemnt’ gone politics, whereas ordinary ‘enlightenment’ is religious.” [The word "enlightenment" is a stand-in for a pointing-out-instruction phrase, if you wanted to look it up.]
For me, “enlightened society” is global, or it’s a pipe dream. That’s not just my view. I recall very vividly–another one of those comments by the Vidyadhara that I took to heart–the Vidyadhara says: “The contagious energy of Mahamudra conquers he world!” He meant that. It was his vision. That’s why he wanted us to be more involved with the study of politics–i.e. the “secular.” I took him up on that, and only wish, today, that he had used the more precise term “political economy.”
(But maybe he was Leninist in that regard–that is, the primacy of the political?….Oh my God, did he just say “Lenin”? Well, if you go back and listen to one of the first, if not THE first Ngedon School talks, the Vidyadhara suggested we study Lenin. I recall Reggie Ray, at the time, expressing his bewilderment at that suggestion. Personally, I took him up on it. And Merton was open in that direction as well, as you can see from his dying-breath Bangkok Talk, where I also first heard of the Vidyadhara in 1968. There, he links the Christian notion of The Fall or Original Sin, the Buddhist notion of Avidya or Ignorance, and the Early Marxian notion of Alienation.)
But where do we see anything really “secular” (in terms of politics or economics) in any of the Shambhala programming (unless maybe there’s some secret Neal Greenberg program on how to set up your very own “Shambhalian” Ponzi Sceme, or an invitation-only class lead by Janet Solyntjes called “Stress Reduction for the Corporate Marauder On the Go”)? What we get is an apparently endless tweaking of the Mediation & Yoga combo.
As far as “Shambahla” being an umbrella under which all earthly traditions might gather, where are they? If that were true today, even in theory, why aren’t there at least pictures in some Shambhala shrine room somewhere of Suzuki Roshi, Red Elk, Thomas Merton–not to mention Vandana Shiva, Sulak Sivaraksa, or Alice Walker? All we’re likely to get is the visage of that palefaced Primordial Rigden, the embodiment of the melding of the Buddhist and Shambhala traditions that Ron Barnstone pointed out as especially–paradigmatically–problematic.
Anyway, there don’t seem to be any takers on the social/political economic stuff that I’m harping on but which I feel might be a way to re-focus all this dissident/semi-dissident energy–more concern for THE world rather than what we so pretentiously refer to as “our” world. But it does seem, in terms of “enlightened society,” that, rather than dispensing space and prajna to the world, we are trying to suck the world–the entire world, I suppose–into our sphere, our boundaried world–our “inner”–like capitalism has always done, making what was once “outer” into “inner,” a different way of looking at consumption than “eat less hotdogs, more burdock root.” Some, like still-imprisoned AIM Indian, Leonard Peletier, regard that consumption as genocide, which, of course, is hard for us genociders involved in that process of consumption to perceive.
In a sense, to go back to that vase-image-as-Garuda-egg and the desire to pull the entire world–everyone–into it–before it has hatched–expanding the boundary further and further–the best case scenario might be something akin to the fate of that embodiment of Gluttony in Monty Python’s The Meaning Of Life (a movie the Vidyadhara loved incidentally): a kind of explosion of gooey egg-like embryonic lion, tiger, garuda, dragon stuff–a mess.
I’ve slowed up here, but I was getting that ferocious sense of chasing my own tail in the last couple posts, so I’m “over and out for now.”
Best to you all,
Jim Hartz
Hello everyone; I’m new here. My name is Kevin Frost and some might vaguely recall me as a former member of the Kootnay Dharmadhatu and subsequently the Victoria Dharma Study Group. Connected in 77, Seminary in 84. I’ve been out of circulation since about 93. Managed to weather the storms of the Regency but then drifted off after the Sawang took over. It was really quite petty on my part, actually. I recall going to a meeting and listening to one of the newer students express her excitement about SHAMBHALA. She wanted to put together some sort of program and at a certain point started talking about ‘timelines’. Timelines, the straw that broke the camels back. New age managerial talk. I thought to myself: ‘your days are numbered around this place. If you try to hang in here you’ll just end up causing trouble. And we’ve had more than enough of that already’. So I sort of backed out. But no tears, really. At the time I had just commenced university studies and I just threw myself into it. But still, it was always with the intent that the studies might be of some sort of service to the old community. You go, but you don’t forget. Still, to date nothing has come of it.
Before proceeding I’d like to express my gratitude to all those who founded this site. Thank you. Now we can talk. I am grateful.
I was particularly delighted with Mr. Barnstone’s two contributions here and would like to comment. Hello Mr. Barnstone. We briefly met at Bedford Springs. I was the guy with the sharpening stones who did a pretty good job with that cheapo piece you picked up in Nebraska and was disconcerted when I learned from you that you were less than satisfied with the point. One of the little regrets of my life was my failure to drop in for a visit when you were laid up for a spell in late Feb. But in any case I’m impressed with your second post, which covers a lot of ground, briefly and to the point, the right one imo, container principle, this Shambhala/Buddhism business. I too am alienated, and perplexed.
Recalling the comment of your first post: ‘a different heaven, a different earth’, I’d like to pursue this in a somewhat literal analysis. Dharma practice is the path of a distinctive ground we call samsara. Above are the heaven realms populated by devas and asuras. Below are the lower realms populated by animals, pretas and deamons. But on the path of warriorship there is heaven above as usual, what’s different is what’s below. Below is Earth. This earth is our common mother and mothers surely have a certain standing in the overall scheme of things. Our practice is to join heaven and earth and in this way we fullfill our humanity. This, of course, is quite different from choosing one over the other as spiritual and most religious practice urges us to do, opposing heaven and earth. The path of renunciation and the path of warriorship are incommensurable, like apples and oranges. In more enlightened parts of the world, such as Japan and China as well as most of the Indo-European civilizations, not least our own till comparatively recently, it was considered normal and beneficial for these lifeworlds to be kept separate. But that seems to be where we get off, I’m afraid.
We find ourselves in this situation we don’t like, this Shambhala/Buddhism. What I want to say is that if this is so it is because it’s our karma to be here. The key term here is ‘our’ and the question becomes: ‘who are we?’ Short answer: white, Anglo Saxon, or Anglo American, primarily Protestant. Our historical pattern is sectarian and this has been the case since the Reformation. We seek community and find it within the shared beliefs of spiritual practice. But spiritual practice with a difference. The Reformed ideal is to reform the world, not just become a better person and thus escape the terrors of a hellish afterlife. No. Our business is to do the Lords Work in the World, to reform everything, and make it all better. We believe that this is what spiritual practice is really all about. So now when the agenda becomes a matter of enlightening society, well, we’re all for it. Please note how there really isn’t much renunciation going on here. But be that as it may, we live within a milieu where we recognize that the world is in a very bad way and something must be done and so the idea arises spontaneously within the collective unconscious (hi Suzanne D) and with heartfelt conviction: ‘add spirituality and stir’.
This is so, I believe, but we keep experiencing the same old frustrations that have often come up before, such as authoritarianism, sheepishness on the part of believers, the embattled moment of dissidence, the formation of new sects to get back to the old uncorrupted truths and so on. There’s a reason why all these experiences are so familiar and so readily communicable.
I submit then that we find ourselves in this disconcerting Shambhala/Buddhist predicament because this is what we’ve been doing all along. What is wrong here is that we mix things up that ought to be kept separate. We depend on spiritual leadership for our community life and this is what leads to trouble. So for example, after Trungpa’s death in 87 I discovered that I didn’t really have a community anymore, and that was a blow. As an anti-Regent man I found that my views put his students too much on a spot where they couldn’t stay and talk. Impossible. Samaya problems, which I accepted and indeed, supported. So my first glimmer of light was to reflect on the appropriate form of community authority. For a community centered around a guru you could only be in or out, no half measures. Thus I came to appreciate the dharmas of royal governance which were much more flexible and human actually. On the container principle here’s one of my favourite anecdotes, taken from a passage in the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the Ming Dynasty (I’m sorry I can’t reference this properly, don’t have the book anymore). During the middle decades of the Ming in the lovely old city of Kai Feng the magistrate was on a tour of inspection when he came upon the sight of an old dilapidated temple which had plainly seen better days. Upon inquiry he discovered that it was actually a synagogue which belonged to an old Jewish community which had been there for centuries, like 6 or 700 years. All were completely sinified. Looking further into the matter the magistrate at length ordered the reconstruction of the temple, exhorting the descendents of this old community not to forget the ways of their ancestors, and to honour them. End of story. That is how Shambhala accommodates the myriad traditions of this world. It’s about ancestors basically. Our traditions are as varied as can be but we all have fathers and mothers, like it or not (or at least until recently). They gave us our body, our speech and probably most of what we might refer to as our minds, they gave us a lot for which we should be sensibly grateful. We could at least understand that we are not a purely self generated creation, autonomous and monadic. We could appreciate the past, recognize all the hardships and generosity, for our sake, and inspired by this we could commit ourselves to follow suit and work for the generations to come (a sore point for so many of us, myself included). But that is how I understand the sacred path of the warrior. It is very sacred and inspired and genuine. It is what we human beings all have in common and is therefore universal. So we don’t need yet another overarching heaven principle. We’ve already got hundreds of these and indeed, this is a bit of a problem. What we need is more like an underarching principle and I believe this is it. The Dorje Dradul taught unconditional goodness. What I’m describing here is more relative level, but literally, completely literal. A world of relatives is indeed a world already well ordered and good. We realize our goodness in the cultivation of these natural relations which in fact ‘create’ us. Therefore the primary form of authority in the Shambhala world is family lineage. It’s not because father knows best or because patriarchal and matriarchal figures are more caring than say, ‘the State’. That may be so but it’s a question of the fundamental natural order. The king is simply the head of his family. The royal family is the family of families, the ‘all dressed up’ version of every household in the kingdom. Monarchy actually governs not by issuing imperatives accompanied by the fine print of what’s going to happen to you if you don’t go along with things. Monarchy governs by upholding the relations generally speaking and above all the relation of father and son/daughter, and mother and son/daughter, this stuff, that is the ‘essence’ of things. There are others: husband and wife, elder and younger brothers, the relation of friends, the relation of ruler and minister. These are the conventional five, the big five of the Chinese tradition. Of course there are more: teacher/student, preceptor/patron, uncle/nephew, aunt/niece and so forth. There are plenty of these and each is really a law unto itself. But the meaning of royal government is all about upholding relations and harmonizing relations. Absolutely crucial. When relations are harmonized then community arises spontaneously, without ‘government’ actually. Very important. This form of governance is capable of providing ground for all traditions to carry on their business. The umbrella above is an even handed rulership which demands a certain filial piety, but that’s about it. That’s pretty open ended and systematically empowering. There’s no reductionism going on here.
There was a passage in one of the transcripts about ‘co-emergent wisdom’. If I recall correctly it envisioned two figures walking side by side, shoulder to shoulder to a certain point. At that certain point they stop, one goes right face, the other goes left face, so back to back, and then they begin to walk away from each other. That’s what Shambhala and Dharma should do. They should go their separate ways. We did have an opportunity for this while the Regent still lived. But it didn’t happen. I guess the Sakyong decided that he had to wear two hats as a consequence. Still, of course, that doesn’t explain the synthesis of this new Shambhala/Buddhism. But however all this may be we are still stuck in our old pattern. As this is so I think then if the problem is going to get worked out it will have to be on a more personal basis. Three’s a lot more one could say, but …
Here we are. Some of us left. Others got kicked out, it would seem. But here we are. This isn’t so bad (do you think?). I think it’s great. It’s so good to hear from students of VCTR. For me at least, after all these years of relative solitude. You know, lots of people have learned things, from the past, and over the years. Let’s hear it. I want to hear what people have learned. Learning is good. We could do that here, no?
I’ve rambled long enough. Thank you, all, for your patience and generosity. Time to stop. With appreciation, Kevin Frost.
Jim (Hartz), while I understand and sympathize with the ‘old leftie’ obsession with political economy and the endless corruption spawned by capitalism, and I do think that ‘we’ smart students who comprise the genuine Trungpa sangha need to understand the patterns of secular power relations in order not to be seduced into their deceptions, there is another way to view all that, which is what I have pursued for over 20 yrs on my ‘other path.’ (You know: deep ecology!) The Vidyadhara boiled it down quite beautifully when he wrote that earth, water, fire and all the elements – the animate and the inanimate, the trees and the greenery and so on – all partake of the nature of self-existing equanimity, which is quite simply (btw) what the great wrathful one is – to ego, that is.
In other words, from the perspective of deep ecology, species egotism in the form of anthropocentrism (human centeredness) has expressed itself – in Western civ. especially – as the compulsive drive for domination, or power-over, which is now consuming the planet that sustains all life. ‘Secular’ in the West really means ‘autistic’ to the sacred dimension that holds life together on Earth through earth, water, fire and all the elements, the trees and greenery and so on. If I may say so, with all due respect for attention to materialistic political-economic machinations, this is the higher (or at least more encompassing) view of the dilemmas and crises that our inherited secular worldview has created.
I have been attempting for 20+ yrs to help spiritual and ecological sanghas to find common ground in sacred outlook, obviously without much success (except with some of my Naropa students). But those who intuitively picked up on the ’shamanistic’ elements of the Dorje Dradul’s Shambhala vision and practices might still find some resonance with this perspective, which I call ‘Dharmagaian.’ (Gaian refers to Earth as a living being.) I think Reggie Ray gets it. Vandana Shiva and Alice Walker get it, along with many other Dharmagaians, who are not necessarily Buddhists. (Dharma is not trademarked by Buddhism, even if SMR has trademarked Shambhala as Buddhism)
Anyway, I’ve been building a Dharmagaians website for quite a while. Hopefully it will be launched and up on the net later this year. It includes sections on economic meltdown, peak oil, and politics within a larger ecocentric-sacred view of how humans can survive the crises we have created through our dualistic autism. Needless to say, VCTR is referenced as a primary Dharmagaian inspiration.
Thats my 2 cents on political economy, for what it’s worth.
Jim Hartz said:
Lineage is the problem, the aching question–how can the Vidyadhara’s teachings as he taught them survive? Where best to do that is unclear . . . . Some bridge, some accommodation, some new structural arrangment has to be conceived, and implemented. So much great energy and intelligence is being wasted.
Tsondru Namkha said:
[M]aybe a separate group could form, along the lines of what Charles Marrow proposed. Something like the Luddites. That would be its role, its place — to be the original view, practice and action in the raw — to stay as close to the original words and develop bridges with all other associated doctrines (eg Reggie Ray’s group, the Ojai group first and foremost, including yes even Mr Perks’s group, then all other Buddhist groups, etc) from there, and beyond that unassociated doctrines (eg Merton, contemplative Christianity, Coady Institute, etc) from there. We know now beyond a shadow of doubt that the Shambhala International organization, even if legally sole owners of the words of VCTR, can and will change the original meaning in their view, practice and action. That is their right and could be skillful means for a certain period of time, place, etc. However, it creates a voided role that some other group needs to take on. For such a group to be formed under the umbrella of Shambhala Int. seems to me that that would be a conflict of interest.
Ron Barnstone said:
The issue is SMR’s vision of Shambhala. The Vidyadhara envisioned Shambhala as the container principle. SMR’s amalgamating Shambhala and Buddhism into one is not the vision of the Vidyadhara.
Rob Graffis said:
To this day, we still haven’t heard an acknowledgment from the current hierarchy that some people were and still are unclear (and even hurt) about the future Shambhala vision. Not ONE WORD. . . . It also seems a lot of it is being improvised on the spot. . . . I just don’t see a long range plan. With the rich Buddhist heritage and Shambhala heritage we have allready inherited, I wonder if we [already] have more than we need?
I’ve always thought we already have more than we need in order to carry out the Vidyadhara’s vast 500-yr vision for the benefit of the world and all sentient beings. At this point, 22 yrs after his death – 22 yrs of anguish for those who took to heart his command to carry on his teachings and fulfill his vision – we are still trying to figure out how to do it. We miss our sangha, one of the 3 jewels, which has been co-opted. The world-spanning container principle to which we pledged ourselves has not only been co-opted but has shrunk into a small, walled fortress. We are members of a diaspora, scattered across the world.
Various proposals have been floated about how to strengthen and fulfill our vows to our teacher: practice together, form another group outside SI, dialogue with SMR students, etc. I went to bed last night thinking about Tsondru’s proposal to form a separate group. I thought about vajra brothers and sisters of yesteryear who haven’t shown up on this website, wondering where they are geographically and in their loyalties. I thought about what to call ourselves – a thorny subject in and of itself.
But mostly I am stumped about the logistics of forming a separate group. There’s a good but small core in Nova Scotia, but the rest of us are scattered. What would we DO??? Simply identify ourselves as Trungpa’s REAL sangha and let people know we are united in our adherence to his view, practice and action? What action? NOT opposition to SI – can’t do that. A separate group needs a defining, positive purpose. Reconstituting Vdh’s/KOS’s External Affairs? Not likely.
Any ideas? I’m stumped.
Regarding a separate group conceived as Trungpa’s REAL sangha, good luck with that.
I have no doubt that the leaders of such a group would be the older students with the most fixed views. If you could even generate cohesiveness over a common vision, I predict that the group would tear itself apart within a year.
I think we are stuck with our lonely paths. And if we begin to understand something of what we have been taught and if the opportunity presents itself we can pass that on. And if we find ways to help with SI or with Dzongsar Khyentse’s sangha, or Dzigar Kongtrul R.’s sangha or Khandro Rinpoche’s sangha or Tsoknyi Rinpoche’s sangha, etc., what is wrong with that?
Claiming the mantle of CTR based on some consensus vote by the most disaffected older students of CTR seems like a lot of hot air to me.
I agree with Jim. I don’t see how it’s possible to form another group.
Nobody needs to form another group. Those of us ,who practice the S of M together , twice a month, here, are now students of other teachers, those same teachers referred to: Tsoknyi R, Mingyur R, Trangu Rinpoche, Gangten R., Adzom R., Dzogsar R.., Kontrul R, etc. But we still feel a sangha connection to each other. So we practice together, no big deal. We also do Vajrayogini practice together, and when VY practitioners come to visit, or are here on retreat they join in. I think you do need a living teacher, and who knows who will show up, if you just get together?
Many VCTR students here also appreciate Reggie Ray’s sangha, he has just built a beautiful shrine hall, and so they join in and practice with them, periodically. Some of us do, some don’t, but not because we don’t appreciate RR, but because we are not interested in any solid group thing anymore. Many have taken his free retreats here and they are quite wonderful. Sure feels like he is doing something right, if he is getting so many people to connect with practice, real practice, many of his students go on long solitary retreats, 3 months or more in cabins.
The group thing is over for most of us. As it is for most people here who came from other lineages and live here, i.e. , Sufi, Hindu, Zen, etc. It becomes a lonely journey sooner or later as everyone discovers eventually regardless of their spiritual journey.
One of the advantages of older CTR students in Halifax, for example, getting together to practice is that they can invite teachers whom they want to come and teach, not adhering to some SI list of approved teachers. . There might be newer students who want to join because it is NOT a hierarchical group like SI. Just practicing with you and receive meditation instruction as you were taught by CTR.
One student of VCTR, in Vermont, broke out and started his own meditation group. He was a long-time teacher in the SI mandala, and when it started getting hokey about vetting, he simply left and started meditation groups in his own home. It started out very small, and grew over the years. People showed up that just couldn’t connect with SI in its current manifestation.
Of course this is very threatening as you saw when you tried to have the deleg meeting. .
Nothing is stopping this from happening, except hesitation. Once that hurdle has been jumped, then it opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Keep to “light planning,” and the right direction and intentions, and it will surely happen. Since “nothing happens” anyway, there is nothing to worry about.
A story and an analogy.
This is a zen story I heard. There was a great Zen painter/calligrapher in Japan. The Ruler commissioned the calligrapher to paint his favorite cat,
and the calligrapher agreed. For many months the Ruler heard no word from the calligrapher. Finally, in frustration, the Ruler went to the Calligrapher’s abode and demanded his cat painting. The calligrapher whisked out a fresh piece of paper, and, in minutes, he finished the drawing. The ruler was stunned . He said: ” This is brilliant, perfect!
why did you wait so long to do this?” Without a word, the calligrapher went to a closet door and opened it… out poured thousands of drawings of the cat.
Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny
Something like the development of the animal in the womb recapitulates
the development of the species, e. g. , human embryos at stages have gills, amphibian tails, ect..
Perhaps the analogy can be extended to the development of “enlightened society”….that it is an organic process, not an historical one based on rational models. I like the term “Living Myth”…which is what I think we’re all in…an organic, living, breathing, myth….and that ALL of us are an important part of that process….what manifests is that process…and that is what Shambhala is. at this moment.
I’ll go back to my room now….
Oh, yes, …one more thing…..like the cat in the zen story, when Shambhala does bloaaom, i think the experience will be that it will
happen very quickly…it will be unmistakable,
and it will seem like a miracle.
Thank you, Chris, thank you, John. Love that cat calligraphy story.
Chris, I appreciate your saying, “The group thing is over for most of us.” Yes, that is true for me. I’ve been ‘org phobic’ for a number of years already.
Re: the man in Vermont who started meditation groups in his home, are his initials KK by any chance?
John, I like your vision of how Shambhala will blossom out of an organic, living, breathing myth – suddenly and unmistakably.
Bowing gratefully,
Suzann D.
Dear Susann D.
It is not KK. KK is still teaching at Karme Choling if its who I think you mean, but NG. Chris
Suzann,
(Hi to Hartz, my eternal heart brother),
Any links to myth and deep ecology?
Dear Suzanne Duarte, Love of My Life,
Well, here I go again–this is a whopper: virtually my Last Will & Testament. I really thank you for prompting it. It occurs to me that most of my study is maybe understandable as an almost “unconscious” contribution to the now (unfortunately) defunct College of the Ashe Prince. Anyway, I’m going to go back through and break it down into more bite-sized pieces.
* * * * *
I think I understand and appreciate very much your Deep Ecology approach. However, the word “deep” always sets off a little flashing yellow light in me, as space isn’t “deep” or “shallow,” and for me has that Jungian ring that I’m not overly fond of (I prefer Freud, at this point, because he’s always talking about the relationship of “psyche” AND “society”), but those are just quibbles.
Something a little more problematic though, that you might want to grapple with: the Deep Ecological notion of “intrinsic value.” I sometimes think of that line from Treasure Of The Sierra Madre in that context, a tree sticking its neck out in that Mexican landscape and saying, “We don’t want no stinking ‘intrinsic value’ badges, don’t project your humanoid shit on us, just leave us alone to do our thing as we have been doing for millions of years before you killer apes showed up and started turning the planet to shit!”
Certainly, I understand the usefulness of “intrinsic value” being valorized in a culture that devalues everything in order to turn it into a commodity to make a profit. Here’s a great Merton quote on that–I’m paraphrasing: a “primitive” person looks out at a stand of trees and sees something sacred; a “civilized” person looks out at the same stand of trees and sees board feet at so many dollars per board foot.
But I relate everything I study to the Vidyadhara’s teachings (or I don’t study it), and the one teaching that arises in the context of Deep Ecology and “intrinsic value” for me is: his notion of “non-valuation” sprinkled here, and there, through his teachings.
If memory serves, one place that term shows up and its accompanying teaching is in Glimpses Of Abhidharma. How could the application of that teaching be worked into your Deep Ecology vision? Or can it? As with everything of his, it always seems to re-focus your view on whatever it is you are engaging with.
* * * * *
I’ve done a little bit of work on that recently–on the problem of “valuation”–in the context of Marx, which is very difficult. But, primarily, the question of “value” comes up for me in the context of my view that capitalism is simply the 5 Skandhas WRIT BIG (see the Vidyadhara’s “Development of Ego” chapter of Cutting Through [there's a little snippet in their on the birth of "value"])–that’s virtually my “bible” on all of this–a Maha Ati take on the 5 Skandhas.
But how could it be otherwise–that “connection” (so-called) between “egoism” and “capitalism”? There’s two choices: either capitalism evolved all by itself, disconnected from the functioning of the human brain; or, it carries all the major marks of ego with it–essentially is structured, and functions, in the exactly the same way as an individual ego. Take your pick: capitalism developed disconnected from the functioning of the human brain? Or, as a system, it replicates precisely the structure and function of individual ego psychology? One thing pops to mind as I write that: why don’t our “best & brightest” free marketeer sangha-mates (for example, Cynthia Kneen and Michael Chender), who’ve tended to adapt to the liberal/neoliberal economic model and championed its imposition on the world at large, come up with an economic model consistent with, for example, the structure and functioning of ego and its undoing? Why not? Or do they think, as implied by there adherence to the imposition of the liberal/neoliberal economic model on the world, that the Vidyhadara’s (or Sakyong’s) teachings are somehow consistent with the liberal/neoliberal economic model?
And in connection that–and my sense of capitalism as the 5 Skandhas WRIT BIG–look at what the infallible Wall Street wizard Greenspan had to say at the time of the global economic meltdown that he, and that flock of economic turkeys Obama has surrounded himself with, systematically produced for us, and which, among other things (us portfolio-clutching white folks in the U.S. and KOS being only a little inconvenienced) will result in the DEATHS of 90,000,000 people world-wide–here’s Greenspan:
“I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works. That’s precisely the reason I was shocked…I still do not fully understand why it happened, and obviously to the extent that I figure where it happened and why, I will change my views.”
So, amazingly, he hasn’t quite “changed his views” yet! Not enough information has yet penetrated the thickness of his logical mathematical skull–though, ironically, it does seem to be a cry from the “nature of his mind” (sems nyid) that pierced, at least for a moment, his everyday “mind” (sems)! But that’s absolutely preposterous–in a way, actually pathetic, wretched–: it’s like he’s this wizard out of a new Lord Of The Rings movie, his pointy hat with the stars and galaxies and nebulae glittering on it, but the hat a little cock-eyed, a bit sideways, he a bit rumpled (Rumpleneoliberalstiltskin), and he’s just been shocked with the realization that he actually isn’t regarded by the townsfolk as infallible anymore–though he’s still a little uncertain about that loss of recognition until he assimilates further data on the subject and comes to some more definitive conclusion on the subject!
A quote from Patrul Rinpoche’s Letter To Abushri (from the Vidyadhara’s Mudra) pops to mind here:
“Logic seems sharp, but it’s really the seed of confusion.”
On the surface of the global economy–fiddling with the business cycle, budgets, Kondratieff Curves, and all the rest–mathematics might be a useful tool, but it is not going to get to the heart of the matter, by a long shot.
So, is anyone infiltrating anything of use into Greenspan’s head, or the rest of these finance-world CEO’s? What about the Sakyong? He had the ear of the people at Goldman Sachs recently, and has spoken at the local Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club in recent years. Has any of these connections occurred to him so that he could gently introduce them into the heads of these Titans of Greed and Gluttony, or does he just smooth their feathers with the suggestion to “meditate,” tell them that he loves them and that they shouldn’t feel bad about the destructiveness their devious money-grubbing sleights-of-hand have wrought on the world, and maybe they should attend a Meditation & Yoga program someday at SMC? Who knows? He had the chance, and maybe he could have that chance again, maybe a bit more “well-armed” than he might have been on this occasion.
But I don’t know. A very telling thing on that subject for me took place at the 1992 Seminary at RMSC. The Sakyong, gracious with Glassman Sensei, avoided engaging with Sulak Sivaraksa (who also gave a talk–which received a standing ovation) like the plague. Now that’s 17 years ago, and I’ve got to discipline myself to take one step at a time in the present situation and not hammer the Sakyong with things that took place 10-17 years ago in my relation to him (and not to block out more recent things that have been pointed out on this website), but his avoiding of Sulak on that occasion doesn’t bode well in my mind for what he had to say to the Board at Goldman Sachs. (I did notice, however, subsequent to that visit to Goldman Sachs by the Sakyong that the Board at Goldman Sachs decided to forego in 2009 their multi-million dollar bonuses, and tough it out on their base pays of only $50,000 a month. Now there’s some Shambhala-Buddhist “magic” for you, Ron!)
Here’s another quote on systems of logic by Nietzsche that might be good to infiltrate into the heads of some of these wondrous mathematical geniuses who actually run the world (as opposed to the government–our government–: THEY–the economic elites–are actually in charge, akin to our very own “best & brightest” elites and who probably run SI too) have so recently wreaked havoc on the world (it’s aphorism 31, Assorted Opinions And Maxims….I think Robin would have gotten a kick out of this):
“In the desert of science.–To the man [or woman--JH] of science on his unassuming and laborious travels, which must often enough be journeys through the desert, there appear those glittering mirages called ‘philosophical systems’: with bewitching deceptive power they show the solution of all enigmas and the freshest draught of the true water of life to be near at hand; his heart rejoices, and it seems to the weary traveler that his lips already touch the goal of all the perseverance and sorrows of the scientific life, so that he involuntarily presses forward. There are some natures, to be sure, which stand still, as if bewildered by the fair illusion: the desert swallows them up and they are dead to science. Other natures again, which have often before experienced this subjective solace, may well grow exceedingly ill-humored and curse the salty taste which these apparitions leave behind in the mouth and from which arises a raging thirst–without one having been brought so much as a single step nearer to any kind of spring.”
Well, we’re eye-ball deep in the real “spring”: “nature of mind.” Hopefully, the Sakyong might have gotten that across, in some way–maybe just by his presence?–to the “thirsty” CEO’s at Goldman Sachs, or elsewhere. But, like Greenspan, maybe they aren’t exactly thirsty enough yet, are still gazing fixedly at the mirage that Greenspan’s seems to have swallowed, for the most part, whole. His semi-”mea culpa” seems to be an expression of that.
Anyway, in the context of Nietzsche’s further critique of logic, it becomes clear: Greenspan’s sense of certainty, his confidence in his mathematically-deduced economic model, it’s virtual “infallibility”–its systematicity–resulted from his having drunk deeply of one big moisty-appearing mirage!
* * * * *
So, as you might be beginning to see, my darling, Suzanne, to characterize me as an “old leftie”–that stock-in-trade stereotype popularized at Naropa–is a bit off the mark–: in fact, it misses the mark completely. That stereotype as you’ve just deployed it (and not in a mean, or overly dismissive way, at all–it’s just a knee-jerk reaction to the expression of my concerns and, to a certain extent, your “radical”-phobia. (I recall your having a rough time with conventional “radicals” at the Rainforest Action Network–remember, I visited you once at your office there in San Francisco?).
For me, obviously, “radical” doesn’t mean “further left” than liberal; it means going to the roots. At the root level, you will always find “dualistic fixation”–or, as I like to say (so I can relate what we are doing to all manner of Social Scientists, especially World-System Theorists and Neo-Marxists), “center-periphery polarization.” And that root–that root that eclipses Great Eastern Sun, Rigpa, Cosmic Mirror, Nature of Mind–all representing WHO we REALLY are BEFORE the production, and eproduction of “ego” (the same site where “capital” is reproduced, actually, and at the exact same time!)–summons up–for me, anyway–prajna, the Sword of Manjushri, to cut through that eclipsing mechanism.
I mean, “dualistic fixation” (or “center-periphery polarization”) is ubiquitous, at the basis of all heads and all humanly fabricated institutions and the global political economic system as well. In that sense, I do regard myself as a “radical,” but not the conventional variety. In connection to that, Derrida often spoke of the “revolutionary potential” of the “deconstruction” of “Western logocentrism,” which he (very likewise) found at the base of all Western academic disciplines. Well, if you look at how the translator of Derrida’s book Dissemination, Barbara Johnson, defines Derrida’s sense of “logocentrism,” it’s precisely what we mean by “dualistic fixation”! Moreover, in the West, “False Concepts” from “Lightning of Blessings” boils down to–in Western Cultural practice–Idealism and Materialism!
Anyway, Suzanne, what you find in my earlier posts completely alien (apparently) to your Deep Ecology work, and maybe even to the Vidyadhara’s teachings (I sure wish he or the Regent were around to run this stuff by–it is a little unusual) makes me think of some foggy North Korean military training field. There’s those straw-filled dummies hanging on ropes, with big “Yankee” signs stuck on them, and the loyal troops are bayoneting them with relish with shrieks of “Die, Yankee! Die!”
It’s the same with that Naropa stereotype you just stuck on me (though, again, there’s no malice in your having done that: we are friends, and respect each other: we have more IN than OUT of common): the sign is just says “Old Leftie” or “Radical.” It’s precisely the same thing….I will cop, though, to being a bit–if not extremely–”obsessive” about these connections between the Vidyadhara’s teachings and political economy I’ve been making over the years (decades, actually)!
* * * * *
To put it more simply, perhaps–and this is kind of the fruitional heart of decades of work (and the Vidyadhara encouraged me on these investigations which I was already doing BEFORE I met him in 1972)–: “egoism” and “capitalism” are (simply) two words for one and the same seamless psycho-social totality: an IDENTITY. IDENTICAL.
“Ego” is no more solely “psychological” than capitalism is solely “political economic.” I’ve been trying to reconstruct my views on this so people can better understand me, but I thinks it’s related to this: early on, the Vidyadhara meted out criticism–on the so-called “psychological” level–of a “profit-oriented” and “competitive” approach, and also a criticism of “privacy” or “territoriality.” (Our friend, Ron Barnstone, might recall that as a major theme of the clash at the 1975 Vajradhatu Seminary in Snowmass between the Vidyadhara and Bill Merwin and his girlfriend, at that time, Dana Naone: I wish Ron’s picture on this site would be a close-up of his battle scar inflicted on that occasion: THAT was a real “war,” not an imaginary one. Though, ultimately, for me that boiled down to Humpty Dumpty’s famous line, to paraphrase: You can make words mean whatever you want; it’s just a matter of who’s Boss, THAT’S ALL.)
So, as I was saying: It dawned on me, and I jolted in the seat of my car, driving from Boulder to Santa Fe circa 1986-87 or so: these were precisely (privacy, profit motive, competition) the same three items Marx was criticizing on the so-called “social” level: private property, profit-motivation, and competitiveness!
So, a vision of the earthly TOTALITY “dawned” on me (not a vision of the “rainbow body,” or some snazzy dream about some obscure Tibetan deity hovering in space somewhere and instructing me what to do in my practice or life); these two critical approaches needed to be combined in some way, segued together, whatever term you want to use.
I mean, DUH! It’s so obvious.
And I don’t really think any kind of environmentalism can work without a more profound and penetrating critique of so-called “capitalism”–that’s why I harp on it so much….well, that’s being harsh and unfriendly to myself: I think I’m onto something potentially very useful here–on a number of fronts–so, I keep bringing it up, in the hopes that at least one prominent Tibetan teacher can hear me on this (not to mention the majority of my friends, whether Buddhists, Christians, or Marxists). And the fact I’m basically Walking Toast health-wise spurs me on, I’m afraid–as you say, and another close friend recently related to me–somewhat obsessively on this so-called “topic.”
The fact is, Sulak Sivaraksa hears me loud and clear on this; so does David Loy, if you know who he is–sort of Sulak’s right-hand man in Engaged Buddhism, now with a chair in Religion and Ethics at Xavier in Cincinnati, involved with starting a chapter of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship there, a conservative beer brewery town, and former hide-out of several Weathermen in the late 60’s and early 70’s.
And Robert Magliola also hears me, a friend of David Loy’s. He’s THE person in 1967 who made the connection between Nagarjuna’s “deconstructive” approach, and the “deconstructive” approach of Jacques Derrida in his book, Derrida On The Mend. Our feeling is: if Marx had developed his method of analyzing history and political economy based on an engagement with Nagarjuna’s “dialectical” approach rather than Hegel’s, there never would have been a “crisis of Marxism,” as they say–nor would the 70 years of the Soviet Union been not much more than a bloody dent in the hull of the USS Rudra! They had no idea what they were up against, but the USSR’s collapse was hardly anything to cheer about, then or now–: it just meant Rudra–our US Rudra–could run rampant in the world, and consolidate the spread of “center-periphery polarization” (or “dualistic fixation”). Rudra personifies “center-periphery polarization” for me–a more explicit understanding of the word “Rudra.”
So, anyway, by the way: no, I am not a “leftist,” as I often have to explain–I might sound like “one of them,” apparently, to you and others, but what I actually am, REALLY, is an Out-Through-The-Bottom-Of-The-Middle-Via-Prajna-ist!
PERFECTLY NATURAL
If global capitalism
Is the New Leviathan
Rudra
Is Imperial Sovereign
The natural rate
Of unemployment perfectly
Natural a necessary
Check on
Inflation
A desert
Of sandgrain-sized
Smiling
Skulls
* * * * *
A very interesting thing happened to me recently on the way to the charnel ground that is germane to this yappage–what has become, apparently, akin to my last Will and Testament, perhaps? I attended a seminar last November on Rangjung Dorje’s “Mahamudra Aspiration” lead by Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche. During the first discussion period after the main talk, a young woman got up and mentioned something about Ad Busters, and proffered a critique of capitalism (i.e. “capitalism”). I thought that was brave. So I got up and put in my two cents worth on the subject (”subject”). What I said was something like this, and this approaches the practicality of what I’ve been talking about here:
1. On the subject of capitalism, and if we listen to Rangjung Dorje’s comment that “Ordinary Mind is free from gain and loss,” while he was up in there in those snow mountains centuries ago composing that text for his students, and us, the students of the “future dark again,” on the other side of those snow mountains–being bereft of the “cutting through” power of Mahamudra and Dzogchen teachings–in the West a concern for “gain and loss” was running rampant, maniacally so, and over millenia virtually SECRETED the global political economic system we refer to, today, as capitalism.
2. I also stated that capitalism is simply “dualistic fixation” or “center-periphery polarization” run rampant, over millenia, and it has, over that time, with no Dzogchen or Mahamudra teachings to cut through it, taken on global political economic form. I also mentioned that one way to understand the continuity of the system, from individual ego psychology to the full-blown global political economic system of today, is this way: there are, in the West, today, a group of social scientists who use a “center-periphery polarization” model to discuss the structure and function of the increasingly integrated global political economic system. Buddhists have long used a “center-periphery pollarization” model (Dzigar Kongtrul got that usage right off–no need to explain “c-p polar” was identical with “dualistic fixation,” as I often have to do with my sangha-mates) to discuss the structure and function of individual ego psychology.
3. So, connect the dots, from macro to micro. And I used the old Biblical “seed” and “fruit” metaphor, not knowing he had used that image in the title of a chapter in his book, Light Comes Through. That is, by the macro level global political economic center-periphery polarization FRUIT you shall know IT: the micro level individual center-periphery polarization seed. So, “seed” and “result”–center-periphery polarization having run rampant in the West for millenia!
4. And the most amazing thing was: he was HEARING me the whole way, punctuating my comments with several “I agree with you completely.” He was spontaneously, on the spot, HEARING me. But then I added in one of my old standards: once the seed to roots to trunk to branches to fruit CONTINUITY of this “dualistically fixated” tree is established, what I have found (and I’ve cataloged about 20 of these–experiences in the sangha over decades) is a “niftily” convenient separation of “psyche” and “society.” That is, we cut through “spiritual materialism” with one hand and un-cut through “material materialism” with the other hand. That is, it is like cutting through the roots of a tree with one hand, and watering the trunk and branches with the other with the other hand. (No wonder the tree of “ego-capitalism” doesn’t fall!) But how wondrously, magically, ironically Biblical that is: one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing! But, of course, we DO know, but we are ignoring that methodically, systematically, INTENTIONALLY. Dzigar Kongtrul go that more practical aspect as well.
5. I was so pleased; so delighted. For once, the lid didn’t clank down. (If you looked closely, the top of my head is flat as an anvil.) Then, I looked over at our dear friend, Cynthia Kneen, who had hosted the event: she was LIVID. She’s been telling me to basically shut up with this stupid convoluted shit for years! She was on my doctoral committee for a spell. At some point, she sent back to me every word I had written and sent to her, and never with ONE SYLLABLE of engagement with any of what I was saying. Except once: she allowed as how, maybe after I’m dead, what I said might come in handy, maybe. So what did I do? I’d send the same things to Sulak Sivaraksa in Thailand and he’d say, “This stuff is inspiring, send more”! But there was Dzigar Kongtrul, a great Tibetan Mahamudra/Dzogchen teacher “agreeing with me completely”!
6. I suspect he got a major earful from her on how she perceives me, but who knows? In any event, she seems incapable of imagining I’m trying to use my head as best I can to come to grips with these extremely thorny and seemingly insurmountable social problems. (Of course, judging by a recent editorial of hers in The Mirror, she seems to deny the existence of the “social” altogether (not to mention the validity of the 5 Skandhas for being merely “didactic”) and sees most everything through a kind of Wittgensteinian Tractatus “atomized” lense: the “individual” replicated endlessly radiating out in all directions, ad infinitum. Who knows?)
7. Then, at the conclusion of Dzigar Kongtrul’s last talk, there was some announcement about a Tuesday night Mahamudra Practice Group that Dzigar Kongtrul was encouraging people to participate in. But, at first, I couldn’t quite hear that message–the hubbub of people filing out–so I chimed in and asked Lynele Jones to repeat the message. As Lynele repeated the message so I could hear it, I caught a glimpse of Cynthia: I literally thought she was going to throw up–or maybe “upchuck” is the right word! I could see the “thought bubble” shimmering pootily over her head in mid-air: that goddamn weasily little piece of pooh–here he comes again with more rabble-rousing and trouble-making shit to stink up and pollute our nice clean little Mahamudra “spiritual” teachings here. I told him I wished he stay in Tennessee! Oddly, maybe it’s not just her liberalism/neoliberalism that motivates her annoyance with me. Maybe it’s that she’s determined, under her “watch,” to keep the “spiritual” and the “temporal” rigidly separate? Who knows? She’s never communicated to me straight-forwardly and directly what her beef in particular is with my views. It’s hard to imagine she can’t do it because she’s a coward. It must be something else. But what? Who knows?
* * * * *
I understand Cynthia prognosticated the economic meltdown about a year ago. That goes to show that even someone who aspires to place an article in the Harvard Business Review is capable of using their head. Of course, if she read International Socialist Review or Monthly Review or New Left Review, or checked out the CounterPunch website regularly, she would have discovered them commies had been predicting the collapse 12-25 years ago! It was just a matter of time.
* * * * *
I’m in the process of designing a program around this “subject” and with some of the same people mentioned above, sort of with one foot inside/one foot outside the sangha–or, more likely, if it ever comes to pass, maybe iwith both feet outside the sangha. (And by the way, all these references–all this topa, sampa, gompa-ing–took place in all those years–in the gaps–of caring for my mother around the clock in Tennessee, in a God-forsaken Born-Again-Christian military town: where Fort Campbell really is. I once got accosted in a underground parking lot and pushed around by 3 Junior Jarheads for having a “Save Tibet” sticker on my car, not a “Support of Troops” or “God is Terrific” [or whatever] sticker!)
And what I studied: for years, while setting up literary events in the Bay Area, I was systematically gathering books from all those great used bookstores related to that 3-way schema in Merton’s Bangkok Talk linking Christianity, Buddhism, and Marxism in very particular ways. And then, trying to beam the Vidyadhara’s incomparable Buddhist and Shmbhala teachings through that 3-way schema as best as I could: a way to carry forward the friendship between Merton and the Vidyadhara they didn’t get the chance to bring to fruition.
And, as I suggested previously, I think BOTH of them (not just Merton) would have had to “give an inch” for their friendship to reach maturation: Merton psychologically (”psychologically”) and the Vidyadhara socially (”socially”). The Vidyadhara had said–after how many years in the the West?–Merton was the “first ‘genuine’ Westerner he had met” in the West. And I just don’t see the Vidyadhara–as with Ram Dass, for instance–flicking cigarette ashes on Merton’s head in regard to his views (Merton’s) on Vietnam, Chile 1973, or the blood-sucking vampirism of Western-style development in Central and Latin America, fin particular–something Merton was very familiar with at the time.
So, more MISHAP LINEAGE. It doesn’t just happen WITHIN traditions, but apparently BETWEEN different traditions as well–especially in a genuinely Shambhalian sense: the way the Vidyadhara meant it, right from the start.
* * * * *
Suzanne, a little birdie recently told me about some discussions at lunch at RMSC circa 1992 or so (the “birdie” was on staff at the time, as were you and I) involving several female staff members, sort of the “Shambhala Brain Trust” (Cathy Pressman, Penelope Lanphier, Donna McIntyre), without my being present, concerning my views as expressed above. The gist of the discussion involved their pooh-poohing my view that the “structure of ego” was–once you peel back the layers–was precisely the same as the “structure of capitalism.” I guess they could imagine the “structure of ego” and the “structure of capitalism” being “side by side,” but the same? They thought that was “editing the teachings,” or whatever sugar plum fairy was dancing in their collective head.
On that subject, I found a great quote by the granddaddy of Liberation Theology, Gustavo Gutierrez, cited in a book by Hugo Assman called Theology For A Nomad Church, another Liberation Theologian who’s been shot 3 times, so far, for expressing his views on (U.S.) Western-style development and what is has to do, from his point of view, with theology. You have to translate this from Christianity into Buddhism, and maybe in the context of what I’ve been saying above, but it’s right on the dot, perfectly put, as far as I can tell:
“There are not two histories, one profane and one sacred, ‘joined together’ or ‘closely linked’ but one process of human becoming taken on irreversibly by Christ, the Lord of history.”
Well, we had a “Lord,” too. Has he returned in some way, shape, or form–and I don’t mean the 12th Trungpa Tulku at Surmang–or is he “ongoing” in some sense or other? Maybe in our identification with the Rigden King in the Werma Sadhana? Maybe that’s it, that simple, that difficult?
* * * * *
This reminds me: in the Vajra Politics class at the 1975 Vajradhatau Seminary–and Mark Szpakowski was in the same class–I suggested at some point that “ego was a rudimentary political economic system,” and got laughed at. Later, maybe in the context of Mark’s interesting presentation to the class on Mao’s “On Contradiction,” still an essential text for a comparative study of dialectics, very close to prajna, as with section’s of Lenin’s Philosophical Notebook, Vol. 38 of his Collected Works–not to mention Hegel, Marx, Althusser, Derrida, and so on–I suggested Mao’s “classless society” was “cessation” gone “social”–that is, the capital/labor relation of Marxism grows right out of–is an extension of (you guessed it)–: center/periphery polarization. For that one, I got hissed at.
But why bother, someone might say, with all this “intellectual” stuff? Well, for one thing, there’s a difference between “intellect” conventionally understood, and what the Vidyadhara referred to as “vajra intellect.”
So with that, maybe it’s possible–if there were actually any DARING in this Shambhala community of ours and the application of some mundane prajna elbow grease to study these subjects in order to pave the way–that we could extend these teachings out beyond the “usual suspects” (psychotherapists, holistic health professionals, cognitive scientists, systems analysts, Whole Foods shoppers, and Naropa students) and relate to other groups of people, people beyond our customary “target customers” and to whom we want to “market Shambhala product” as now constituted?
Interestingly in this regard, at the recent Rigden Abhisheka, the Sakyong referred to KOS as a “classless society.” Amazing. I thought I was having an auditory hallucination. Where did THAT come from? Thich Nhat Hanh had fairly recently referred to his Plum Village community as a kind of “communist society,” and maybe Hanh had recently thumbed into Merton’s Bangkok Talk reprinted in the Appendix to his Asian Journal, where he speaks of his monastic community in Kentucky as a place where “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” actually worked–and he felt tht was the only place it COULD work.
Anyway, I thought it very interesting the Sakyong was even thinking along these lines–because in case nobody has noticed, the contradictions of so-called “capitalism” appear to many much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am (though I do regularly say to academic types who feel they can’t talk about anything unless they have a Ph.D in it, that all you’ll ever need to know about the global political economic system is to be found in the “Development of Ego” chapter of Cutting Through!) to be insurmountable at this point, and are pointing to Social Democratic models in Scandinavia, for example, or Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution in Central and Latin America, as a way out of the apparent impasse–and by democratic elections, as Chile tried to do in 1973, not violent revolutions.
(Suzanne, what’s your take on that from a person living in Scandinavia, or thereabouts?)
Anyway, in regard to the Sakyong’s “classless society” remark, there was no chance to inquire, further, what he actually meant that–whether he meant it somewhat “metaphorically.” Could it be related to an interesting take on the “Boundless equanimity which is quite simply what the Great Wrathful One is”?
Without the opportunity to explore that further in discussion with him, I guess I’m inclined to imagine he meant that more in a “metaphorical” sense. That is, more of what we used to call in the 60’s a “head trip,” or, in this case, a “heart trip”?
What pop’s to mind here on that subject is a quote from Theodor Adorno cited by Martin Jay in his book on Adorno, a very fertile book, it seems to me, for a so-inclined Buddhist to read. Here’s Jay citing Adorno:
“In a polemic directed against the neo-orthodox revisionist psychoanalysts Erich Fromm and Karen Horney and the sociologist Talcott Parsons, Adorno insisted on the ideological dangers of overcoming in thought what was still split in reality, the antagonism between universal and particular. Until the actual division of labor was transcended, the scientific could not be either. As a result, ‘The separation of sociology and psychology is both correct and false. False because it encourages the specialists to relinquish the attempt to know the totality which even the separation of the two demands; and correct insofar as it registers more intransigently the split that has actually taken place in reality than does the premature unification at the level of theory’.”
Well, interesting. I’m not sure, but it seems quite possible that my formulation above, that “egoism” and “capitalism” are “two words for one and the same seamless psycho-social totality” might be what the doctor, Adorno, had ordered. And here’s another great quote by Adorno on that cited by Jay:
“The locus classicus of this tendency in Adorno’s thought was Dialectic Of Enlightenment, which places the major break in the West with the first division of labor, the separation of subject from object [!--JH], and the initial domination of nature, that is, well well before the rise of capitalism [!--JH].”
Well, Suzanne, that one more more directly connects with where your coming from in your Deep Ecology work, and I think that little quote has determined alot of my topa, sampa, gompa-ing since then.
* * * * *
By the way, to reiterate: I was never one of those loudmouthed overnight Leninists types in the 60’s, or now. I regarded myself as an anarchist, and in 1969 through the small alternative bookstore I managed in Cincinnati connected to The Epic Book Shop in Yellow Springs (my Antioch College friends), I became (via Robert Bly) the Cincinnati representative for Resist, the outfit Chomsky had just co-founded in Cambridge.
That’s probably been my main problem all along with the sangha, and especially with both the Vidyadhara and the Sakyong: a knowledge of U.S. Foreign Policy in the REAL WORLD! In fact, upon arriving in Boulder, right off the bat 6 months ago, connected to the World Affairs Group, I set up a talk at the BSC with an old friend from 1990 or so, David Barsamian. It was to be a talk on the Middle East, and was going to focus at what seemed an immanent attack on Iran nuclear facilities–which has simply been put off temporarily by Obama for some actual “diplomacy” to take place, THEN we’ll bomb them.
Interestingly, after Obama delivered his digital sermonette recently to Iran’s leaders, he dodged Iran’s request for an apology for our overthrowing their secular democratically elected government in 1953 so we, and Great Britain, could help ourselves to THEIR oil by affixing our sticky little mits to it, and then installing the West-leaning fascist, the Shah, as their leader–complete with underground torture chambers for those who resisted. (Interestingly, that Tulku of all Tulkus, Steven Seagal, recognized by Penor Rinpoche, was once one of the Shah’s bodyguards.) What that little bit of economic-elite-lead couping produced, as “blowback,” was the emergence of the vociferous Islamic Fundamentalist upsurge that we now face all over the world, not just in the Middle East.
Too bad Reverend Wright isn’t president, or at least Secretary of State! He’d have the knowledge, honesty, and integrity to apologize for 1953 as the Iranians requested. It’s indicative of what Obama’s EVENTUALLY going to do after “diplomacy” ultimately doesn’t get us what we want. If he were genuine about his recent gesture of “reconciliation,” he’d apologize. But he can’t; he won’t. Israel would have a hissy fit!
Anyway, to me Barsamian’s talk was NOT designed to be just a “political” talk: I was going to frame it in the context of (you guessed it) the Vidyadhara’s teachings on the Center of the Wheel of Life and his critical “replica of me” teaching.
So, of course, the Vajra Zionist contingent (I was stupidly surprised: I thought things had changed over the years) went ape-shit, began hammering Janet Solyntjes by both phone and e-mail (this all behind the back of me and the group, of course–the “confidentiality policy” which is nothing more, nor less, than a license to stab other sangha members in the back, with impunity….but due to a little error by Janet with an e-mail, 3 major bellyachers became known to us: Jeffrey Kohn, Leonard Hortek, and our beloved colleague and friend of RFS, Lee Weingrad….there were others). They even rang up President Reoch to get him to cancel the talk. He ignored them, much to his credit–they probably hate his guts.
Interestingly, one possible shift that seems of interest here: perhaps the Sakyong is shifting–in terms of politics and economics–at least a little bit, toward a more “liberal” view; or maybe President Reoch is sort of his alter (temporal) ego here….away from his father’s decidedly more republicanish conservative world-view? I mean: did the Vidyadhara’s view ever change from that?
In any case, as Obama wades into the “big muddy” quagmire of Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran ala LBJ into Vietnam, we might ponder the distinct possibility that “God’s chosen people” are going to get us all killed yet! Talk about the tail wagging the dog!
* * * * *
I guess my mentor (in terms of Deep Ecology) would be primarily Gary Snyder (especially his beautiful book, Practice of the Wild) and, more recently, Vandhana Shiva–she’s such a powerhouse, and absolutely fearless. (Snyder was also my Engaged Buddhism mentor, you could say, as well: he always encouraged Buddhists to study Marx, NOT for how to create an “enlightened society,” but for its critique of capitalism.
In 1984, as the kick-off event for the new chapter of Buddhist Peace Fellowship in San Francisco, we put together a “Buddhsim, Anarchism, and Political Economy” conference at Fort Mason. Hugely attended, some people you know were there: Bill Scheffel, Charlene Spretnak, and Andrew Schelling. A main focus of the conference was Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation on the development of the global market, and quite pointed criticism of Marx’s condescension toward farmers.
I think Gary and I were in agreement, thjough we didn’t discuss it particularly–one more Buddhism and Psychotherapy conference and we’d puke!
And, Suzanne, I think you might recall my supreme appreciation (as noted above), also, for Sulak Sivaraksa. I think–as a Buddhist–he’s more “Shambhalian” that anyone I can think of at the present time who thinks of themselves as “Shamabhalian.” He understands me completely on the the subject of Buddhism and Political Economy, for one thing, and has for about 15 years. I recall vividly, when I lived at Marpa House in 1990, before the mistake of moving to RMSC, getting a packet of his books in the mail from Thailand. At last, the view of a Buddhist who’s country has been on the receiving end of Western-style development. Around the time of Sulak’s talk at the 1992 Seminary, Peter Volz thought he was being clever by trying to erase that historical fact of our early days–and up until then!–support of Western-style development by changing the terminology, willy-nilly, to “appropriate development.” Clever, almost. And who gets to decide what’s “appropriate,” and what isn’t? He didn’t go into that, of course–and a little late, anyway.
* * * * *
Suzanne, why don’t we get married and start our own little kingdom? You could not only be Sakyong Wangmo, but Minister of Environment. I could be, not only Sakyong, but Minister of Political economy. With a little help from our friends, we could save the world in a couple years, easy, if we only put our two heads together.
Good night my dear,
Jim
To John Tischer, Re: “Any links to myth and deep ecology?”
Hi ‘Tisch’! Funny you should ask. A student just sent me the following long interview that covers a lot of the bases. The language used in the interview may be foreign to people who have not studied Jung or followed the development of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, as I have, or who have a fundamentalist attitude about Buddhadharma. (I don’t mean you, Tisch.) In any case, I find what Jean Houston says to be very understandable and in alignment with what I teach in my online Deep Ecology course, so I sent it to my students.
Jean Houston and James O’Dea on the Essential Shifts 5/8/06 – In this dialogue, the former President of IONS and Jean Houston engage in a passionate inquiry into the peril and promise of these times on Earth. They feed mind, heart, and soul with discussions of archetypes and essence, myth and ritual, meaning and healing. They see us experiencing a blazing sunset of one era and moving into a new, Ecozoic era, a time in which we care more deeply for the planet and each other. A renewal of our mythic imagination is required to make the shift and activate our full potential as a species; story connects to the archetypal world and fertilizes the sense of what is possible. Their discussion is an Indra’s net of insight, humor, and synthesis, all leading towards a new planetary psychology.
http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/transcripts/jean_houston_and_james_odea/essential_shifts
During the week of 3/ 13 – 19, my students did self-created eco-spiritual rituals (they are scattered all over No. America) using the beautiful Native American “Thanksgiving Address: Greetings To The Natural World”
http://www.nmai.si.edu/education/files/thanksgiving_address.pdf in the context of the 7-fold offering from our sadhanas, which I adapted for eco-spiritual ritual purposes. I call the 7-fold offering the 7 stages of prayer, which it is if you take it seriously and understand it. I recommended that they pay attention to the confession stage in relation to the natural world, and the ones who did found it extremely powerful, putting them in the proper, humble relationship with the natural world for the Thanksgiving Address. Then after thanksgiving, they go on with the rest of the 7-fold offering. This ‘exercise’ had very good results and opened most of them to a more intimate communion with the natural world.
Treading my Dharmagaian path of Buddhism, Shambhala and Deep Ecology has made it necessary for me to open my scope and my use of language to speak/write to people in language they can understand. That is, I often have to apply my learning from the Vidyadhara, and my own experience of sacred outlook, in unorthodox language and use unorthodox means to help people understand the nature of the time we live in and the possibilities for not only achieving sanity but for experiencing the sacredness of life on Earth.
Thanks for asking, John. You may remember that I was already on this path when we (and Jim Hartz) were staffing RMDC in the early 90s.
Suzanne D.
Dear Jim Hartz,
I am overwhelmed. While I am honored that you addressed your last will and testament to me, and concluded it with a proposal that we get married and start our own kingdom (very funny!), it took me more than an hour to wade through it. I propose that you post your email address so we can continue this conversation in private, in order to spare other readers. Post it using ‘at’ instead of @ to avoid surveillance, somewhat. In any case, I don’t feel safe posting my own email address on this site since I’ve magnetized a great deal of misunderstanding and aggression already. And besides, I’m really busy, believe it or not, and don’t need more spam in my inbox. However, I’d be glad to respond to your VERY LONG posting in a somewhat abbreviated way through email.
Hugs,
Suzanne D.
Dear Suzanne,
I deeply appreciate the dilemma you outlined. It is one I see many long time practitioners that I respect confronting. I watched Robin deal intimately with it as he taught out of his home and worked patiently and slowly to reach some kind of accord with SMR and his administrators. Also, I completely acknowledge that while I’m sharing my opinion on this, I obviously have MUCH less at stake, first because I was never fortunate enough to be a direct student of CTR and second, I am a student of a teacher outside of SI (although I have some strong connections to a few Acharyas that I consider instrumental to my path). Nevertheless, the Shambhala mandala remains very important to me so I share what follows in the hope it contributes to the resolution all of you senior practitioners and teachers are facing.
You said: “The question for me is, whether I would have to compromise my own understanding of and conviction in the teachings I received from VCTR – or pretend to – in order to teach within SI? How much would I have to pretend to go along with what is happening in order to be ‘assimilated’ back into the Shambhala mandala in order to teach?”
Obviously, no-one but you can compromise your own understanding and conviction. As for requirements, I doubt very much that you would be required to pretend something in order to be able to teach with SI. As I’ve experienced it, guidelines and parameters are set to guard against extreme cases and then become very flexible in actual practice. Additionally, while I acknowledge and agree strongly that form, language, specific instructions are very important and are a part of lineage, ultimately, for me, the essential dharma passed along has always been less about those things and more about who the teacher is being and how they related to me. You can find countless examples in the tibetan commentary treatises of authors/teachers taking a basic framework x and explaining it in such a way as to support the view of a, b, or c school or lineage. I don’t believe this was because they were compromising either their understanding or the integrity of x teachings to get it to fit their view or school. I believe that x just serves as a jumping off point, a framework for the teacher to then flesh out and that flesh needs to come from their own experience and understanding.
Accordingly, I’ve sat in a teaching or two in Shambhala centers where, for example, meditation instructions from SMR and VCTR were presented in the same talk and the teacher, not compromising the integrity of one set or the other and not diluting them by trying to say they were the same or so similar as to be weldable, shared from experience. In this way, I could understand what was being presented without being assaulted with one individual’s attachment that “certainly THIS set of instructions is superior to THAT set.” Ultimately, who among us can say that this set is superior to that set? It is totally dependent on the predispositions and capacities of the recipient. All we can say is what comes from our experience. Unless you’ve practiced and gained sufficient facility with any particular set of instructions, who can say which is superior to another? And even if you have, all that can be asserted is that one set is superior for oneself than another.
I guess my point, Suzanne, is that it is clear to me, not having ever met you, that you are passionate about the dharma and the living transmission you received from CTR. And that is what whoever might receive what you have to give needs most. Within the relative details of whatever materials are your jumping off point, it is your genuine heart and the desire to make a contribution that matters most. Even if you only made one such genuine connection, so that just one other person received that stream from Trungpa through you, I think it would be worth whatever discomfort your ego might endure in figuring out how to make your relationship with SI. As for Shambhala as a community and SMR as a lineage holder, I think we should have a little more confidence that they are firmly and ultimately committed to genuine awakening in the spontaneous and myriad forms it takes, even if relatively, they are experiencing some growing pains as to how to express that and structure that.
You said: “I would like to teach Buddhadharma and Shambhala again, but as I have heard, practiced and experienced those teachings. As a dharma teacher, one needs to be able to recommend that students join a sangha. What if there is no longer an existing sangha that one feels confident to recommend?
This must be a dilemma for many of the students of VCTR who trained to be teachers with him, for him.”
The above seems to be the primary thing you need to resolve for yourself one way or the other. If you have no confidence in Shambhala as a place for beginning dharma students to get their feet wet, then you can’t really want to teach there either. Absent having qualified dharma teachers and meditation instructors seeded throughout the world who will teach dharma that you feel is appropriate in their own homes though, where do you send them? Its not like sending someone to a Shambhala center dooms them to indoctrination into a cult. It certainly didn’t for me
There are still many well trained and heartfelt practice instructors to be found in Shambhala centers. And if, like me, an individual’s karma leads them to connect elsewhere, it won’t matter so much anyway. In the meantime, at least they’ll have access to something with some kind of structure, some kind of community, some kind of practice. A place where questions can be answered and new avenues discovered.
I’ve learned that all sanghas are imperfect when it comes to my own personal preferences as to what they should be. But somehow, as imperfect as I may feel they are, and the various Shambhala centers I’ve participated in are no exception (could author a few sitcoms and prime time dramas out of being in them), I still managed to connect and get some essence out of them, mostly (I suspect) because of the presence of committed senior students like yourself who wanted more to pass on what they learned then be caught in a web of complaints and dissatisfactions about what was going on. I am not implying that anyone in this conversation IS caught in that, btw. That was a near direct quote from a friend of mine who taught at a Shambhala center but who, in private, shared a great deal of his complaint and dissatisfactions with me about the Great Controversy. When I asked him why he kept coming and teaching and participating if these were his true feelings, he said (passed off as my own above): “Because curious fresh new minds interested in the dharma keep walking through those doors and somehow I feel this is what my guru would have wanted of me and what my vows demand of me.” That’s the kind of thing that touched me and moved me more deeply than any particular structure of curriculum or specific detail of this or that meditation technique ever could have.
Again, I sincerely hope that you (and all the other seasoned and yeasted practitoiners here) come to a resolution that feels right to you and that includes sharing what you’ve worked so hard to reveal and understand with all of us from the younger generation who need you here to receive the passing of the lineage.
Sincerely,
James Vitale
Dear Suzann:
Followed the link to the Thanksgiving address, so straightforward and beautiful. Thanks. I am going to print it out and keep it.
When we connect with the elements, the animate and the inanimate, we are that much closer to the subtle essence, or “that” which connects us all and cannot be found.
The more we turn inward, and discover this undiscoverable essence, our true nature, the more we discover it “without.”
I think perhaps that is the sense you mean of “intrinsic.”
Once I asked Tsoknyi Rinpoche something about a certain “outward” situation I was having trouble with and he sent me this reply by email:
I am paraphrasing, but this is the essence:
The more we are pointing outward, the more that maras will arise. Enlightenment comes from within. Until the moment of enlightment, maras will seemingly arise, and the more we practice , the more vivid these maras will appear.
Made me think of Milarepa in the cave just before his enlightenment.
I am sure Jim’s long post, (and I read it all) is trying to reflect this when he connects individual ego, subject-object split, the root of the problem, and global capitalism( duality of the center-peripheral split) as projection of the root split . But to work with it externally, is what in a Dzogchen view would say, is the “wrong end of the stick” i.e. it is trying to solve the problem by working with the “reflections” of the mirror, rather than working with the mirror itself, ( i.e. sems, rather than rigpa) .
Like trying to cover the world with leather, rather than putting leather on your feet.
If we ’save ourselves” one by one, we have a chance of saving the world.
If we were really experiencing the world as mirror, rather than reflections, it would be empty luminosity, light energy vibrating.
Jim’s brilliant post, is light energy manifesting in his unique way.
I wonder Jim, have you read any of Elias Capriles, translator and student of Namkai Norbu, Trangu R, Dudjom R and Khentse R,, who tries to look at this from a Dzogchen view. I think you would enjoy reading his take on trying to transform humanity from a psychological and sociological viewpoint. He is Also a philosophy scholar and tries to integrate Western and Eastern view.
http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/
Corrections, he was a translator, and student of these great masters.
I didn’t mean to imply he translated for them. I don’t know.
Suzann, he is very involved and concerned with ecology and I don’t know if you have read his works since he is Venezualian. He has published many papers on this subject and others such as Buddhism and Dzogchen, refutes Ken Wilber’s Transformational system, and many other things. :
“Capriles establishes his ontological and epistemological position in the context of a discussion of the definition of “philosophy.” In the second chapter, he develops a degenerative philosophy of history that totally inverts that of Hegel: as stated by several Eastern traditions, including Buddhism and Dzogchen, and Western traditions that include the Stoics, social and spiritual evolution is a process of progressive degeneration. In fact, according to Capriles, rather than being a development of truth and completeness, evolution and history involve the development of delusion and fragmentation, which increase partly as a result of the relations between the two hemispheres of the human brain described by Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979), in a way that he partially explains in terms of the “spiral of pretences” conceived by R. D. Laing (1961) and of the concept of phenomenological negation as implicit in the theory of Bad Faith developed in Sartre (1943/ 1980). This increase leads delusion and fragmentation to give rise to the present ecological crisis, with which they (and all that develops with them) achieve their reductio ad absurdum, so that either the primordial order is re-established and a new golden age, era of truth, or age of perfection begins, or else humankind destroys itself. Capriles also inverts Marx and Engels’ theory of social evolution, noting that the said evolution does neither involve progress nor result from the struggle against destitution: existentially, primitive humans were absolutely rich, and poverty is the result of degenerative evolution”
again the link:
http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/
Dear James Vitale,
Thank you very much for your kind and thoughtful letter, and your encouragement. I will keep it close to my heart.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
I read Jim’s long post and the idea of political center/fringe polarity conceptually being the same as
the development of ego rings true. And it seems that
some of the Marxist ideas, such as “classless society”, are more akin conceptually to the concept of
“enlightened society” than the social Darwinism that
capitalism implies. In reality, the political philosophiesof the 20th century have all failed. World capitalism being the victor in the immense struggles between them, only because it was more nourishing to the free reign of ego and effective in the
centralization of power. Victory isn’t the same as success, and I feel the current economic crisis is
only the prelude to the ultimate failure of the system.
“Logic seems sharp, but it’s really the seed of confusion.”
Intellect is akin to prajna (knowledge), not jnana,
(knowing). (You don’t really define what you mean by
the term “vajra intellect”, Jim). Ordinary people, such
as myself, don’t always understand the actions of
enlightened beings because they don’t always act
in a reasonable manner, yet their actions are accurate for the particular situation. Enlightened
society is the mandala principle, has a center and
fringe, yet is harmonious because at the center
(theoretically) is an enlightened being that knows beyond simple logic, and that wisdom permiates society. An example of politics as mandala was pointed out by the Vidyadhara in one
of the Vajra Assemblies where he discussed the
difference in tone the USA had, virtually overnight,
when Regan took over from Carter. He said his
influence over Boulder (as far as his students were concerned) was the same principle.
The Age of Reason is over…done with…it has failed.
No political system that has been or will be (refining
of Marxism?) conceived of can stop the runaway train that we’re all on. Obama’s victory overnight
lessened people’s despair, but, even though Obama
seems to realize that what USA (and world) needs
is a paradigm overhaul, we are seeing that the momentum against him, pretty much surely, will make that impossible.
Jim, your frustrating soap opera with some factions of the sangha is both regrettable as it is typical. The
fact that respected intellects agree with your theories
must assuage some of your frustration, but these dramas are being played in an obscure corner of an
immense stage where the action is happening so
fast and furious that even science fiction writers
are unable to keep up with the changes.
Wallace Stevens wrote: “A great order is a great disorder.” No one is going to be able to put this Humpty together again. My feeling is that the great chaos/charnel ground that is already manifesting
will be the ground from which the new paradigm
arises.
To me, the world is like a crazy person that doesn’t
know he/she is crazy. In such a case, help is not
accepted or effective. As long as insanity has fuel, it continues. In that case, a breakdown of encased
patterns is necessary to effect change. This is always an extremely painful process. Look at the world and tell me this is not what’s starting to happen.
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your reflections. I’m glad you like the Thanksgiving Address. And your recommendation of the Venezuelan. I think I’d like him.
Re: “I am sure Jim’s long post, (and I read it all) is trying to reflect this when he connects individual ego, subject-object split, the root of the problem, and global capitalism( duality of the center-peripheral split) as projection of the root split . But to work with it externally, is what in a Dzogchen view would say, is the “wrong end of the stick” i.e. it is trying to solve the problem by working with the “reflections” of the mirror, rather than working with the mirror itself, ( i.e. sems, rather than rigpa).”
In the way I teach Deep Ecology (DE), we take an inside-out approach. Remember when you and I were advocating shedding social conditioning? Well, in DE we go to the root of the root of dualistic fixation, to the Ur myth of our civilization, the social conditioning people have been subjected to for the last 8 to 10,000 yrs, which is the belief/assumption that humans are separate from and superior to nature. All the other dualistic fixations, including materialism and capitalism, of course, are based on the separation of humans from the natural world. Out of this separation came the squirrelly belief that humans are the crown of creation and can do as we please to the natural world, with impunity. We think we’re better than the rest of sentient beings and the ‘owners’ of the world. We’re completely preoccupied with ourselves, each other, and what humans create out of the ‘resources’ Nature provides. In DE we call our species’ collective ego inflation ’spieciesism’ or ‘anthropocentrism’ (human centeredness). We are deaf and blind to the natural world, disconnected, autistic. This gigantic blind spot manifests in the corruption of power, cruelty, and imperialism that always leads to the collapse of civilizations. We still think we can outsmart Mother Nature with our technology, but what we are doing is sawing off the branch on the tree of life that we are sitting on. We have overpopulated, depleted and despoiled this beautiful planet and are driving species to extinction at an unprecedented rate, and we still think we have the ‘right’ to do it because ‘we’re better.’ It’s a collective psychosis that could lead to the extinction of our species. Killing off the ecosystems that support human existence is suicidal. So much for perpetuating the dharma!
Anthropocentrism has led to an insatiable hunger to fill the void left by having lost our belonging within the natural order. We have been trying to fill the void with things that humans make – consumerism. But it’s only made us crazier. That is not to say that the very basic dualistic split of ego would not exist if the separation from nature were healed, but ego has much less delusional ground to stand on when we remove species ego or anthropocentrism and leave it (ego) face-to-face with the reality of the natural world, which, ultimately, ego has to answer to. As the Native Americans say, according to Chief Oren Lyons, “We live within the jurisdiction of the Earth. The law of Nature is a spiritual law. If we transgress it, the consequences will be dark and terrible.”
After we dismantle our own anthropocentrism (by relentlessly questioning our own assumptions) and re-introduce ourselves to the ‘more-than-human world,’ we are much humbler, much closer to the ground, the Earth, and to the realization of egolessness and the interdependence of all sentient beings. And that is the paradigm change that DE aims for. It is a mahayanist approach to healing the world. DE is dharmic, at least in the way I see it and teach it.
So then the question I always have is, why don’t Buddhist teachers encourage students to question – or at least look at – the collective ego that supports and validates individual ego?
Btw, I agree with John Tischer: “No one is going to be able to put this Humpty together again. My feeling is that the great chaos/charnel ground that is already manifesting will be the ground from which the new paradigm arises.
“To me, the world is like a crazy person that doesn’t know he/she is crazy. In such a case, help is not accepted or effective. As long as insanity has fuel, it continues. In that case, a breakdown of encased patterns is necessary to effect change. This is always an extremely painful process. Look at the world and tell me this is not what’s starting to happen.”
But if humans are to survive long enough for a new paradigm to emerge, at least some of the survivors need to be ecologically and spiritually literate.
Suzanne D.
Dear Susan:
I resonate totally with what you are saying. It would be irresponsible not to take an ecologically responsible position in the here and now.
I do know that when I have been on retreat, and the subject-object dualism starts to break up, and things begin to be experienced as diaphonous, as light energy within and without, than the world starts to break up as “out there.” We have all had this experience as practitioners on retreat. Things are perfect as they are. We are having a glimpse that this really is the way they are, i.e. “the perfect plenitude of the here and now.”
Imagine if we kept going with this breaking up of me and “out there” wouldn’t that result in compassionate skillful means, the more we are connected, the more we know how to “be in the world.” We are moving toward being the mirror rather than living in its reflections.
What usually happens is, slowly, slowly, distractions grab us again, the world “out there” and “me” in it are struggling again , thinking about the past, and worrying about the future, instead of being in the perfect plenitude of the here and now – we come back to ordinary mind, not as in TGS, but as in sems, and we are in our heads again, disembodied, disconnected, and from that place we try and “help.”
I just ordered a book and have started to read it Called “Animal spirits” about how the markets and global finances are determined by irrational collective forces, written by two economists, who are encouraging going back to Keynesian economics that took this into account before “free market” advocates watered it down over the decades. Anyway, I don’t know where they are going with it, I just started, but at least they are looking at irrational forces of collective group mind again, before the Friedmans and the Greenspans, wizards of “rational market” think ignored these factors.
Fear of the future, lack of confidence, a self-hatred about consumer greed, It was like watching a “weird schizoid Anglo-saxon , reap the benefits of capitalism, meeting, western guilt and a need to be punished for having it so good” mentality about to cause a collective group corrective projection onto the world., I watched this attitude years before the crash, my very neoliberal friends in a panic about the state of the world, Buddhist so-called , who practice very little, and think a whole lot, and I remember thinking this collective group panic is going to cause the “world” view to get very bleak. We are the eyes of the world, and how we see it, is how it is.
I just feel that without a grounding in a lot of practice that keeps one connected to the diaphonous reality of being in the world, we will just be causing ourselves to spin out. We never, and I am talking to myself, give ourselves enough time and space to really connect with the earth by going to that place where the essence of “in here” and “out there” are the same.
That was not what I felt you were advocating, it seems, from your poem, not at all. It resonated as the right direction.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your post. “Animal Spirits” sounds interesting. More and more people are starting to talk about how the collective shadow (”collective irrational forces”) is manifesting in the insanity in the world. Are you familiar with Chris Hedges on TruthDig?
You say, “We have all had this experience as practitioners on retreat. Things are perfect as they are. We are having a glimpse that this really is the way they are, i.e. “the perfect plenitude of the here and now.”
Yes, I certainly have had that experience. But when the natural world is not seen as sacred and alive and healthy, beautiful, responsive – the container for our wholeness and sanity, then we can miss the connection we have with it. We can overlook the fact that we are derived from and dependent upon the “perfect plenitude” of That, and then go out and be ‘free marketeers’ in the global economy, trading in the ‘resources’ of the natural world without the slightest awareness of the destruction our activities create. We all know plenty of ‘Buddhists’ who do this. That blind spot is created by anthropocentrism.
You say, “I remember thinking this collective group panic is going to cause the “world” view to get very bleak. We are the eyes of the world, and how we see it, is how it is.”
I’d turn that around and say that our collective, dominant, mechanistic, reductionistic worldview is making the world very bleak, and people are panicking because ‘the party’s over.’ Subconsciously, we know the party’s over. I think it’s going to be very hard to go on retreat and have that experience of perfect plenitude in the midst of sick and dying ecosystems, and food and energy shortages. I agree that we are the eyes of the world. In fact, we (in DE) say humans are the Earth’s imagination, or that the Earth and Universe are becoming conscious of themselves through humans. When we see ourselves in that way, as not separate, then making the 7-fold offering to the natural world makes perfect sense: prostrating, offering, confessing, rejoicing, requesting to teach, asking to remain, and dedicating the merit to all sentient beings. That’s what we’re supposed to do to keep the world in balance.
You say, “I just feel that without a grounding in a lot of practice that keeps one connected to the diaphonous reality of being in the world, we will just be causing ourselves to spin out. We never, and I am talking to myself, give ourselves enough time and space to really connect with the earth by going to that place where the essence of “in here” and “out there” are the same.”
I agree: we need to give ourselves time and space to really connect with the Earth. 20 years ago I did a wilderness solo (vision quest) with John Milton (you may know him) in north Crestone. I was up on the cliffs for 6 days and nights. It was a profoundly moving experience, different from all the other solitary cabin retreats I’d done because it brought the felt experience and conviction that “the essence of “in here” and “out there” are the same.” I wrote a story about it, published in the book Dharma Gaia, and called it “Creating Space for Nature.” (I wrote it under the name Suzanne Head, my old name.) That book is probably on some bookshelf in the Baca.
Thanks for the dialogue, Chris.
Suzanne D.
Dearly Beloveds Suzanne Duarte and John Tischer,
Sorry I popped my cork above, and hats off to the patience of the couple people–including you two–who took the time to read it. I typed it non-stop for hours. One lid too many–or, mishearing maybe? I’m reminded of what the Vidyadhara said in one of those Four Foundations Of Mindfulness talks: concept actually effects our ability to hear.
Germane to this, here’s a little back and forth circa summer 1972 I had with the Vidyadhara. It might be one of the most clear reflections on the distinction between prajna and jnana in the whole body of his work, so it seems worth foregrounding it in the context of these discussions. I was describing my experience at Merton’s monastery in Kentucky before I had even met him, but I had read Meditation In Action very carefully 6-7 times and was basically sold on the part where he says that, even if you are a violent person, that’s OK, this is workable. That was the clincher. Never a big joiner of anything, I was ready to sign on the dotted line right on the spot with that one.
In my study there–determined to get to the bottom of an array of social problems–I had discovered what was called “duality”–news to me at the time, circa 1970-71. Then I got Garuda 1 in the mail, and probably thumbed right to this:
“Thus, prajna completely cuts through any kind of awareness which has the slightest inclination toward separating ‘that’ and ‘this.’ That is the reason the sword blade is two-edged. It doesn’t just cut ‘this’ direction, but ‘that’ one as well.”
What I had discovered was this, going out in concentric rings: soul dominates body, men dominate women, “civilized” people dominate “primitive” people, and humans dominate nature, and so on. And the primary structuring device of Western civilization–how “higher” and “lower” were produced–were via the dependently originated concepts “natural” and “supernatural,” and their subsequent separation and hierarchization.
Interestingly, in retrospect, there you have two of the three aspects in the first stanza of “Lightning Of Blessings” it seems to me–Dependent Truth, and False Concepts–and how they actually develop. It is out of Perfection that these concepts dependently arise, are then wrenched apart, then re-arranged into one of two primary hierarchical orders in the West: Idealism (psyche determines society) and Materialism (society determines psyche). They are the False Concepts. I guess you could say, pejoratively speaking, they are also Ideologies.
That process of wrenching apart dependently arising concepts, then re-arranging them into one of those two basic hierarchical orders–not only claiming that one of the concepts has more value, but that it also came earlier in time–which basically switches this developmental process from one of simultaneity to one of sequentiality–: it’s precisely what Derrida meant by “logocentrism.” Then these two Ideologies slug it out to see which one is going to “rule the world,” become hegemonic. Basically, Idealism and Materialism have developed into the two main branches of Rudrahood.
So, anyway, back to the ranch, two things: discovery of duality, and the arrival of the weapon to cut through it, prajna. I put it to work on the spot, and basically fell out through the bottom of the Judeo-Christian universe, a combination of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” and an ant falling through boundless centerless space, and basically landing in the Vidyadhara’s lap.
Here’s the back and forth–again, summer of 1972, Tail of the Tiger:
“Student: Rinpoche, would it be possible to view the totality of the situation as a field with a football game on it? There’s this and that–like a game between God and the Devil, nirvana and samsara–and the panoramic view is sort of a pointless point of view from the ground position. It sort of shoots God and the Devil out of the saddle at the same time. Is that possible?
Rinpoche: That’s right; that’s a good one.
Student: Is that prajna?
Rinpoche: No, that’s jnana. Prajna is still a watcher; prajna would be like a panoramic television camera approaching from the point of view of space, whereas jnana is from the point of view of the ground itself. (Chogyam Trungpa, Mandala Sourcebook, p. 61.)”
* * * * * * *
Here’s a very short little “essay” I wrote (only a page and a half) done very fast, then forgotten about, sometime in 2005, at the request of a small poetry press in Washington state that was going to use it in their internet magazine, but when I wanted to make a few changes, the editor simply evaporated on me–yet another mirage! It seems to embody more simply and directly what I rambled on and on about for 20 pages in response to my Beloved Suzanne’s comments about what she perceived I was up to.
And again, my engagement with Marx is inspired by Merton, that three-way schema in his Bangkok Talk linking Christianity, Buddhism, and Marxism (where I first heard of the Vidyadhara) and is of relatively recent vintage.
The original title of the mini-essay was “The Danger of Dismissiveness.” But I think I like “Myopia Redux” better at this point. And you all know who Allen Ginsberg is. Barrett Watten is the key figure in the so-called “Language Poetry” movement. A science and math whizz from MIT, I used to think of him as the “Fastest Brains in the West.” I once gave him a copy of the Vidyadhara’s Glimpses Of Abhidharma. Within a couple days, he returned it to me with a one word comment: “Pathetic.” Part of his problem with Buddhism is that his cousin is one of those slurpy Dalai Lama devotees. Also, he’s a not-so-armchair follower of Trotsky, and a couple years ago won a major literary award for his critical book, The Constructivist Moment.
Again, this is in the context of the poetry world, my natural habitat. (And by the way, John, that first poem I heard you read on KGNU late one night several weeks ago was terrific–keep going in that vein. More of an edge; more surreal and imagistic than Ginsbergian talky. Fish out Knott’s Plaza De Loco off the internet if you can find it–if you haven’t already.)
Also, I should say something about the use of the Marxian base and superstructure model. Classically, that meant the base was the economy, and it determined the nature of the various elements of the superstructure. That is, sometimes by conscious design, sometimes by unconscious design, the elements of the superstructure (politics, philosophy, law, religion, etc.) functioned to maintain in existence and reproduce the economy, and so were essentially “ideological” in nature, pejoratively speaking. Somewhat akin to Derrida seeing “logocentrism” as the basis of all academic disciplines, and calling out for its “deconstruction,” I see “dualistic fixation” as virtually the basis of everything, from individual heads to the global political economic system, and every institution in between, and that calling out for the application of prajna–”cutting through.”
And as with the perception of “duality” and the application of prajna (or jnana?) noted above, the road I see to “enlightened society” is based on that–on my experience–: cutting through “dualistic fixation” via the Sword of Manjushri at every point and at every level and at every step along the way–along the chain from macro to micro, micro to macro–and encouraging others to do the same.
That suggests a particular kind of Action (application of prajna-jnana) based upon a particular kind of View (the perception of the ubiquitousness on “dualistic fixation” or “center-periphery polarization”). Based on my experience, I don’t see sucking people into a boundaried sphere as the way to go. I just don’t. And who was more more decent and who was more destructive: Jimmy Carter in his cardigan sweater, or Ronald Reagan in his suit and tie?
MYOPIA REDUX
There is an unspoken about/unwritten about irony in the poetry scene of the last 50 years that is of crucial importance to pinpoint and clarify as we lurch headlong into a new century that promises already to be bloodier than the last. I’m afraid we “haven’t seen anything yet.” That irony is the dismissiveness of Marxism by Buddhists, and the dismissiveness of Buddhism by Marxists. An exemplar of the former might be Allen Ginsberg; an exemplar of the latter might be Barrett Watten.
In order to provide a frame for an articulation of that irony, we might look at Watten’s excellent critical commentary on the obituary of Jacques Derrida that appeared in the NYT. In it, he speaks of perhaps the “most damning aspect for conservatives” of Derrida’s work to be the “dismantling of the opposition between philosophy and literature, the disciplinarily maintained boundaries between truth and fiction.” And he points to Glas as exemplary of Derrida’s approach, where texts of Hegel and Jean Genet are juxtaposed, side by side, in separate columns, and “supplemented” by Derrida’s commentary, in a third column.
As Watten precisely puts it, “Philosophy would bleed into literature, and vice-versa–both coming together in the running commentary that is Derrida’s performance at their intersection. The boundaries of either text are thereby contaminated; the aura of transgressive excess translates into supplementarity of comment; and there is no final determination of meaning, truth, or value.” Watten makes clear, however: he is not a Derridean.
So, that being the frame, what does it have to do with the rather bitter “family feud” within the modernist/postmodernist poetry community yesterday and today between those of a generally Marxist persuasion, and those of a generally Buddhist persuasion?
In the simplest sense, it has to do with what are regarded by practitioners of Marxism and practitioners of Buddhism to be the primary marks of their respective traditions–respective disciplines. For a Marxist like Samir Amin, the primary mark of capitalism is “center-periphery polarization.” For a Buddhist like Chogyam Trungpa, the primary mark of egoism is “center-periphery polarization.” Obviously, the boundary calling out for “transgression” or “contamination” within this frame is that between psychology and political economy. And there is also the question of value attached to Idealism and Materialism embedded here–the question of determination not only in the “last instance,” but the first.
In a nutshell, “egoism” and “capitalism” are two words for one and the same seamless psycho-social totality. Moreover, likewise, the weighty investments in “social being determines consciousness” or “consciousness determines social being” are blown away in the wind like Fred Dobbs’ bags of gold dust in Treasure Of The Sierra Madre. “Egoism” and “capitalism,” “psychology” and “political economy” are not in a sequential relationship–one primary, the other secondary–as adherents of Idealism and Materialism tend to believe (it is a kind of religion with them) but in a simultaneous relationship, if we can refer to this moment as a “relationship” in any but the most contingent sense.
That is, so-called “egoism” and so-called “capitalism,” so-called “psychology” and so-called “political economy” co-constitute and co-determine “each other,” so to speak–in actuality.
Following Walter Benjamin, if we move from concept to image in order to zero in on–get a clearer picture of–the site (”intersection”) where this irony produces and reproduces itself, apparently endlessly (it is an “habitual tendency”), the site where “inside” and “outside” bleed into “each other” (so to speak), we might borrow a metaphor Chogyam Trungpa deployed to describe the “birth of duality” (i.e. center-periphery polarization) in the “Development of Ego” chapter of his book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.
There he paints the picture of a vast desert, a simple desert “beyond all distinction”–clearly Meister Eckhart’s desert–wherein a single–singular–sandgrain, for some unknown reason–a sort of “chemical reaction”–sticks its neck up in that desert and comes to the conclusion of its separateness from all that “out there.”
Can we say what motivated the action of that sandgrain? Who instigated the whole “dualistically fixated” game? In any event, the more important point is, if we look closely, we can see he/she/it has on a little red t-shirt. On the front it’s got “Maximize Profit, Minimize Loss.” On the back, “Accumulate or Die.” To put it another way, center-periphery polarization is the base. Everything else in the humanly fabricated sphere–especially “disciplines”–is superstructure.
* * * * * * *
(What follows is the first page of a little essay I’ve been working on that I was going to send to Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche following up on our back and forth at the time of his seminar of Rangjung Dorje’s “Mahamudra Aspiration.” It is preceded by three epigrams by the Vidyadhara, one I’ve already quoted on the RFS site twice.)
NOTES TOWARD A BUDDHIST THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT
“There are many people that are more learned than I am, more elevated in their wisdom. However, I have never made a difference between the spiritual and temporal. If I understand the ultimate aspect of dharma, there is the ultimate aspect of temporal. And if I maintain the ultimate aspect of the temporal, this must be in harmony with the dharma. I alone am the one who presents the tradition of thinking this way.” (Chogyam Trungpa, Diary, 1967)
“In other words, the whole game of samsaric mandala is the most gigantic syndicate of hypocrisy that you could think of in the whole world. It’s thought out its scheme and everything spontaneously, according to ape instinct, but it happens to be on an extraordinary large scale. We could run the whole world, and not only this globe but the whole universe, out of this scheme. Such a scheme is outrageous, so much so that it is inspiring. It is inspiring that so limited a mind could extend itself into limitlessness, which is absurd—but still it does happen. And of course it could also give birth to a nirvanic aspect of mandala as well. Due to this watcher and due to this particular hypocrisy or deception, other alternatives begin to create themselves.” (Chogyam Trungpa, Mandala Sourcebook, Vajradhatu Publications 1978, p. 33)
The Great Eastern Sun approach is TGS gone politics, whereas ordinary TGS is religious. (Chogyam Trungpa, “Great Eastern Sun” Vajra Assembly, Vajradhatau Publications 1976, p. 11)
Introduction
Picture Rangjung Dorje practicing in the snow mountains of Tibet. As the fruition of his study and practice, he is composing “Mahamudra Aspiration”–not only for his students, but for us as well: students of the “future dark age.”
“Clinging to good experiences is spontaneously liberated.
The confusion of negative thoughts is naturally purified in space.
Ordinary mind, free from accepting and rejecting, loss and gain–
May we realize the truth of dharmata, simplicity.”
What we need to see clearly, now, in this darkening “dark age” of the world we currently inhabit–that we created, and continue to reproduce–is that this global system developed in the West as a direct result of an overwhelming preoccupation–a virtual maniacal obsession–with “gain and loss.”
* * *
Here is the Vdiyadfhara Chogyam Trungpa resonating with that teaching of Rangjung Dorje several centuries later and extending its logic into our world:
“The next and last, but not least paramita, as they say, is prajna. Pra means “highest.” Jna means “knowledge.” So prajna means “the highest knowledge.” In Tibetan prajna is known as sherap (shes. rab). She means “knowing.” Rap means “the best.” So sherap means “the best knowledge.” Sherap is a very important part of the bodhisattva path of paramitas. This best knowledge, or sherap, is sometimes described as discriminating awareness, which has nothing to do with discriminating between black and white, or good and bad. Sherap is discriminating between that and this. That is the target of passion, aggression, and ignorance; this is ourselves who are still trying to fight that world. There is still, obviously, some kind of warfare going on: you want to gain, and you want the others to lose. Sherap is discriminating awareness that cuts through that warfare.”
It doesn’t matter whether his intention in this teaching was to pinpoint the essential logic that drove the human mind over millenia in the West—unfettered by the cutting through power of Mahamudra and Dzogchen teachings—the activity of the Sword of Manjushri or the Rigden’s crystal sword—to produce, manufacture, fabricate—virtually secrete—the global system that we call today “capitalism” or the “capitalist world-economy.” But that is precisely what this teaching does. As though under an extremely powerful microscope (prajna) we can see in exacting detail the micro-level seed and should be able to realize, without too much effort or any particular expertise in the fields of “politics” or “economics,” its macro-level fruit.
* * * * * * *
Good Night, my Lovelies, Suzanne and John, that’s enough bedtime stories for tonight.
Jim
Umm, you guys, can you please keep the comments on topic, directly relevant to Bernie’s post?
And, please keep the comments short. Sorry, this is not a medium for your essays: the comments are for discussion and communication, but remember that they are being shared among a large group (go to email or IM or another channel for private talk).
Also, language can get intoxicated, take over the space, and strike people in ways you may not have intended.
This space is itself a practice, a big hall we’re all in, is it not?
Susan :
I will look for your book. It’s probably in the Baca Library I bet. I have printed out your thanksgiving offering. I really really loved it.
Yes I see John Milton often at Dzogchen teacher retreats here and at the Post office..
Thanks again.
Dear Mark, thank you for the reminder. Quite right. Apologies for getting carried away and/or instigating others to get carried away.
Humble bow,
Suzanne D.
I sent the following email to Acharya Eric Spiegel:
Dear Eric,
I have been hearing things about a “credentialing” of teachers. One version I’ve heard is that this is about the teachers’ academy and the teaching of new Shambhala materials. Another version, the one that concerns me, is that all teachers will have to be certified in some way.
Do you know the facts here? Can you enlighten me?
Love,
Bernie
Acharya Spiegel responded as follows: (I post this with his permission.)
Although this is completely unofficial, and I am not actually involved in the Teacher Academies, this is basically what I think is happening, in terms of what are the hoped for outcomes of the teachers academies.
As you know, there is a new curriculum coming, so there is need to train people for that. The Sakyong has personally designed much of this syllabus so he obviously cares about how it is presented. Separately but related, for many years the meditation instruction given by the Sakyong in “Turning the Mind…” and by the Acharyas is not necessarily what everyone gives so there continues to be little that a student coming into Shambhala could rely on as “what we teach” (in NY we have done a much better job of standardizing the instruction than what I see in many places). I’m sure that many people will disagree with me about what is best, but personally feel that when someone comes into Shambhala we should have a clear sense of how they are introduced and what the stages of training are, and the lineage holder is the person who determines that.
As to development of teachers, I believe there are a few separate things happening or trying to be accomplished.
One is to train new teachers; another is to get older teachers to think in new ways — understanding and having some flexibility and ability to cross pollinate in Shambhala and traditional 3 yana language; and a third is to make older teachers who have become sloppy either get better or step aside. Every center is different. In NY we have a large number of senior teachers but many places have very few teachers available, so what the meaning of a Teachers Academy is will vary from place to place.
The first part is that there is a new curriculum which reflects the Sakyong’s style of making the dharma very accessible so that even the higher concepts of karma, drala, or drigpa are presented early on but in an outer way. Later on… well, he is Mipham so he always has in mind that people who want to could go very deeply into the material.
People who want to teach this material will have to learn how to speak in this Shambhala/Buddhist language and to understand the relationship between the three Courts of Drala principle and the three Kayas and where they are the same and where they are energetically different.
There is also another level being discussed, which I believe will come out of the teacher academies this summer, called “Shastris” who will be leaders and holders of the forms, but not Acharyas, and they will be more connected as mentors to each center whereas most of the Acharyas are not connected to centers unless the center makes an arrangement. I think the Shastris, by nature, will have to be people who are older students, so they know how to do feasts, etc, meaning in most cases students of the Vidyadhara who are also students of the Sakyong.
As far as I know, people who teach generally will not need to be certified unless they want to teach the new curriculum. In NY we offer so many courses, so there is lots of room for people to teach outside of the curriculum — Derek’s courses on emptiness, as an example. Plus the second year of study so far remains unchanged. Smaller centers have less program offerings, so there may be less teaching spots but there are also fewer teachers. At the same time, I think there is a general desire to hold teachers accountable for their teaching, so people who have always taught and are known to be not great teachers will probably have to get better — and there are some of those.
Lastly, as with everything I have seen within Shambhala, there is a model and then there are as many exceptions as there are people. No one is going to tell a senior teacher who is well respected that they can’t teach, but perhaps if they want to teach in the Sakyong’s mandala (i.e., the syllabus) they would be happy to learn what it is and do a little extra work. So (from my point of view) the only people who should be nervous are people who are very lazy about what they teach and how they teach it.
Eric
I hope this adds some clarity to the view held of the SI situation.
My interpretation is that senior students are welcome to teach within the mandala. Forgive me for combing my hair (repeating myself) Let’s teach The Genuine Chögyam Trungpa.
Yours in the dharma,
Bernie
I wonder how people feel about the Green Party, and whether they’re aware that Ryan Watson was recently elected as the leader of Nova Scotia’s chapter. Ryan is a sangha child. I’m sorry, I didn’t have the time to read everyone’s long posts, but I just want to make the point that a number of young people are engaged in the fields of sustainability, development, and progressive rights discourse (among others). Most of the socially irresponsible mentalities among Buddhists that I have encountered, have largely come from the baby boom generation. I find that ironic.
http://www.ryanwatson.ca/
Bernie –
My interpretation is that senior students *who have been retrained* are welcome to teach within the mandala. No sloppy teachers, which means re-testing and being vetted. You are either “better” or step aside.
To me all this makes sense. I just wonder how the next generation will feel when SMR’s successor changes everything again, and his or her students force the elders to shape up according to the new regime, not SMR’s, or ship out.
Ashoka – Just FYI – I was one who voted Green. But just once and only that once. Then I realized every party is Green. I do not want to support an ideology but an effective person or group.
I think you have to read between the lines on this one (Eric’s letter) to see what’s going on here. While a lot of it makes great sense, there seems to be a subtle, underlying bias: …”another is to get older teachers to think in new ways”….might have been euphemistically more swallowable if Eric had used the word “understand” instead of “think”. That might be nit picky, but I’ve seen
at least one approved and touted Shambhala teacher that I walked out on
because what he was saying was so far from the heart of the teachings. I think Eric’s letter was filled with eloquence and reasonability….mixed with a little bit of something else. Also, isn’t this the firs time an official of Shambhala has addressed this forum, albeit indirectly?
“No one is going to tell a senior teacher who is well respected that they can’t teach”
I want to draw attention to this extract from Eric’s letter. I think it is the practical and realistic portrait of the situation. Those who have other problems with his syntax and expression have my sympathy — he is, after all, trying to be informative and genuine .
“No one is going to tell a senior teacher who is well respected that they can’t teach”
I want to draw attention to this extract from Eric’s letter. I think it is the practical and realistic portrait of the situation. Those who have other problems with his syntax and expression have my sympathy — he is, after all, trying to be informative and genuine .
I could write a paper on that letter, but I only tried to shine on one detail.
It’s definitely my subjective P.O.V.. Our group mind is a diamond with many facets.
“Our group mind is a diamond with many facets” – very much like that of our guru!
Mark wrote:
“Umm, you guys, can you please keep the comments on topic, directly relevant to Bernie’s post?
And, please keep the comments short. Sorry, this is not a medium for your essays: the comments are for discussion and communication, but remember that they are being shared among a large group (go to email or IM or another channel for private talk).”
Mark– I understand your request (and it’s nice to see how quickly people complied), but it raises some interesting questions for me. As one who has been fascinated by the discussions here, many of which are not directly related to the original post, is there a way that we can make it easier to spawn off new discussions? I’d love to read (and contribute) further on discussions of the practice issues raised by Barbara Blouin, the Dharmagaia of Suzanne Duarte, the Derridean ruminations of Jim Hartz, etc, but don’t know the appropriate place.
Michael, this site hosts weblogs, and comments associated with those. It’s not a threaded discussion forum. The best way to spawn new discussions is to write an article and submit it. We have some minimum standards (described under the About menu at top), and the articles should be relevant to what the site is about, but I would like to encourage more articles.
Weblog posts/articles do not need to be long, although as you probably know it’s harder to write a good short article than a long one. Also, I like to think of the articles and comments as being inside a gradually emerging container – a space – for enlightened society, which means us and others. The words bracket the space. Maybe this could be a kind of online Crestone
(which means we also need to experiment further with how to practice together). Eg, next Sadhana of Mahamudra (April 9 is the next new moon).
Cheers,
Mark
Thanks for the speedy response, Mark. Since there seems to be a manual editorial intervention before the posting of new articles (which I agree is a good idea), perhaps it might be an expedient practice to take well-reasoned, interesting comments that have strayed from the original topic and use them as new articles (with the permission of the authors). For whatever reason, there seems to a plethora of good comments on interesting topics, and yet folks seem hesitant to submit these as articles.
Having read some posts on this site by Jim Hartz, here are my thoughts in response to some of his assertions.
First is his comment that I am one of a group of “Vajra Zionists’ who according to Mr. Hartz “went ape-shit, began hammering Janet Solyntjes”, and who also have been described by him as those who ”stab others in the back” and who are “major bellyacher(s)”. In the spirit of full disclosure, I will therefore enclose here the full verbatim text of my original email to Janet Solyntes, Director of The Boulder Shambhala Center at the time, about the situation referred to by Jim Hartz. All further communications I have had with her were in simple accord with the view I expressed to her on August 6, 2008, as reprinted below. She and I spoke by email and once in person, but we never spoke by phone regarding this subject.
The background is that at the beginning of August, 2008 the Boulder Shambhala Center was publicizing a speech on the politics of the Middle East that was scheduled to occur at the center to be given by David Barsamian. He is a well known politcal commentator through his books and radio appearances and is not a member of, or directly involved in the Shambaha Center or sangha.
<>
I enclose those comments not to convince anyone reading them that they should agree with me, but so that the readers of this site can understand the basis upon which Mr. Hartz has labeled me and others as “Vajra Zionist’ with the other choice descriptions he attached to that, as quoted above.
Having been a student of the Vidyadara CTR since 1970 I am part of the sangha of his students. I have read this site because I feel disconnected to the current Shambhala organization, but at the same time very connected to the Buddhadharma, and deeply grateful to some extraordinary Tibetan Buddhist teachers I have had the good fortune to learn from. Therefore I feel it is important to also acknowledge a second element of Jim Hartz’ posts to RFS. That is his comments about Tibetan teachers. His words follow:
“But look around at all these Tibetan teachers: look at them, all of them riding these variously decked out “happiness” hobby-horses–there’s the banner of Elmer Fudd riding a pink dragon, Daffy Duck dancing cheek-to-cheek with the CEO of Goldman-Sachs, on an on. Talk about a marketing ploy, THE Tibetan “brand”: “HAPPINESS”
And,
“The Sakyong was spending the day (and putting out alot of energy) giving audiences with the different levels of Boulder students. As a Level I group, we got accommodated in with the “Shamatha” students. His comments were in the context of “peace,” “happiness,” “harmony” to which we have become accustomed–it seems ALL the Tibetan teachers are now presenting things the same way” (The capitalization for emphasis about all Tibetan teachers is Hartz’ own)
And finally,
“following “Thumper” Thurman’s INNER REVOLUTION and the Dalai Lama’s approach–I can foresee “enlightened society” as this: a bunch of enlightened cherries adorning an essentially turd political economic cake.”
So, we’ve received Mr. Hartz’ views on the ‘back stabbing, belly-achers” “Vajra Zionists” who went “ape-shit” and “hammer” on people. We have also received his views on “ALL the Tibetan teachers”. Then too we have received his put down of a fellow sangha person, Cynthia Kneen.
Mr. Hartz also has had a lot to say in his posts regarding capitalism and the ideas of Lenin and Marx. To add to the discussion on the ability of different economic models to benefit poor people of the world I’d like to mention the work and writing of Paul Polak. Mr. Polak is someone who has actually done something significant to help millions of poor people throughout the world, and his theories are grounded in his extraordinary work. I know two Shambhala sangha people who work with him and he has published an amazing book called Out Of Poverty that is available. He founded a non profit organization called International Development Enterprises (IDE) that is described on its website:
<>
Mr. Polak describes how the market-based approach has worked to empower millions of poor people and also how when communal ownership of the tools has been tried it has failed miserably. He also describes how the UN, The World Bank and most governments have tried to work with big business multinational corporations and have largely been unable to successfully deal with the problem of poverty.
I think that the capitalist system often allows those who have privilege and power to express their egos through the political/economic system, and that has caused widespread problems of inequity. Mr. Hartz may have some useful things to say about that. Some readers of this site seem to think so, having expressed their appreciation to him for his posts on this site. I think it is worth noting the various attacks he has made on this site.
Jeffrey Cohn
Some of the quotes I enclosed in my post were dropped by the RFS system.
My August 6, 2008 letter to Janet Solyntes was as follows.
Dear Janet,
I want to voice my disappointment and complete disagreement with the principle of the Shambhala Center hosting people to give speeches on their political views. I think that certainly a group of sangha people is free to get together to discuss politics, but that is totally different than the center providing the venue for anyone to “give talks”, or speeches on their political views. Although probably not part of the conventional two party Amercian system, David Barsamian is well known for speaking out on his strongly held political views. Although I don’t share most of his views, that is not actually the point of this letter. Rather my point is that some sangha members may share a particular set of political views and others are likely to not share those views. By hosting a political speaker, and publicizing that occaison, the Center is creating the impression that it endorses the views of that speaker, and since there is no group consensus on political matters I believe that by hosting a politically oriented speech the Center is creating divisiveness within the Sangha. That strikes me as an especially bad idea. I don’t believe that trying to balance one speaker with another would work either, because various speakers may agreea on certain issues and disagree on others, so to try to create some sort of balanced forum is not workable.
I request that the August 12 speech by David Barsamian be canceled and that the subject I am raising be given careful consideration before the Center hosts any other political speeches.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Cohn
The dropped quote on the mission of the non profit organization founded by Paul Polak is:
“IDE is a unique international non-profit organization that has been helping poor farmers in developing countries escape poverty for more than 25 years. IDE has pioneered a market based approach that has enabled millions to permanently escape poverty. IDE uses business principles to facilitate unsubsidized market systems in which the rural poor can participate effectively as micro entrepreneurs and earn income. In this way, our programs create an environment hat helps small farmers progress from subsistence agriculture to commercial farming, beginning an upward spiral out of chronic deprevation and vulnerability.” “In our programs worldwide, IDE helps create market conditions that enable the rural poor to become successful market participants. Concepts and practices usually associated with private business are applied to the problem of poverty.”
This, I expect, will be my final comment in this series. Below is my transcription of a letter from VCTR to tantrikas in 1975. I feel that it offers a format, a ground, path, fruition, outline, within which senior students might offer “The Genuine Chögyam Trungpa” talks in the Shambhala sangha.
August 29, 1975
My dear tantrikas,
Many of you seem to be neglecting the basic shamatha-vipashyana practice. Some, having given up nyinthuns in order to do prostrations, seem to have ended up accomplishing neither. Others of you may regard sitting as a hinayana practice you have transcended. Thereby you fail to appreciate the cutting simplicity which has reared you from the early days to this point.
I think the power of our particular approach to tantra speaks for itself. Many Tibetan teachers give American students mantras, sadhanas, seemingly tantric things. These are usually received, or presented, from a purely external viewpoint, such as one would present to the local peasantry or the average monk. However, as for myself, I regard each of you as possible siddhas, potentially capable of identifying with the highest teachings. I am proud that in the early days we introduced only samatha-vipashyana, emphasizing basic acquaintance with your minds. By leveling your trips and not cheating you of the raw experience of yourselves, we have prepared enormous ground to introduce vajrayana teaching completely, undiluted. Nonetheless, it seems that many of you have forgotten our beginnings, and now feel that you can dispense with the formless practice.
This neglect is uncompassionate to yourselves, as it erodes the foundations for your tantric understanding, and deprives you of an opportunity to restore your psychological balance. I should remind you that the power of what we’re doing and its danger go hand in hand. Your neglect of sitting practice also ignores your obligation to relate with other practitioners of the community. Therefore I have decided to require of you, along with your ngondro practice, to sit one nyinthun day monthly. You may do your nyinthun practice in sections, so you can devote the remainder of the day to the ngondro. For instance, you might sit all morning one weekend, and all morning or afternoon the second weekend, and so on. I will be looking forward to scanning the records of your zafu time.
Yours in vajra love,
Chögyam Trungpa
- Update on Vajradhatu tradition retreat -
I have been going along, step by step, to get some particulars organized for a group retreat to study Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings and to practice as a group in the Vajradhatu style. The retreat is being planned to go about ten days this coming July or August. It would have something of the schedule of a Vajradhatu seminary with sitting practice in the morning, study and discussion in the afternoon and watching a video of the Vidyadhara in the evening. We would also practice Vajrayogini, Werma and Sadhana of Mahamudra according to the liturgical calendar and according to the levels of transmission of the participants.
Yesterday, I visited an acquaintance, now a friend, who has a Bed and Breakfast a few blocks away from my home in Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia. In addition to being well appointed as a B&B, the innkeeper has a very lovely and bright studio space right behind the house. This would make an excellent shrine room space for practicing together. Phyllis, the innkeeper, is very helpful and does everything she can to make things go well for her guests. The name of the B&B is Three Thistles. You can follow the link to see the facility, including the shrine room space at http://www.three-thistles.com
The house itself is also very good with a few guest rooms, a sitting room for discussion group and a semi-formal dining room. Also, I will make a pitch to say the village of Mahone Bay is very pretty and pleasant in the summer.
The times that seem suitable and are available at Three Thistles would be any 8 to 10 day period beginning with the weekends of July 18 or 25 and August 1 to 8, 2009. The space at Three Thistles can be an anchor point for the retreat and there are other connections that are available for nearby housing with sangha members and also a youth hostel. So, at the present time, accommodation and facility considerations are quite workable. I expect the cost of the retreat to be in the range of $60 to $90 per day Canadian (i.e. $45 to $75 US), all inclusive. Some of this would depend on how many people want to come and what type of room an individual (or couple) would like. Please contact me at charlesmarrow@yahoo.ca if you need further information or can make a commitment to come to Nova Scotia for this gathering.
Some of us feel a longing to have a sangha environment that connects more directly to the style of Trungpa Rinpoche. It is possible this effort to further the Vidyadhara’s teaching of the dharma in the Vajradhatu tradition could be very helpful to ourselves and others and that we could create an uplifted and inspiring sangha practice and study environment. This would be very beneficial.
Dear All
Just a few thoughts on the discussion on politics brought on by
Mr Weitzman’s post. Really talking about the exercise of power here I think which also contains that tricky subject of relationships.
I believe even in the therapeutic relationship you are allowing a person into your space so that you may grow as a person. In the context of politics I feel that there has to be some way that political issues can be discussed within centres. I am basing this on the way the Vidyadhara had political discussions with the Kasung about the freeing of the hostages in Iran reported by Jim Gimian on the Chronicle Project.
As time goes on people outside the sangha will ask what is the Buddhist/Shambhala viewpoint on this situation……..are we to say nothing about what is happening in the world? Certainly the Church of England has politcal viewpoints on what is happening in the world. Indeed the present Archbishop of Canterbury has stated in the press that the present economic collapse in the world is everyones responsibility because many have been greedy and acquistive.
This exercise of power also relates to the way the teachings have been changed in SI, for example, when the Vidyadhara brought in the Shambhala teachings he allowed his students the latitude as to the way the teachings were to be given by people. Would be interesting to know if the Sakyong has followed a similar path in working out the present changes………just dont know how the changes fundamentally came about. Did he discuss the changes with close advisors – I just dont know.
I think in all political processes you have to allow for the process of consultation with your peers and with a country your subjects/citizens – certainly this is the way the British government operates – it consults with many organisations, and people before laws are changed or brought onto the legislature.
I hope I have been brief enough!
Best
Rita Ashworth
I think this is exactly why Shambhala and Buddhism was separated and should remain separated.
This is why merging it has made things so muddled and mixed up.
There is no accident to CTRstarting out in “Mudra”, ( his first book of verse and poems, infused with Dzogchen teachings), with Patrul Rinpoche’s poem,
“Politics and religious activities are only for gentlemen,
That’s not for you my dear boy…”
Namkai Norbu Rinpoche was adamant that politics should not be mixed with the Buddhadharma, particularly Dzogchen.
Why? Because if you are taking a bias, in anyway, then there is no chance to break through or cut through dualistic mind. Caught up in this and that, what chance is there to experience and stabilize nondual awareness?
From the time the Sakyong merged Shambhala and Buddhism, it opened the floodgates to such activities as political discussions at dharma centers, new age programs, “psychology as the path to liberation” and other such ordinary activities, that might be interesting, or entertaining, or make samsara temporarily a little bettter, but has nothing to do with liberation. Within a container of Shambhala that might be fine, perhaps that container can hold it all, but to mix up the Buddhadharma with politics could only lead, slowly, slowly, to the complete corruption of the 2000 year old buddhadharma.
Once Trangu Rinpoche told us a story at a “Union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen” retreat here, about how he was standing in the direction of Tibet and praying for Tibetan people’s well-being, and he realized his mistaken view almost immediately; it dawned on him that he should be taking no bias whatsoever, when praying for the welfare of all sentient beings, not singling out one group for special protection. Accepting and rejecting.
Aspiring to “being without bias” is not possible when you are engaging in politics. And being without bias is the direction we are aiming for in our practice. I know that we all slip, but if we let the buddhadharma be influenced by out confusion, instead of it being our guide and protector, what chance do we have?
From Intro to Sadhana of Mahamudra:
“On the whole, no one acts according to the highest code of discipline, meditation and wisdom. The jewelike teaching of insight is fading day by day. The Buddha’s teaching is used merely for political purposes and to draw people together socially. As a result, the blessings of spiritual energy are being lost. Even those with great devotion are beginning to lose heart. If the buddhas of three times and the great teachers were to comment, they would surely express there disappointment.”
Do we really think that CTR was just kidding? Or that these were provisional teachings, instead of essential buddhadharma , to be dropped on a whim when we get distracted?
To me, the greatest mistake that was made, and which opened up the floodgates to all the confusion regarding what to accept and reject as to the buddhadharma, was this merging of Shambhala and Buddhism. It was after that , that everything became confused.
Dear Chris,
enjoyed your post….
“Do we really think that CTR was just kidding? Or that these were provisional teachings, instead of essential buddhadharma , to be dropped on a whim when we get distracted?”
Exactly what I wanted to ask here.
In the Sadhana VCTR also wrote; “This is the time of hell on earth.”
Think that’s just a metaphor? Humans are notorious for being able to get used to almost any situation.
Chris — Looks like you, Ron B, and I completely agree on this point!
It was because of this mash-up that the Bhutan/Kargyu and Shambhala/Shambhala problems arose in the first place. Many SI members act devotionally (eg spiritually) toward one of the worst (human rights wise) governments in the world, confusing them for good folks (and promoting their agendas) because of their Kargyu associations.
I was the first Shambhala Training regional director to create ST offices that were separate from the Dharmadhatu offices. I guess I’m pretty fixed. I hope I can adapt. Change my attitude and relax as it is.
“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
–Charles Darwin
Saying that the Bhutanese government is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world seems to be an exaggeration. That’s not a view I’ve ever once heard expressed, and I work in the field.
They are extremely intolerant to minority culture, but their policies pale in comparison to those of its neighbors. And, frankly, the history of this country for that matter.
Hello
Bhutan isn’t THAT bad. Could you compare Bhutan to Burma or Nigeria, or worse countries?
You have to remember that Bhutan is the last Buddhist Kingdom in the world (maybe you can include Thailand as well, but the Royalty has no real power), and they are trying to preserve a culture.
But yes, there are many Tibetans, including monks, who wonder why they are allowed only limited access to Bhutan, and feel like they are being treated like illegal aliens.
I have to admit, I felt like the KGB was following me around the one time I was there, but but I don’t want to start a Bhutan forum. Maybe the question should be what is an Enlightened Society, and what can it tolerate.
Rob
Dear Jeffrey Cohn and Friends,
Just caught up with your posts, Mr. Cohn (I don’t like the formality, but I suppose you wouldn’t want me to call you Jeff or Jeffrey, since we haven’t really met, and if we had, you might not like me to call you Jeff or Jeffrey anyway), and I appreciate your stepping out into the light on the matter of David Barsamian’s talk at the Boulder Shambhala Center last August.
I guess you are the “kinder & gentler” face of the several people applying enormous and quite nasty pressure on Janet Solyntjes to have the talk cancelled. So, good to see your e-mail to Janet out there in the light of the Great Eastern Sun, where it belongs!
It was the communication that slipped through the “confidentiality policy” net at the time of David’s talk due to a slip of Janet’s thumb, and which reached members of the World Affairs Group–though as one member pointed out, I really wasn’t a member of the group, anyway, so, technically, I should never have been able to see it at all, even on a technicality .
I read it at the time, and took 30 or so pages of notes on it and my take on the overall situation at the time (topa, sampa, gompa’d it pretty good), so I will be responding to it and other circumstances around the controversy of David’s talk in detail quite soon.
Again, thanks for having the courage to stick your neck out, Mr. Cohn.
Best Wishes,
Jim Hartz
Okay, I have to cut this off – I’m removing the last post Jim Hartz made. This is not unlimited and centerless space, sorry! And again, to all: please, take a break! No more on this Boulder talk and events! No more ramblings!
Let’s get back to discussion that respects the topic, the people involved, how the words come out, what they shape, the space we create.
- Mark
Older student:
“Will it become a sanitized version because the younger students can’t really ‘take’ the undiluted dharma we received?”
Younger student:
“Bring it.”
Older student:
“Find it.”
Just to get back to the previous thread — some of us might find Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche’s presentation of Khenpo Ghangshar’s pith instructions
“Vomiting the gold of pith instructions” and “Khenpo Gangshar’s Pith Instructions parts 1 and 2″ very germaine to Trungpa’s early approach to presenting the pith instructions to his western students. As Chokyi Nyima points out , as the situation in Tibet was falling apart with the Chinese, Khenpo Gangshar began teaching the profound instructions directly to everyone arguing that it was an emergency situation and the old method of slow and deliberate training no longer applied. Khenpo Gangshar was one of Trungpa Rinpoche’s main teachers and was a very close disciple of Jamgon Kongtrul Trungpa’s root guru as related in “Born in Tibet.” These are the pith instructions of our lineage and they are found on www,dharmasun.org.
Enjoy!
Tashi Armstrong
Mr. Jim Wilton wrote, in response to my comment in Mr. Karelis’s “A Progress Report” thread:
So how can you say that SI wants to lock CTR’s teachings in a vault and replace them with SMR’s teachings?
Hi there. Perhaps I was being imprecise with my words. Here’s what I had in mind:
* SMR eliminated “Shambhala” some years back, maybe 10 years ago, and replaced it with something he called “Shambhala Buddhism”. Sure, there are finer details in this, or other ways to look at it, but something about what I just said is true, I believe.
* SMR is in the process of making big changes to the Shambhala Training program. At my local center, they now tell people at intro events that they offer two forms of Buddhism at the center: Tibetan Buddhism, and Shambhala Buddhism. So if Shambhala used to be a non-Buddhist, non-sectarian training program, then it would seem that it is no more. I’ve been told that SMR plans to fold Shambhala training into Buddhist studies more and more over time.
To me, this is the same as making VCTR’s Shambhala teachings less accessible to the public– less accessible in the human-lineage getting-together-for-the-weekend-in-a-group sense, perhaps not in the book publishing sense.
You have to understand that I’m new to all this. I just did Level one a couple years ago for the first time. So I can see at a glance 20 years of changes, that may seem monumentally slow or nonexistent to another person.
If you ask someone if a glacier is moving downhill, they might say you were crazy for suggesting such a thing. But if you filmed the glacier for years and then played it back speeded up, you might see that the glacier really is moving, and that it’s always moving in the same direction.
So yes, I was being imprecise with my words, using metaphors and even exaggerating. But I’m also describing which direction I see the glacier moving in. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Dear Edward and everyone else who has commented here,
I have been working on the very subject that Edward just commented on — the way that the tradition of Kagyu-Nyingma Buddhism that Chogyam Trungpa taught, and his Shambhala teachings, are being put together.
This subject is poorly understood because, I believe, so little is known about what is actually happening.
So this is just a brief heads-up to say that I’m working on it. And, I must say, I’m finding it hard to figure out exactly what the “new curriculum” is, and how it relates with Shambhala Training, Levels 1 through 5. I hope to have something to post within a couple of weeks.
Barbara Blouin
Thankyou for this thread.
I’ve just come to the Shambala Mandala in the last two years, doing Levels One and Two this year already. I’m still taken by the way CTR is so precise that we can all achieve freedom outside of religion. In the opening throes of Sacred Path he particularly stresses that this includes Buddhism.
Shamabla.org describes The Sacred Path of the Warrior as:
/// The quintessential teachings on Shambhala. “The Shambhala teachings are founded on the premise that there is basic human wisdom that can help to solve the world’s problems. This wisdom does not belong to any one culture or religion, nor does it come only from the West or the East. Rather, it is a tradition of human warriorship that has existed in many cultures at many times throughout history” (Excerpt from Chapter One, Shambhala: the Sacred Path of the Warrior.) ///
So, forgive me, why does His Holiness SMR wear Tibetan buddhist robes and is it either naieve or heretical to ask?
My heart cries already because I feel CTR is an unfathomable blessing for our times. Namaste!
What is the teaching here?
Edmund
[requesting followup comments by email]
I think but I dont know for sure that SMR wears Buddhist robes because he was reconnecting with the tradition in Tibet, however, they are not monks robes but I think a householders robes like the leader of the Sakya Lineage HH Sakya Trinzin wears.
But I dont think this is a main point for not following SMR – the thing is when Trungpa was alive there were two separate paths Shambhala Training and Buddhism – SMR has combined the two to form Shambhala Buddhism. This means anyone of any religion can do Shambhala Training up to Warriors Assembly but after this to ‘go further’ and receive the Shambhala Ngondro and the practice of the werma sadhana they will have to become ‘Buddhist’. -that is a brief synopsis of what is happening now. If you listen to the recorded talk on this site it will give you a good overview of the differing points of view about what the Sakyong has done. The debate has to what has occurred goes on hence this site and the various comments from both sides.
Myself at the moment I am still hedging on keeping the two teaching streams separate and I have not been convinced as of yet by the ‘opposing sides’ as to the suitability of Shambhala Buddhism for the west. The thing is I still do not believe there has been enough debate happening on the whole thing so I am investigating both sides of the arguement.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
when Trungpa was alive there were two separate paths Shambhala Training and Buddhism – SMR has combined the two to form Shambhala Buddhism. This means anyone of any religion can do Shambhala Training up to Warriors Assembly but after this to ‘go further’ and receive the Shambhala Ngondro and the practice of the werma sadhana they will have to become ‘Buddhist’
This is a good brief synopsis, in a sense.
However, it might be more accurate to say that one can do “Shambhala Buddhist Training” up to Warriors Assembly, which is more and more a thing of SMR’s creation.
At my local center, Shambhala Training is now taught, at SMR’s direction, as a form of Buddhism, using Buddhist lingo, Buddhist self-imagery, and so on. This means that most people on earth are no longer welcome to do this training at all, even level one, unless they are comfortable with the label of taking “Buddhist” training.
Personally, if it were my goal to destroy much of what Trungpa Rinpoche created, I think the most effective way to do it would be through making gradual, incremental changes over time. I would do things that seemed logical from a conventional point of view– like combining separate lineage streams, wearing only Tibetan clothing, promoting the concept of “world peace”– but which actually are 180 degrees away from what VCTR did.
Sorry for being blunt, but I think maybe it’s necessary.
On the other hand, I know very little about SMR and I’m sure he’s a fine person in many other ways. Personally, I think it’s great that he does his own thing. Really. I just don’t think he should mix doing his own thing up with telling people that he’s protecting the Shambhala lineage. Why not keep the two things separate, like two part-time jobs?
Anyway, it raises my ire when I hear Buddhists talk smugly about how “Shambhala Buddhism” is open to people of all faiths. Give me a break. To me this sounds like the opinion of someone who doesn’t know anyone who is not Buddhist, or is living in a cave somewhere.
If you don’t mind me saying so.
Thankyou for your informative reply, Rita. Could you possibly send me a link to that podcast? I have searched fruitlessly!
Having read (and probably only superficially understood) Cutting Through and Sacred Path, I wonder how Shambala can now present itself as a religion, lead by a person in buddhist clothes. I guess we need to see past the appearances … somehow? I am enormously grateful for having stumbled upon this Sangha and have already met many very wonderful, compassionate people. However, it did not take me long to feel the dissension this thread seeks to address.
Perhaps given the outrageous magnitude of his vision, his unswerving determination, his lineage, extensive early training and exile it’s reasonable to expect confusion over the direction of the mandala absent that same tireless clarity and not infrequent controversial leadership events? It’s very touching to feel 20 years later, the intense sadness at the loss of accessibility to CTR’s wisdom which his death presented and to see how very much The Sakyong carries this in his own heart.
Perhaps it’s true that our culture’s needs in 1973 were different than they are today: although we still seek peace we now carry cell phones and our disciplines, spiritual and temporal should I suppose reflect these new parameters. We are more easily distracted and propelled by instant communication and the sheer volume of teachings now available to us. Perhaps “Shambala Buddhism” is now right for our times. I’d love to hear from some of the multidisciplinarians in the Sangha…
Namaste
Edmund
Edward good to hear from you again. When I first came to Shambhala Training I think we only used the Buddhist term for samatha because it related to the actual meditation practice. I cant remember using any other Buddhist terms from my recollection. Thats interesting if they are using further Buddhist terms now in the actual training that would be a divergence from the way I was taught.-just dont know how they would do that if they are doing that because most of the Shambhala teachings are about fearlessness which I do believe has a resonance with people of all different faiths.
Really myself trying to find out what CTR actually said about the Shambhala teachings in toto – it seems to me things are coming out gradually – it really needs the older students to put more perspective on this as I believe Barbara Blouin, Bill Karelis and others I might not know or have heard of are doing.
For example all this news about the scorpion seal retreats – these teachings do come from CTR and he did not develop a pre-condition for doing a ’shambhala ngondro’ for them I believe – I would be open to hearing more about this from older students as to what was required to do this retreat in the past.
Dunno as time has gone on have become more enamoured of the shambhala teachings because I believe people in the west could clue into them more…..they do psyche in with western psychology somewhat and they dont have the baggage of the culture and philosophy of Buddhism which is hard at times for westerners to comprehend especially teachings on karma and the ‘concept’ of Mind in Buddhist thought in all its guises.
I definately think there needs to be more debate about the whole thing…..perhaps the Sakyong thinks what he is doing is right but he has not opened up the whole thing for the sangha to talk about and discuss and that is where there is the rub. Think myself at the present time there will be more fragmentation in the sangha if the present silence continues. For example why no magazine articles in the Sun about what has happened, no debates in centres about what has occured and no accommodation in SI for people who just want to hold onto the way the Vidyadhara taught in an absolute sense.
People can be accommodated I believe if there was some goodwill from SI on these matters.
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
edmund its a discussion on this website between Ed and Mark called Dark Matter -its at the top of the page!
Also you may want to google Robin Kornmans teachings on enlightened society on google video to get a good overview of the shambhala teachings.
I think I am repeating myself somewhat as all this info is on this site but as its somewhat like a blog I suppose some people miss things.
Best
Rita Ashworth
stockport uk
Nice to meet you Edmund.
Perhaps given the outrageous magnitude of his vision, his unswerving determination, his lineage, extensive early training and exile it’s reasonable to expect confusion over the direction of the mandala absent that same tireless clarity
Lots of Rinpoches have lineages and early training. Often loads of it. And they are all exiled from Tibet.
I think what sets Trungpa Rinpoche apart, at least in my mind, was his willingness to take enormous risks in order to make the wisdom he inherited available to other people. And to be willing to not use dharma as his credential.
When you’re willing to let go of credentials– from the little I’ve tried it anyway– it seems to create enormous space, and allow for very clear communication to happen.
Instead of making a nest out of some foreign thingy, wrapping ourselves up in the flag of religious correctness, we could let go of all that stuff and just enjoy being here, make friends with ourselves and others, and see what happens.
Hi Rita, thanks for your kind remarks.
Edmund, Rita, Edward,
Today I read “Introduction to the Drala Principle” by Bill Scheffel.
http://westernmountain.org/drala.html
Bill is a student of Trungpa Rinpoche and has done intensive practice of the Scorpion Seal, the terma that Sakyong Mipham is leading his students to practice. However, Bill seems to be spilling the beans by simply offering his own understanding and practice of the drala principle, a central magical principle within the Shambhala teachings, to anyone who stumbles upon his website. In his teaching of drala, Bill explains the meaning of the sakyong and rigden principles that can be realized by anyone. He begins his introduction to drala this way:
“The “drala principle” refers to a body of teachings the Tibetan Buddhist meditation master Chögyam Trungpa presented in the last decade of his life, from 1978 to 1986. The roots of the drala principle precede the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet and are found in the indigenous traditions of that country – as they are in all countries. The drala principle is applicable, not to Buddhist practitioners alone, but to anyone. These teachings speak to the heart, whether one is, so to speak, religiously, artistically or politically motivated. Drala is the elemental presence of the world that is available to us through sense perceptions.”
Having studied and taught the Shambhala teachings myself, I found Bill’s presentation to be quite refreshing and delightful (although there are quite a few typos). So I thought you three (or anybody, for that matter) might find it interesting to read. It might give you more to chew on.
Although Bill is an old friend of mine, I have no idea where he stands re: sangha politics. I don’t even know whether he knows about RFS, though I’ll probably tell him soon that I’ve posted the link to his site here.
Anyway, have fun!
Edward,
I was shocked to read what you wrote yesterday about the way Shambhala Training is being taught at your center. It isn’t supposed to be that way, and as far as I know, the Sakyong would not put his seal of approval on mixing Buddhism and the Shambhala teachings in the Shambhala Training levels, although they are thoroughly mixed in the “new curriculum.”
I have been working since January on an article about the new curriculum, and it is close to ready. It was difficult for me to get good information; that’s why it has taken so long. Finally I was able to interview Acharya Adam Lobel. That was quite helpful, although he didn’t answer all my questions to my satisfaction.
I also spoke with Carolyn Mandelker, Shambhala International Director of the Shambhala Office of Practice and Education. (Carolyn, Adam, and Acharya Christie Cashman … and, of course, the Sakyong) are the principal architects of the new curriculum. Both Carolyn and Adam made it clear that the way Shambhala Training is taught has not changed (or so they think!)
Now, it turns out, that is not completely true — at least not at your center.
EDWARD, PLEASE HELP! We don’t know where you live, and I do understand that you have your reasons for remaining anonymous. It is not necessary to reveal the name of your Shambhala Center, but please tell me/us: 1) which country you are in? 2) Would you describe it as a large, medium, or small center? 3) Are the Shambhala Training directors from the local sangha? 4) Have you participated in any of these Levels? Or does your information come from others who were there? This is very important! 5) Anything else that might help fill out this elusive picture.
I would love to include something in my article, maybe just one or two paragraphs, on the situation at your center.
To those of you, other than Edward, who are reading this, if you have experienced, or heard about, anything similar to what Edward is describing, please speak up and be as specific as possible. You can be anonymous if you want.
I am going away today until Sunday, but I will check my e-mail 2 or 3 times while I’m away.
Barbara
Dear Barbara,
Let me clarify a few things and try to answer your questions.
I haven’t done a level at my center since last summer. At the last intro event or two (i.e. weekly introductory lecture) that I went to many months ago, we were told by the “senior student of the Sakyong” who gave the lecture that they offer two types of Buddhism there: Tibetan Buddhism and Shambhala Buddhism. This is the first thing new people are told now, at least at my local center. I live in a medium-sized U.S. city. (I don’t want to burn bridges or upset people by being more specific, if you don’t mind.)
The last couple Levels I took were taught by local students of the Sakyong (and VCTR); the first Level I took was taught by a student of Trungpa Rinpoche who has a guru other than the Sakyong. The director who was NOT a student of the Sakyong who taught my Level One was very careful not to use any Buddhist terminology, and even remarked on this a couple times. The directors who WERE students of the Sakyong told us that they are now allowed by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche to use Buddhist language while teaching Levels, and that they felt very relieved and excited about this.
That was many moons ago, but if memory serves me, each point the director taught on would typically be followed by a Buddhist metaphor. “In Buddhism, this is called X, or this corresponds to the Y principles in Buddhism.” That sort of thing. It did not seem like a big deal at the time, or stand out particularly, except that I personally and privately did not like it.
Honestly, I don’t know of anyone else at my center who minded this other than me, so I’m slightly surprised at your response to my earlier comment.
At the conclusion of the last Level I took, I went over to the person who is the co-manager of all Shambhala Training in the area, and I told the person that I’m confused about the way Shambhala and Buddhism are being combined. That person didn’t really know what to tell me and seemed a bit flustered, and later that evening suggested I speak to a young man attending the level.
That young man was not a member of SI (!), but did his devotions in Tibetan and had a Tibetan guru outside of SI, and presumed a high level of knowledge about things Buddhist. He told me that everything that Trungpa Rinpoche created was “owned” by other Tibetan gurus such as his own guru. VCTR didn’t have the right to create anything non-Buddhist, he said. After a while I thanked him for his opinions and left. (This last anecdote has nothing to do with SI policy, or with the questions you asked me, but I think it illustrates an attitude that is happy to rush in to fill a vacuum, if and when nobody is protecting the Shambhala lineage.)
Later on, that same co-manager of all Shambhala Training in my area suggested I speak to a more senior local person who had been a student of VCTR, and used to be the center director, but at that point I declined.
In answer to your question Barbara, everything I said was based on my own personal first-hand experiences.
I could tell you where I live, or swear out an affidavit affirming what I’m telling you, but I’m not sure that as a new person I should have to do that. I’d rather just give some polite feedback to people who ask for it, but otherwise stay out of direct conflict. I’m just a newcomer asking questions and looking for discussions with people who want to discuss.
Ashoka quite rightly asked me online once “Since you’re new, why do you want to get involved in political stuff? Just take advantage of the programs.” I think that’s sound advice, ideally.
I think the main point is that, in the big picture, people seem to be simply following Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche’s lead, in one way or another. There’s always a bit of variation here and there, but I’m more concerned with the big picture than with this or that detail.
In a way it’s good that SMR seems to be cutting so strongly across the grain of his father’s work, because it creates a good ferment for all of us, and it creates space for other people like Bill Karelis or Reggie Ray or whomever to feel compelled to make leaps of faith and step out of their comfort zones. Often the most creative things come out of us when our source of security has been completely pulled out from under us.
For all I know, SMR is doing his best to fulfill a secret admonition that his father gave him. Sometimes it’s the teacher’s job to make things difficult for the students, to test them, perhaps. I personally feel that, through some mysterious mechanism, Trungpa Rinpoche’s students are being tested by all of this, and that it’s good for them, the best thing that could have happened, maybe.
Richard John on Dispatches has touching first person account of his path – clarifying views re devotion/loyalty to his root guru CTR, his relationship loyalty and service to SMR in propagating Shambhala, relationship/ devotion to close and distant sangha – Kagyu/Nyingma teachers from whom we received teachings after CTR’s parinirvana – Dilgo Khyentse, Thrangu, Dzongsar, Ponlop, Tsultrim Gyamtso, and expanding beyond that respect and appreciation for other spiritual traditions and all sentient beings. We can be authentic and genuine when we share our journeys insights. Like Richard I was among the first group of CTR’s students to do the 3-year retreat at Sopa Choling..grateful to have had the opportunity to receive and practice inter alia the Six Yogas [Dharmas] of Naropa, Mahamudra/Ati exercises etc.
[the only non-male, non-white candidate at that time] Coming from a deeply spiritual family had a discipline in both meditation and yogic practice long before Trungpa Rimpoche came to America. Like Edmund Butler what inspired was Trungpa’s affirmation that this wisdom exists in all cultures. The tolerance and inclusiveness was a hook = the meaning of Shambhala non religious enlightened society. Happy to correspond with Edmund via e-mail – truth dharma without credentials.
Joyously Hopeless
Barbara,
Thank you so much for going to the enormous work of writing a report about this issue based on interviews, etc. I recently grilled a currently active Shambhala Training Director who is an old friend of mine, and he said that his impression was that the eventual idea was that Shambhala would be the outer form and that people would learn how that form and language would be interpreted via Buddhist thought. But there would be that first emphasis on Shambhala language and ideas, etc.
This is all I know, having not been really involved in Shambhala doctrinal matters at the center for ages. all I know is from asking my friend who likes to teach and is therefore on the inside. Again, I really appreciate your work on this!!!
Tsondru
I think it’s interesting that Reggie Ray (based on the interview I heard him give with Chronicles Radio) considers the Shambhala Teachings to be more advanced than the three yanas of Buddhism. He considers it to be a fourth yana in some sense.
I personally am amused whenever someone suggests that the teachings given in Shambhala Training, even just at Level One are “Buddhism lite” or “not very advanced” or a kind of marketing fluff to promote, you know, real Buddhism.
As far as I can tell, there might be almost no living people on earth at any one time who actually fulfill the Level One teachings fully. I say that based on personal confessions made by some senior lamas about their own practice.
Thanks for the comments everyone. It would be interesting sometime to hear more from Trungpa Rinpoche’s students about how he himself presented his Shambhala Teachings.
For all I know, SMR is doing his best to fulfill a secret admonition that his father gave him.
I seriously doubt that is the case.
Shambhala Buddhism as used by SI does not mean Buddhism as practiced by Shambhalians as say Tibetan Buddhism or Chinese Buddhism or Japanese Buddhism means. In Si it means a new type of Buddhism mixed with Shambhala teachings. Similarly John Perks invented Celtic Buddhism also under claimed inspiration from the Vidyadara.
That’s like mixing coffee and tea.
Well said. Our Dearly beloved Boulder Center is finally becoming “restructured.” Yikes!!!!
Recommend ‘The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia:
Tournament of Shadows’ by Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac, 648p, Illustrations and Maps, Perseus Book Press 1999
Deep Throat exposures of Geopolitical rivalries for ‘ownership’ of Shambhala.
Ok my lovelies keep it up, keep it up, the Big O No,
for those who seek2know. Jolly good show.
Cheer up. Edmund Butler. Its a cosmic joke. All ye undead don’t
ZZZZ. Wakie Wakie. Its a Sacred World.
Laughter, gentle laughter he he heee. See? Beyond Words.
Aba- I’m at goodwoodstudios@dccnet.com and would love to banter
Tsondru- thankyou for your tempered words and faith in Shambala to creatively change.
Edward- at my Level 1 there were 43 participants and the centre staff and MI’s were JUST AMAZING. Perhaps 7 people were revisiting Level 1 as long-time students, busy taking notes and alert to every movement…
Dear Edward,
I have been away, without internet access for two days. I just read your post on May 20, in which you wrote: “The last couple Levels I took were taught by local students of the Sakyong (and VCTR); the first Level I took was taught by a student of Trungpa Rinpoche who has a guru other than the Sakyong. The director who was NOT a student of the Sakyong who taught my Level One was very careful not to use any Buddhist terminology, and even remarked on this a couple times. The directors who WERE students of the Sakyong told us that they are now allowed by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche to use Buddhist language while teaching Levels, and that they felt very relieved and excited about this.”
I want to include a slightly abridged version of this in my article, and say that you live in a medium-sized city where there is a center. Otherwise, no identification of you …as if I could!
What you have revealed is very important, especially since the two people I interviewed — Carolyn Mandelker and Adam Lobel– both assured me that Shambhala Training hasn’t changed. I’m not faulting them: they probably don’t know about this. But the corruption of the pure shambhala teachings is taking place, and this needs to be known.Whether your center is a one-off or a symptom of a bigger trend I don’t know,and don’t want to speculate. If it is also true that SMR gave Shambhala teachers permission to use Buddhist language in Shambhala Training is a much bigger issue.
Thanks very much.
Barbara
Hmm… quoting a mostly-anonymous source about an unnamed center… I’m not sure I feel good about that for your article.
I think I know how I can get a message to your email box.
I like being imprecise and speculative and so on sometimes, but I don’t feel your article should have to be. I will write to you and maybe further research can be done so your article has a more solid footing.
I was not speculating on my first-hand accounts, mind you, just on the big picture of where things are going. As an anonymous newcomer I feel relatively okay about doing that.
Suzanne thanks very much for the link to Bill Scheffel’s site – I am in the library again and just watching his film on Denise which is beautiful – I hope he goes for a big release with this one -its very slow and considerate.
Re one of Edward’s post below:
“Ashoka quite rightly asked me online once “Since you’re new, why do you want to get involved in political stuff? Just take advantage of the programs.” I think that’s sound advice, ideally.”
I would say yes and no to this comment -yes meditate with others but also be inquistive about the the political stuff in a friendly way………think thats the way Trungpa Rinpoche taught us to enquire about life as we know it.
Listened to Richard John on project -thought it was a bit chummy – I was wanting more direct questions to be asked. Perhaps we could send in questions we want to be asked to CPR as in the manner that the BBC does sometimes with its reporters.
Re politics in the UK now its quite a revelation what is going on -probably about a 100 MPs will be deselected because of extravagant expense claims – the Speaker has even resigned because he was in charge of the Fees office – he’s the first one to go like this in 300 years…….tumultuous times indeed.
Well over and out from Her Majesties Kingdom.
Best
Rita Ashowrth
Stockport UK
Just a thought would it be possible to transpose Bill Scheffels article on Drala on to this site. I tried to copy it out in the library last night but it was quite hard. Think a group discussion on drala would be quite good re expressing the manifestation of Trungpa’s teachings in the world.
Hoping to meet up with Bill Karelis when he comes to UK in September.
-not sure of his internary as of yet -will keep you posted.
best
Rita Ashworth
I just want to reassure everyone here of something that’s very important. There is an entire generation of dharma brats who feel an incredible connection to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. His energy and vision don’t die with the elder students. His vision will be carried on. His teachings cannot die.
Jim Hartz wrote: In a nutshell, to use bedrock Dzogchen terminology, without all the bells and whistles, there is sems (mind) and sems nyid (nature of mind). If the practitioner identifies with the outbreath–be’s it–it is sems (mind) that goes out with the outbreath, and dissolves in space, leaving “nobody home” –but sems nyid, nature of mind! That’s another thing–like the term the “watcher”: you don’t hear the terms “gap” or “nobody home” anymore.
I think the key, here, is IDENTIFYING with the outbreath, BEING it–not follow, watch, focus, concentrate on–though I know some advanced practitioners prefer “follow” the outbreath, rather than identify with it, be it. But the way I was taught it, the way I’ve always practiced it and taught it to others–in my view–has profound implications for later practices. Namely, with “working with emotions”: the way to transmute them into wisdoms is by identifying with the particular emotions–being them: that changes their character entirely, as the Vidyadhara taught. Or when it comes to “pride of the deity,” you don’t “believe” you are the deity, “think” you are the deity, you BE it–you ARE it. Identify with or be: that pulls the plug on “duality” right from the very start for a brand new student.
– This is nihilism. You’re a bunch of death-cult practitioners, longing for annihilation. Why don’t you just all go kill yourselves right now, and let the rest of us get on with living, free from your negative so-called “spiritual” teachings? Here’s a prayer for you in your tradition, “May your breath go out, and never an inbreath be drawn. May you find enlightenment in death.” The world is dying , humans are suffering, while you stumble around in this charnel ground of Tibetan Buddhism and do nothing. Where’s your real compassion? Fhhut! Sidelined by cult-conditioning. Do any of you ask yourselves the question,” What was it I really loved about Tibetan Buddhism in the first place?” For me, it was the vow to now kill. But then, before I knew it, I was killing myself!!! Ha, ha, ha! Cutting off my own head in Chod practice, doing bardo retreats trying to make my life-force exit the top of my head, and other nonsense in the style of Jim Hartz.. My head still hurts from that bardo practice. You guys are wasting your time with this stuff. You’re going to get absolutely nowhere, and certainly not to enlightenment, because basically there is no such thing! What makes you think that ignorant Tibetans, steeped in Medieval thinking, knew anything about anything? I mean, let’s just start with the fact that that they hated women, nature, existence, children, independent thinking, science, progress, humane treatment of prisoners, cleanliness, honesty … Now you got me going.
Tara Carreon
american-buddha.com
That’s your opinion, and, even though you may believe strongly in it, that’s all it is.
If you want to see a being that is enlightened, and
thereby, what that means, I suggest you try to
see the Seventeenth Karmapa. You might change your opinion.
Tara:
Whatever american-buddha.com is, your post certainly doesn’t inspire me to want to find out about it!
Tara!! Before u write, pause 9 secs. B4 u send, pause 9 secs. Let yr words be the pause.
Believe me, youir group piety is not inspiring to me. “Let your words be the pause”? LOL. Why don’t you just say, Shut the f___up? I know that’s the way of the “dharma” groups. Along with eating the lama’s shit — literally — and groveling on the ground. You guys do a good job at it. And what does that mean to say “That’s just your opinion?” Like if it was someone else’s opinion, it might mean something? Like I’m a nobody? Liike I said, Nihilism is your way, trying to destroy individual identity. Trungpa Rinpoche was one of my main teachers for 25 years. Does that give me the right to talk?
Hi Tara
I haven’t heard much from you since you left (booted??) some of the other buddhist boards….. I know you studied with Gyatrul Rinpoche in a very traditional context for a long time and then left. Was there any value in what you were taught – stripped of cultural context? I know you don’t like the hierarchy and arcane politics – I can relate to that – but are you suggesting that there is nothing to learn from another more experienced individual?
Shambhala Training was CTR’s vehicle for a less overtly buddhist model of teaching meditation and awareness. Are you saying there is no value in meditation practice at all?
Without falling into your trap, and asserting my right to criticize “Buddhism” and “Buddhists” any time I feel like it, yes, I did learn a few perhaps more than useful things. Here are three of them: 1. The One Teaching of Maitreya Buddha: Do not kill, supreme among all other teachings, the key to our collective salvation. 2. We all have original mind. That is our foundation, the ground we walk on, our Identity, the Truth against which we measure all things, the source of inspiration, the source of dreams, the source of pure speech, the source of pure thought. 3. First Mind/Second Mind. Very useful for determining conceptual, conditioned mind as distinct from pure mind.
Sure, meditate if you know how! LOL! I never knew how to meditate until I “stopped” being a Tibetan Buddhist. Then I did trekchod and togyal like a pro!
Not trying to trap, just to see if there was any benefit to you from all that went before…. I’m not certain if you are still as pissed off as you were in the old Tricycle “Ambu” days.
Criticizing Buddhists and Buddhism is fine and can be informative. It is also a two-way street.
A little too much legalese at the front end of your site for my taste – at least there was the last time I looked.
You don’t want legalese? Try this.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/borntibetagain.htm
BORN IN TIBET, AGAIN — THE EXILE OF THE TWELFTH TRUNGPA TULKU — HOW SAKYONG MIPHAM USURPED THE TRUNGPA THRONE
by Charles Carreon
This seems to be the elephant in Shambhala’s living room — what happened to the Twelfth Trungpa? No, don’t tell me — it turned out the Sakyong was more important. But other lineages don’t forget their tulkus. There are two karmapas, and enough room on world stages to accommodate them both. But the 12th Trungpa must languish in Tibet, having given away his lineage in the belief, so you are told, that it was the right thing to do. If you can find one prior example where a tulku gave away his lineage to another tulku, like the 12th Trungpa did, it will be the first one I have heard of. And what could be more absurd than giving it to the Sakyong, supposedly a tulku of Lama Mipham, a lama who had promised not to reincarnate again? So read this, Michael, and maybe you can unravel the mystery of the missing tulku.
Tara, I don’t get your assumption that the XIIth Trungpa would come to the North America. He’s one of three tulkus that govern Surmang. What would be his reason for leaving Tibet other than increased levels of political instability and/or the possibility of harm to his person?
Don’t be coy. The 12th Trungpa Tulku is not even listed on the Shambhala website. All other major tulkus have been celebrated at their reincarnation, and have been enthroned with much pomp and circumstance. Their drawing power is exploited aggressively, and the instant superstar status of the 12th Trungpa appearing on these shores would be assured. Additionally, it is clear that you have not read the essay yet, or are being deliberately obtuse. As the essay makes clear, providing screencaps of official documents signed by the 11th Trungpa, there is no question that his will was to pass the lineage directly to the 12th Trungpa, who would carry on his work in Colorado. Your comments about “political instability” being the only thing to drive him out of Tibet are pure cant. Have you been reading the news about Tibet lately? Are you under the impression that the escalating civil rights violations of the Chinese forces are making things better there? Either you are out of touch, or you think that the worst situation in Tibetan history is politically stable. If instability were to be the impetus, he would be here already!
Oh don’t crack a molar. I did read the essay. That’s why I asked.
At the risk of sounding like a Republican, YOU LIE!
To prove me wrong, answer these two questions:
1. The American name of the translator who went to Tibet to aid the Sakyong in deceiving the 12th Trungpa into surrendering his lineage was:
a) Alan Wallace
b) Matthieu Ricard
c) Ken McCleod
d) Nancy Gustafson
2. The article says that the 12th Trungpa Tulku lives in:
a) a beautiful temple
b} a refurbished chorten
c} a hole in the ground
d) a Chinese trailer
Actually I think the japanese scientist prognosis for the reincarnation of Trungpa is good too!
We seek him there –
we seek him everywhere -
that elusive pimpernel
Choggie Rinpoche!
best
Rita Ashworth
stockport uk
Silence. Is that how much you all believe in what Trungpa taught you? Have you managed to visualize yourselves into a Communist hell-realm where no one can speak? Your leaders have managed to disappear your teacher’s reincarnation. And you stand by and do nothing! Amazing! And everyone always said Trungpa had the wildest, most intelligent students, presumably some fighters among them. Where’s the revolution? The storming of the Bastille? The cutting off of heads?
VCTR never said that his incarnation would return to be head of Shambhala.
In fact, he said distrust anyone that says they’ve found his reincarnation.
A lot of what you are putting forth just doesn’t jibe with the truth. You can rant on here, but I doubt many will take you’re seriousness seriously.
Well, sure, Tara, the XIIth lives in relative abject poverty. Sorry for the delay to your query, I went to bed.
While it might not be the response to your “kicking down the saloon doors with guns blazing” entrance-n-introduction you were hoping for, I have encountered some folks other than yourself and Charles who also believe that the XIIth would return to the west. What I’m asking is why you think that would be so.
Very simply asked. Charles’ essay is written with that assumption as ground but with no explanation of that assumption.
That’s all there is to my question.
First, as to the notion that the Twelfth Trungpa had no plan to return to America: The Karmapa’s “Proclamation to All Those Who Dwell Under the Sun Upholding the Tradition of the Spiritual and Temporal Orders,” avers that “The ancient and renowned lineages of the Trungpas … has in every generation given rise to great beings [and] has magnificently carried out the vajra-holder’s discipline in the land of America ….” Are we to assume that, having planted the Dharma in the “land of America,” that the Trungpa lineage-holders would simply forget all their students here? Absurd. Trungpa 11’s Proclamation in 1977 made it clear that Rich/Tenzin was to hold the position of “VAJRA REGENT to act on my behalf in propagating buddhadharma and the vision of the three yanas throughout the world, and to implement, as a Director of the First Class, the purpose and intentions of Vajradhatu as well as those of the Nalanda Foundation.” If you read the unique bylaws of Vajradhatu, you will see that their avowed purpose was to have Rich/Tenzin hold the position of sole Director of the First Class until Trungpa 12 came to reclaim his position. The Karmapa solemnized Rich’s appointment with his approval.
Second, as to the notion that the Twelfth Trungpa hasn’t been found. The 12th Trungpa’s discovery as Chokyi Sengay, and the unprecedented transfer of his lineage to the Sakyong was announced on Konchog.org, Diana’s website, where I think they still try to raise chump change for his maintenance. The transfer of the lineage to the Sakyong is an absurdity to anyone who has a traditional bone in their body.
The dissolution of Vajradhatu, its supplantation by Shambhala, and the failure to deliver Trungpa 12 the wealth of his lineage is a great default in guru devotion that will surely be repaid by aeons in vajra hell.
Dear Tara
Actually at this point in the great game of the teachings coming to the west – I think the question of lineage and who is the ‘right’ lineage holder is somewhat going out the door. Why do I think this well because of what Ray and others are doing now. I think the transmission has occured subtly one might almost say to westerners so time will tell who lasts and who does not.
I also see the above as quite the right way of proceeding in these matters because ultimately religion is a matter of conscience, behaviour and your own willingness to work with teachers you have some fellowship with.
In addition from studying religions in the west the historical process of new teachings emerging in to a society seems to me to occur in reaction to a status quo witness the ‘development’ of a gentile Christianity coming from its Judaic roots. So I am not so much concerned about lineage as I used to be and receiving the orgs. stamp on how I behave in the world.
Perhaps the thing is if you studied so much with the last Trungpa Rinpoche that you should indeed consider yourself about teaching. If you did get people you could relate to -they might indeed invite the new Trungpa Rinpoche over from Tibet. Me personally I dont need that Trungpa – as the old Trungpa is somewhat in my genes now – so thats that.
Perhaps we could have some more discussion on how you see things evolving in America re the dharma.
Re the japanese scientist who knows!
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport uk
I think Tara has a point here. The “neo traditionalism” of Shambhala these days flies in the face of taking an established tradition – the Trungpa tulkus – and pretty much ignoring it, – all the while rejoicing in the post-adolescent declaration of Mipham tulkuhood. which somehow ends up with all the assets in the hands of the Shambhala prince / king. One tulku very important, the other – not so much
It is also interesting that then the attention goes away from the Trungpa lineage – and towards the “Sakyong lineage” – which IIRC was more of a title or job description when CTR was alive.
Yes – I have wondered about the Sakyong lineage too -you dont find it mentioned in the will for example.
Myself I always thought the Sakyong would appoint westerners to carry on the whole thing – re Nick Wright’s comment about the Sakyong’s command to ‘manifest’ -that means manifest so far but realise I the Sakyong am in charge of the whole thing- which is strange when you compare it to the Kagyu lineage where several people became Vajra Masters of great teachers such as Milarepa.
I know there are family lineages in Tibet but its a question of who you take as making the right call at the moment regarding the way the teachings are to be transposed in the west ie Ray and others or the Sakyong.
Re the present Trungpa Tulku in Tibet who knows what plans SI have got for him perhaps they will bring him here in a blaze of glory but I think things have to a degree moved on. If you look at the present time and new teachers emerging, for example is the Tulku tradition going to disappear in the west……..perhaps we should leave the whole thing behind and just go with who we connect with as all religious traditions in the west have done so far.
Perhaps this is why CTR was ambivalent in deciding on who his true successors would be in the future if we count Rays comments on this – we have got to consider that aswell.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport uk
Michael Sullivan, could you elaborate or clarify this sentence, please?:
“It is also interesting that then the attention goes away from the Trungpa lineage – and towards the “Sakyong lineage” – which IIRC was more of a title or job description when CTR was alive.”
IIRC?
IIRC is typically “if I recall correctly”
Think Mike is saying that “Sakyong” is a job title that a lineage master may hold in trust, but by itself is not a lineage. Although I think Shambhala considers the Rigden kings of Shambhala to be a lineage succession of some kind, like a presidency, different than tulku succession. But that’s all speculation on my part.
As I see it the Rigden kings of Shambhala are both historical to some degree and ahistorical to another viewpoint ie of another realm or in another dimension if you read Edwin Bernbaum’s book on this in ‘the Way of Shambhala’ -he goes into this in great detail.
Now if we are talking of the second viewpoint of the Rigden Kings being ahistorical in that CTR embodied them in his teachings and abhishekas -they can be passed to any one who is willing to follow the path hence all of us becoming ‘Kings and Queens’ in our daily life.
Now the Sakyong being the lineage holder of Shambhala could empower others like wise to be lineage holders but this he has not chosen to do.
To me that goes against the essence of the shambhalian teachings that everyone is capable of manifesting them completely and in a sense the lineage question at this point just goes out of the window lets not even mention the door. If we are really talking lineage I think we are talking about connection perhaps in the sense of discipleship that Jesus had with his fellow disciples – that mysterious connection with the other consequent upon a glimpse of what could we call it ‘grace’ or the ‘divine’.
I see this as lineage in the west and this is the way that religion has developed if we look at the history of the church.
So yes I think we need to look at lineage in more depth -perhaps with more western eyes.
Best
Rita Ashworth
stockport uk
James is right about IIRC.
What I mentioned about attention going away from the Trungpa lineage was that there appears to be a de-emphasis on the Trungpa tulku, and a shift to a family lineage. That certainly gives the appearance of a significant change from the way things were done in Tibet.
Not to say that family lineages didn’t start up, but the assets and organization usually stayed with the tulku, with the family lineages were secondary.
Rita and Tara,
I definitely share some of the concerns about lineage mentioned here and I feel that the way we understand, revere, and follow spiritual teachers has to evolve in a way that makes sense AND maintains fidelity to its original purpose.
Its that second part that I always struggle with when we start talking about discarding this or that piece of a spiritual tradition. There is a sense of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
So what are the pros and cons of lineage and succession?
Some pros from my pov –
– When done with integrity, lineage is a successive continuity of enlightened moments of mind that brings along with it the skillful methods of the pioneers and practitioners who hold and propagate that lineage. So there is some kind of richness and continuity.
– Given the above, there is some built in protection against perversion and distortion. There is some value when the person at the forefront really knows and realizes the intent and meaning of what is being taught. There is some guard against ego coming in and co-opting everything in the most recent brand of dharma invented in someone’s garage yesterday.
Some cons from my pov –
– The more authority conveyed to the lineage holder at the top, the more emphasis there must be on that person’s intentions and realization. The potential for abuse grows and grows.
– As “lineage” becomes confused with “organization” and the structure that grows up around it, things become more institutionalized and inflexible. The larger lineage grows, the more one-size-fits-all paths have to be laid out to cope with volume of participants and the need for consistency.
– As this thread is exploring, when one head passes, the transition might be a little rocky.
In addition to the whole idea of lineage, there is also the issue of how much devotion should be shown and cultivated. When we look at the abuses of the past as western lineage holders have been empowered and gone about their way, I think we have to recognize that while these individuals did seem (to our eyes or our interpretations of their stories having never seen them) to abuse some authority, there is also the corresponding, interdependent cause and condition on the side of the student and western culture, which is a complete misunderstanding of devotion. The only cultural antecedents we seem to have are personality and person worship. We may receive teachings that genuine devotion really has to do with devotion to our own enlightened nature and that devotion to a particular human being is really intended to be respect for the training they’ve taken on and their commitment to pass the flame of recognition on, but instead we are looking for someone to worship. We are looking for a father or lover or friend instead of recognizing that the guru’s job is to give us the dharma.
So, I feel that lineage is very important. I think devotion is very important. I agree that the errors we’ve made as a culture around these ideas should be discarded. But I don’t think the purpose and intent of these principles should -
be tossed out because we haven’t yet figured out how to make it work. When Buddhism first went to Tibet, there were several hundred years of trial and error. It takes time. In my understanding, the reason Atisha was invited to come to Tibet was to straighten out all the misunderstandings and charlatanism that had grown up around the integration of Buddhism into a new culture. But it wasn’t ALL charlatanism. We have to learn how to preserve the integrity without just discarding aspects that we, in our cultural hubris, deem unworkable.
As for the hijacking of the lineage and assets, etc, certainly I have concerns. On the other hand, from what I know of Trungpa Rinpoche, having never met him directly, I would guess that he really couldn’t care less about these meaningless details. In fact, I wouldn’t put it past him to be the architect of so much seeming confusion and chaos as the perfect ground for us to deal with our minds. One can say I am just creatively reinterpreting something here to make some nice spiritual sense of things, but actually I have no personal stake in Shambhala as an organization. I have no identity tied up in one view of what happened being right or wrong.
I do, however, believe that if anyone is suffering or having a problem with how things are, it is us and our neverending doubt, questioning, gossip, and commentary moreso than Trungpa XI or XII or the Sakyong or the two karmapas, etc. The suppositions of Trungpa XII’s dismay at his present conditions and being robbed of this or that strike me as western projections. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trungpa XII is grateful for the opportunities he has to engage in the dharma and realize his own true nature. Nor do I think it wise to assume what he can or can’t do or will or won’t do based on his present circumstances.
James Vitale
James, I like your thoughts on lineage a lot. And the following is something I don’t think is discussed enough:
“The only cultural antecedents we seem to have are personality and person worship. We may receive teachings that genuine devotion really has to do with devotion to our own enlightened nature and that devotion to a particular human being is really intended to be respect for the training they’ve taken on and their commitment to pass the flame of recognition on, but instead we are looking for someone to worship.”
You folks are drowning in pointless erudition generated by the confusing heterodoxy spawned by the hijackers of the Trungpa lineage. A tulku is a Bodhisattva whose attainment of enlightenment has allowed him to manifest a Nirmanakaya body for the benefit of all beings, and who manifests in each generation to gather the mandala of disciples and teachings. To take the wealth and resources of a tulku during his period of absence from the physical realm is theft of precious relics, which is traditionally equated to shedding the blood of the Buddha, one of the five heinous crimes. Those who commit theft from a Bodhisattva may very well be causing him no harm, since he is not in need of material wealth; however, they are damning themselves. The notion that the Twelfth Trungpa is happier without the temples and students amassed by the Eleventh runs counter to every principle that may be derived from the conduct of tulku lineages in general. The notion that the Sakyong has painfully shouldered the burden of millions of dollars and the organizational power in some “Prince and the Pauper” arrangement that allows the Twelfth Trungpa to enjoy the pleasures of a beggar is inane. People who follow lineage thieves are painfully deluded, and would benefit from the western enlightenment experience known as “waking up and smelling the coffee.”
It’s no secret that VCTR wanted a family lineage, and that his actions late in his life were focused on setting up that. Although many of his statements about his future incarnation may be seen as tongue in cheek, it’s clear that what he wanted to set up was apart from the Tibetian politics and hierarchy. He wanted his son raised in the West so he wouldn’t be seduced by Tibetianism. How successful he was at that is questionable.
If Tara, or anyone else, can point to a place where VCTR said himself that he wanted his future incarnation to be seated as head of Vajradhatu/Shambhala, I would be much amazed.
Evidently, Dilgo Khentze Rinpoche encouraged
SMR to take charge of VCTR’s sangha. DKR was
probably the closest one to VCTR in terms of understanding his vision. In all the chaos that has
and is still happening after VCTR’s parinirvana, that
authority seems to carry a lot of weight. VCTR didn’t trust
many of the Tibetians. He did trust DKR.
A LETTER TO MARPA
by Chogyam Trungpa
Solid Marpa
Our father,
The message of the lineage:
You are the breadwinner.
Without your farm we would starve to death.
Fertilizing
Plowing
Sowing
Irrigating
Weeding
Harvesting;
Without your farm we are poverty-stricken.
Your stout body,
Sunburnt face;
Ordering Damema to serve beer for a break;
Evidence of the three journeys you made to India in you–
We sympathize with you for your son’s death:
It was not the fault of the horse,
It was the seduction of the stirrup in which his foot was caught
As his head smashed into the boulders of conceptualization.
Yet you produced more sons:
Eagle-like Milarepa who dwells in the rocks,
Snow-lion-like Gampopa whose lair is in the Gampo hills,
Elephant-like Karmapas who majestically care for their young.
Tiger-like Chogyam roaming in foreign jungles.
As your lineage says, “The grandchildren are more accomplished than the parents.”
Your garuda egg hatches
As the contagious energy of Mahamudra conquers the world.
We are the descendants of lions and garudas.
6 June 1972
Tara, the shedra at Dudsi Til has cost over $1M US dollars to date to build. While he may be living in the ruins of the previous buildings at present I think Charles’ notion that he’s being kept prisoner in an outhouse is, at this point, a bit disingenuine.
Does anybody recall which Big Gun predicted there would be five concurrent reincarantions of CTR?
YOU MIGHT BE TIRED OF THE SEAT THAT YOU DESERVE (FOR THE VAJRA REGENT AT MIDSUMMER’S DAY)
by Chogyam Trungpa
Dearly loved comrade,
If you do not hold the seat,
Others may take it away;
If you do not sit on a rock,
It becomes mushy clay;
If you don’t have patience to sit on a rock or seat,
They give you away;
If you are not diligent in holding the throne,
Some opportunist will snatch it away;
If you are tired of your seat,
Some interior decorator will rearrange it;
If you don’t have a throne,
You cannot speak or proclaim from it,
So the audience will dissipate;
If you don’t have a government seat to sit on,
Your wisdom and command seal will be snatched by others;
If you run around, thinking that you have a seat to come back to,
It will be washed away by the turbulent river,
Like a presidential platform;
You can never proclaim your command.
Either it will be disassembled by the cockroaches
Or the frivolous multitude will take it away as souvenirs.
It may be hard to sit on the seat,
But one must endure it.
Do sit on your seat,
Whether it is hard or soft.
Once you sit on your seat,
The sitting itself becomes truly command and message,
Then, undoubtedly, multitudes of people will respect and obey it
As the vajra throne of Bodhgaya where Buddha taught.
Truth becomes exertion.
The message of hard fact proclaims itself,
So you don’t have to emphasize harder truth.
Offering your seat in order to please others will not give authentic
reward
They will take the attitude that you are a pleasant seat-offerer.
So, my son, please don’t move around;
Assume your seat, and sit, and be.
If you be that way, truth prevails;
Command is heard throughout the land.
So sit and hold your seat.
Then you will enjoy, because others will admire you.
This is hard to do, but easy to accomplish.
12 June 1981
Excerpt from The Mishap Lineage: Transforming Confusion Into Wisdom by Chogyam Trungpa (Shambhala Publications, 2009), p. 92-93
S: “Is the Trungpa line going to continue?”
CTR: “I don’t think so.”
…
S: “Do you think you’re going to be a Buddhist in your next life?”
CTR: “I don’t know.”
S: “Maybe?”
CTR: “I would be at least in essence, but who can tell?”
Andrew -thanks for the quote from the Mishap Lineage – I will have to get
Stockport Library to purchase that book for me. I wonder what people will make of it here.
Yes there are many ideas on lineage surfacing now which is good.
I took refuge with DKR in 1976 before I knew he had a connection with
Trungpa – he was very impressive – I suppose it was his quality of calmness and stillness that got to me. Piece of my hair re the refuge in some Tibetan monastery now perhaps!
Did DKR understand the west and its religions and philosophies though -
I doubt it – in 1976 not many lamas had an understanding of our way of life. So yes did Trungpa trust DKR -yes I suppose with all his heart – but
how does that relate to the transmission of teachings now.
If there was some one of the quality of DKR around at the moment what would he say of Ray and others now emerging and also of Patrick Sweeny – how could he make such long-term decisions about what was right for this present time – are we talking about supernatural powers to see into the future here?
So yes ‘lineage’ persay I am not trying to throw it out the door completely but rather a limited idea of lineage must go out of the door really I am trying to bring in a more profound conception of lineage – I am saying that we in the west are capable of manifesting this lineage completely.
Take for example Pema Chodron -shes done two Kagyu ngondros,innumerable retreats, and a three year retreat aswell when is really the Tibetan tradition going to see that we are fully committed to these teachings? At this point in the proceedings I feel like uttering the old refrain – let my people go……..a humourous aside I know but it is on the point.
Did you also hear that Ray has just done a 28 day dark retreat – wow-I think if I was a Tibetan Lama I would make him a lineage holder just for that – could you do it? It really points to the fact that the teachings are coming completely from the west.
Anyway -hope the debate goes on.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Hi Rita
personally I think that recognition of Pema’s place in the lineage is long overdue.
Re; dark retreat. I read about R. Ray’s dark retreat and found it curious that he did not do any specific practice – I wonder who was his guide / mentor / teacher for this. In the tradition I now practice in, there are specific practices for various lengths of dark retreat, from 1 day up to 49. I know a western woman who has done the 49 day retreat and assume that there are others as well.
Mike – interesting to hear your comments on dark retreats -just shows how the teachings have come to the west and that SI is not the only option for doing this practice – if people want to do it.
So this added knowledge that you have relayed to me points to the fact that westerners are fully cabable of doing the whole gamut of dharma teachings. Therefore we do really have to consider the lineage question more fully in light of this and other changes in the world of dharma.
Best
Rita Ashworth
The Dzogchen Community has a facility in Massachusetts that can hold (I believe) 6 dark retreatants at once. It is a bit tricky as you need good ventilation, bathroom facilities and no light whatsoever….. you also need a support person who can enter a “lightlock” – the equivalent of an airlock – and deliver food and water on a daily basis.
I have only done 1 day, but it gave me real respect for anyone who can do the whole thing.
The whole idea of lineage is somewhat of a joke if you ask me. I see it as useful, but secondary.
Who is the most famous Buddhist? The Buddha. What was his lineage? What was Padmasambhava’s lineage? Lineage is so, so, so important except when we say it isn’t.
The way I evaluate teachers is through my own eyes and ears. I know, it’s crazy, right? The advantage of this approach is that I can appreciate someone like the Buddha without feeling sorry for him for his lack of lineage. Actually I find there are a lot of advantages of this approach.
It’s interesting how Tibetan Buddhism is different from the Buddhism of Padmasambhava, or Tilopa, or the Buddha. Tibet was to some extent a corrupt, sexist place where a lot of politics got mixed in with the spirituality. The ideas of lineage and tulkus served a spiritual function, but they also served a political function of maintaining control.
CTR seemed to divide his own power between his oldest son, his wife, his regent, and maybe his sangha or board of directors. Since his death, a lot of that power that he chose to divide has been consolidated. This seems like par for the course if you look at how politics often functioned in Tibet. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m just saying that Tibetans often like to consolidate their political power.
It might be interesting to read a book about this (Tibetan political squabbles) sometime. Can anyone recommend one? Perhaps a good book on the history of Buddhism? Are Dr. Ray’s books good?
Wasn’t there a story about the Buddha, where someone asked him “hey, how do we know you’re a good teacher, do you have any references or can we see your resume or something? Is there some sort of witness or Great Brotherhood of Gurus that can certify that you’re awake?”
And then the Buddha touched the earth.
Do I have that story correct? I love that story.
Edward: The usual story of the Buddha is that as he was approaching the definitive moment of complete enlightenment, Mara, a demon who was desperately trying to derail his efforts (which usually has four meanings in various contexts, one of which, deva mara, represents this actual being… or you could view it as the death rattle of his attachment to self) basically said to Gautama, “Who are you to say you are enlightened? Who witnesses your enlightenment?” or something of that nature. The Buddha, with total confidence and poise simply touches the earth. Like in the Matrix where the Oracle says, “Being the One is like being in love. Nobody needs to tell you that you’re in love. You just know it… through and through. Balls to bones.”
I have a great deal of sympathy and agreement with the views expressed that point out the shortcomings of lineage and its vulnerability to seduction by power and political aims. However, again, I am stopped by the throwing out of the baby with the bath water.
Here’s the problem with just relying on your own eyes and ears to evaluate a teacher: You are much more likely to select someone who appeals to your egoic preferences and values. You are likely to feel good about someone who “fits” with your current worldview, which, if you are a typical sentient being, is deluded and prone to vast misunderstanding. More then we’d like to admit, whatever our high idealistic spiritual aims are, when it comes down to it, most of us are probably selecting for situations that let us feel like we’re spiritually advancing without actually being pushed out of our comfort zone too much. But I can only speak for myself.
The purpose of lineage is to contain and preserve the proven methods and realization that has been fostered and developed through the history of practitioners. When people have been doing things for a couple thousand years, they learn what works and what doesn’t. They learn how to effectively train this kind of individual as opposed to that kind of individual. They learn what the sidetracks and pitfalls are. The Buddha identified several spiritual teachers in his time who were merely accomplished shamatha practitioners who had thought they attained enlightenment. He needed to tell them, hey, that’s good… but its not a final result. That’s the purpose of lineage.
So yes, from the perspective of final realization, lineage is unnecessary. The Buddha didn’t need anyone to tell him what was what. And when thieves meet each other on the street, they need no introduction.
However, what most of us are dealing with is that we lack confidence, we lack complete understanding, we have karmic predispositions which might cause us to be attracted to a teacher who isn’t genuine and who doesn’t have the skill or training to handle our situation. The purpose of lineage is to protect against falling into those kinds of situations.
Whether it is serving that function is something we need to evaluate, but I don’t think the answer is to write the whole thing off and just go with anyone who can talk the talk.
Hi Mr. Vitale,
Thanks for clarifying that story about the Buddha.
However, what most of us are dealing with is that we lack confidence, we lack complete understanding, we have karmic predispositions which might cause us to be attracted to a teacher who isn’t genuine
Yes. It is beautiful. Whatever we desire is provided for us, in a sense. In this generous and kind universe, we are allowed to reap what we sow. Should people who do not truly desire enlightenment be forced into true practice, because we know what’s best for them?
Trickery is another matter of course…
The purpose of lineage is to protect against falling into those kinds of situations.
Could be. I also think a wise man once said that when you realize there is no safety net, when you realize your capacity to make enormous mistakes, then all of a sudden paying attention becomes a lot more important.
As long as we think we have God on our side, or the Lineage on our side, then I’m afraid we’re in a tremendous amount of trouble. (I seem to recall hearing that the Regent used to say “as long as you’ve got the lineage, you cannot make a mistake” or something like that.)
Speaking personally, I was never attracted to CTR’s books because of his lineage– I just liked what he had to say and how he said it. He seemed genuine. He needed no credentials. His actions cast me into doubt occasionally, but how refreshing that was! I learned from those things the most.
The only way you can even evaluate a lineage seems to be to first evaluate a teacher with one’s own eyes and ears, and then see what he or she says about a certain lineage. The lineage is secondary in that sense– we experience it through its living examples, or through stories. How else can we experience lineage?
I guess the other way to evaluate a lineage is what we might call the Catholic Church approach. We are the authority, and if you’d like our approval, submit to us and become our member. We will take care of you, and keep you from making mistakes that could lead you to hell. If you have not heard of us, we’ll be happy to send some folk to your village to show you our might and supremacy, that we are good and true.
most of us are probably selecting for situations that let us feel like we’re spiritually advancing without actually being pushed out of our comfort zone too much. But I can only speak for myself.
spoken like someone with some practice under his belt…
I wrote:
As long as we think we have God on our side, or the Lineage on our side, then I’m afraid we’re in a tremendous amount of trouble.
That’s how I see it, but I might be wrong about that.
I know that in the Christian tradition, it’s been said that if God takes a liking to you, he might show it by welcoming you into “the dark night of the soul”. That’s where the rug is pulled out from under you and your realize that God is not rooting for you at all, he just wants you to wake up. God gives you free will so you can make mistakes and learn from them. Mishaps are not a problem in that tradition.
Perhaps in certain Buddhist lineages life is understood quite differently though, in the sense that embracing the lineage provides a kind of protection from making mistakes, a freedom from the burdens of free will, a kind of security that one has found “it” and can truly take solace in the Holiness and infallibility of the Church.
Edward, you make me laugh: “As long as we think we have God on our side, or the Lineage on our side, then I’m afraid we’re in a tremendous amount of trouble. (I seem to recall hearing that the Regent used to say “as long as you’ve got the lineage, you cannot make a mistake” or something like that.) . . . Perhaps in certain Buddhist lineages life is understood quite differently though, in the sense that embracing the lineage provides a kind of protection from making mistakes, a freedom from the burdens of free will, a kind of security that one has found “it” and can truly take solace in the Holiness and infallibility of the Church.”
I believe you are correct that the Regent thought he was “protected.” Later he privately admitted that he “made a mistake,” but he didn’t admit it publicly – which compounded the problem in terms of his effect as a “lineage holder” on the sangha.
I don’t think CTR ever taught that “embracing the lineage provides a kind of protection from making mistakes, a freedom from the burdens of free will, a kind of security that one has found “it” and can truly take solace in the Holiness and infallibility of the Church.” He did teach that the spiritual path is dangerous and full of booby traps, and that there are no guarantees. He emphasized the pain that lineage teachers went through on their paths of awakening. Buddhism doesn’t talk about the dark night of the soul, but perhaps the attacks of maras are an equivalent.
Yes lineage seems to be a way sometimes of holding people back ie in that the lineage was passed to this person and that in some way this person becomes infallible.
I think this is a misconception of lineage – to me lineage seems to revolve more round using your critical intelligence to ‘evaluate’ whether you can work with this person. For example I have left one western teacher because he became too dogmatic about the path he was given –there was no room for movement with him.
With Trungpa the relationship is tricky yes in the sense that sometimes he did say his way of doing things was correct but he also allowed room for questioning around this stance which does indeed entice the student into working with him. What can one call it a process of the dharma seeping into your system like the rain.
Now with the present organisation I just don’t get that feeling that’s why I have split – for example Trungpa did not need a court in the sense of the presenting his ‘command and wishes’ – I think that is a very bad phrase for SI to use in its literature – rather no with Trungpa by his very presence you got that sense of majesty.
And also there is the question of the lineage entering fully into the western context –
Some teachers in SI/Vajradhatu have been studying and practicing these teachings for over forty years at some point I think like Ray they have to jump into manifesting the dharma completely if the present Tibetan tradition does not let them do that. Its audacious I know but I think the times call for audaciousness in order for the dharma to spread. See it the other way perhaps if people had stayed in SI they could have been high up there with the Sakyong as possible superacharyas –cant you put your feet in their shoes and see the world from their side aswell?
I think it is no use adhering to a system just because of the lineage factor if really you have no connection with the way it is manifesting in the world –therefore lineage in this respect does go out of the door. It is dangerous I know but that is the Buddhist and Shambhalian path for sure anyway with its emphasis on impermanence and fearlessness respectively.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Edward
I think it is important to differentiate between lineage and the tulku system. And even between lineage and “Lineage”!
Lineage is general, the teachers one studies with. Padmasambhava did have a lineage. His guru was Shri Singha, whose teacher was Manjusrimitra, whose teacher was Garab Dorje (if I recall correctly – there might be one more in there somewhere). CTR had Jamgon Kongtrul and Khenpo Gangshar and some others.
we each have our lineage. Sometimes “Lineage” is used to communicate – for better or worse – “this is how WE do things”. So in some sense the notion of “Lineage” can be a normalizer or control mechanism.
Tulkuhood is specific. 10th Trungpa -> 11th Trungpa -> 12th Trungpa. The previous one passes before the next is born. Tara mentioned the rationale in one of her posts.
I think it is a mistake to confuse / conflate lineage with the tulku system.
By “lineage” I was thinking of the idea that because Sakyong Mipham or the Regent or whomever are lineage-holders, we can trust them to never make mistakes, and we can become their student without having to evaluate them with our eyes and ears.
That’s part of the function of lineage, someone said– to evaluate the teachers for us because we ourselves are not fully trustworthy to do the evaluation.
I do see value to the idea of lineage– definitely– but I also think it could be misunderstood or misused, possibly.
I learned recently that Catholic Popes trace their lineage back to Saint Peter, and this is understood to give them their legitimacy. Interesting.
Regarding lineage, here’s what the Regent quoted Trungpa Rinpoche as saying to him, at the 1980 Seminary:
Hi all, wow is this a long (and interestingly winding) thread.
I would love to HEAR some of the senior students (and younger students) of the Vidyadhara express themselves about Shambhala vision. Your own words and understanding would be wonderful.
How do you understand ’shambhala as container principle’?
Many thanks,
Kristine
Interesting comment Mark on the concept of lineage – it points to the fact that we have to ‘judge’ a lineage holder by his/her actions in the world after they are confirmed. So it is always up to the student to check on the lineage holders behaviour to see that it is not being corrupted by his/her position. I suppose the mirror analogy would come in here.
Re the present situation in SI therefore it is up to the students to check on the behaviour of the Sakyong and the other people in positions of authority -this also applies to other groups that are now forming outside of SI but within Trungpa’s teaching stream – I count here the older students such as Ray and possibly others who may have studied with Robin Kornman.
I think re lineage generally it is still a matter of debate who should carry the whole thing on – re Ray has made his stand about this but there may be others in the wings who are in a similar position. I wonder if they are still considering their way forward re lineage in this respect. Personally I think lineage can be given in subtler ways than was done with the Sakyong as in a public ceremony. Surely at times older students of Trungpa really came into contact with Trungpa’s world and mind directly – could that be called a mind transmission of the lineage which could indeed be confirmed by other Kagyu lamas as has been done to a certain extent with Patrick Sweeny being endorsed to teach the Vajrayana by Thrangu Rinpoche.
Interesting questions about lineage surfacing – I hope the debate can go on.
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
In response to Kristine’s request: “I would love to HEAR some of the senior students (and younger students) of the Vidyadhara express themselves about Shambhala vision. Your own words and understanding would be wonderful.”
Here is what I have come up with. These are excerpts of an essay on the “outer” tradition of the legend of Shambhala. I may submit this essay for publication on RFS at a later time when I have time to relate to comments, which I don’t right now. These are excerpts:
Shambhala is the vision of a contemplative society in which the possibility of cessation is realized collectively because people meditate and thereby cease to generate samsara, confused existence. Shambhala is an ideal that has been glimpsed, however briefly, in different places and cultures, and seems to exist in the collective unconscious as an archetype. As an archetype, it is a universal dream and longing for compassion and wisdom to manifest on the collective level, in ways of life that enable the highest human values to be shared and lived in common. This dream or ideal shows up all over the world as the aspiration to organize our world so that all people may prosper by living wholesome, dignified lives in peace and harmony – without the pettiness of greed and selfishness, and without the delusions and deceptiveness that follow greed and selfishness, which give rise to samsara, domination, war and oppression. The vision of Shambhala is that this is possible, that it has happened before and it can happen again. . . .
Shambhala is said to have been a kingdom in Central Asia that flourished somewhere along the old Silk Road. It was said to be a place of high culture and learning where the ideas, merchandise, and spiritual practices of many traditions and cultures intermixed in an inquisitive and appreciative atmosphere of peace and prosperity. Their way of life joined Heaven (vision) and Earth (practicality) in harmony. There was wealth as well as a high level of spiritual realization among the inhabitants. It was a sanctuary for the highest human values and traditions, free from strife and jealousy because the people had what they needed, including their own dignity. Their rulers were enlightened kings who were just, powerful, and merciful. The sacred arts and scriptures of many religions were placed in the libraries for safekeeping for the future. Shambhala regarded itself and is still regarded as the repository for the spiritual wisdom and power that would be needed to save the world from the darkness and depravity that would threaten to destroy all civilization in the future. . . .
The Shambhala myth in its simplest form is that the fortunate seeker makes a perilous journey to a hidden sanctuary that holds a source of liberation and renewal that will eventually transform not only the seeker, but the outside world as well. This myth has been interpreted on the material level as well as on the purely symbolic and spiritual level. On the symbolic level, the vision of Shambhala exists in all human hearts.
A very good explanation of shambhala vision from Suzanne
Just a few comments I think anyone anywhere can be in Shambhala if they clue into openness which is fearlessness of course.
Strangely also in this state too you can have visions of Shambhala as the
Vidyadhara did – yes I think we are all capable of having our own shambhalian visions -therefore the process of terma being discovered will go on and on.
Shambhala training should teach us all to be Kings and Queens as this is the only way we shall access these visions. The Kingdom of God is within you as the Christian tradition says.
Best
Rita Ashworth
>> S: “Is the Trungpa line going to continue?”
CTR: “I don’t think so.”
S: “Do you think you’re going to be a Buddhist in your next life?”
CTR: “I don’t know.”
S: “Maybe?”
CTR: “I would be at least in essence, but who can tell?” <<
Could I please have a copy of the tape where he actually said this? Please send live recording to Tara Carreon, 2165 S. Avenida Planeta, Tucson, AZ 85710. Because until I hear him say this with his own mouth, I don't believe a word of it. Even if it is true, that's no excuse for his students to treat him like shit. It's simply proof of his knowing what traitors he was surrounded with. Of course, the lamas know better than anyone how other lamas are constantly trying to steal their students and their stuff. I think we headed off about five attempted takeovers at Yeshe Niyinpo during the years I was there: Gonpo Tseden, Chakdud Tulku, Yeshe Dorje, Kusum Lingpa, Sangye Khandro. A tulku should never have to speak his intentions to reincarnate: IT JUST HAPPENS, due to their compassion and the anguished cries of their students. Of course a tulku picks up where he leaves off, because he cares and his activity isn't random.. I have been blown away by the attitudes of the Trungpa students here on this board. The complete lack of sincerity in your responses about Trungpa's obvious intention to reincarnate and spread the dharma to the West — well, obviously, the Tibetan heirarchy didn't want any of that! What? Lose a valuable asset to a Westerner? I read on Wikipedia that Osel Tendzin insulted the Tibetan heirarchy by not giving Vajradhatu over to Tai Situ, whoever, but that wasn't his job. His job was to hold the seat for Trungpa. The completely idiotic responses here of people who don't need lineage, hello — there's nothing to Tibetan Buddhism but lineage. Trungpa's "family" was his lineage. Marpa was his father, Osel Tendzin was his son, his brothers were Gampopa and Milarepa. This idea that he wanted to transfer to a "family" lineage, meaning some kind of aristocracy, gets rid of the democratic aspect of Tibetan Buddhism, which says that a tulku could be born in any family, anywhere he decided. But the Tibetan hierarchy didn't want that if it meant being born among Westerners, or giving the lineage away to Westerners. There is nobody more racist and superior than the Tibetan heirarchy. They think they know everything, and Westerners are hardly worth relating to, except to get their money.
In this thread there are over one hundred occurrences of the term “lineage.” I have gathered many of them below. Take my word for it, though, not one of them touches the true purpose of lineage, which is to provide a guarantee of genuineness and authenticity. The lineage holder is intended to be the true recipient of the pure transmission of the teachings. This pure transmission process is the ONLY method by which the teachings transmitted from Vajradhara to Tilopa to Marpa to Milarepa can be said to reliably reach us in this age, because as Trungpa Rinpoche said in his poem, that I quoted above:
“Solid Marpa
Our father,
The message of the lineage:
You are the breadwinner.
Without your farm we would starve to death.”
You get that? Starve to death! No food! No Dharma! Nothing! All of your speculations about lineage will just have no meaning at all. The farm is the field of Bodhi that you can cultivate in this lifetime to reap the harvest of enlightenment, but if there is no seed to plant there, nothing will grow. That seed is the lineage, the generative power of wisdom, and according to the legend that I assume you are supposed to believe, that seed is passed from one lineage holder to the next. It does not meander around and manifest randomly here and there, as some of the posters have suggested. It will not be recognized cropping up by the roadside like a pretty weed. Sure, students who practice, who have inspiration, will demonstrate some pleasing qualities, but if the story of the Glorious Kagyu Lineage is true, these manifestations are almost meaningless. They are like flashlights compared with the sun. Only the sun drives away the night, illuminating the entire world with radiance. If the lineage of Glorious Trungpas means anything, it is up to you to give it meaning, and you will never do that by tolerating a usurper sitting on the Trungpa Throne. If the Twelfth Trungpa has indeed been discovered, and you are all sitting on your hands mumbling philosophy and talking about lineage as if you might find it under a rock, or in a Cracker Jack box, then you are the reverse of the person referred to in the Bodhicharyavatara, who “finds a jewel in rubbish” and by treasuring it, puts an end to suffering. You have a jewel in your hand, and will not even open your fist to look at it.
John Tischer: “When I read Robin Kornman’s talks, I hear the echo of the Vidyadhara.
I felt the same when I heard some of the other older students teach. It’s that feeling of the teachings striking your heart. To me, that is an example of lineage.”
Mark Szpakowski: “the Shambhala teachings do not define a new Buddhist sect or lineage, but a fresh approach to connecting with and practicing the sacred”
Ronald Barnstone: “The present Sakyong claims to come from the Shambhala Buddhist lineage. I still would like to know exactly what this lineage (parampara) is supposed to be.”
Jim Hartz: “NO ONE today can carry on the Vidyadhara’s lineage–his approach, the heart of it. The only person who might have been able to do it was the Regent–an actual student of the Vidyadhara.”
Edward: “The difference between VCTR and SMR is that VCTR started from scratch in some ways, with no students. SMR inherited all kinds of students and fame and influence from VCTR, along with accepting the title of “Sakyong” – protector of the Shambhala lineage that his father founded.”
Jim Hartz: ‘The only way to carry forward the Vidyadhara’s teachings is simply to do it, as best we can, till we’re dead. Lineage is the problem, the aching question–how can the Vidyadhara’s teachings as he taught them survive?’
Kevin Frost: “A world of relatives is indeed a world already well ordered and good. We realize our goodness in the cultivation of these natural relations which in fact ‘create’ us. Therefore the primary form of authority in the Shambhala world is family lineage.”
Chris: ”The group thing is over for most of us. As it is for most people here who came from other lineages and live here, i.e. , Sufi, Hindu, Zen, etc. It becomes a lonely journey sooner or later as everyone discovers eventually regardless of their spiritual journey. ”
J.Vitale: “As for Shambhala as a community and SMR as a lineage holder, I think we should have a little more confidence…”
Tashi Armstrong: “Khenpo Gangshar was one of Trungpa Rinpoche’s main teachers and was a very close disciple of Jamgon Kongtrul Trungpa’s root guru as related in “Born in Tibet.” These are the pith instructions of our lineage and they are found on www,dharmasun.org.”
Edmund Butler: “Perhaps given the outrageous magnitude of his vision, his unswerving determination, his lineage, extensive early training and exile it’s reasonable to expect confusion over the direction of the mandala absent that same tireless clarity and not infrequent controversial leadership events?”
Rita Ashworth: “Actually at this point in the great game of the teachings coming to the west – I think the question of lineage and who is the ‘right’ lineage holder is somewhat going out the door. Why do I think this well because of what Ray and others are doing now. *** I am not so much concerned about lineage as I used to be and receiving the orgs. stamp on how I behave in the world.”
Michael Sullivan: “It is also interesting that then the attention goes away from the Trungpa lineage – and towards the “Sakyong lineage” – which IIRC was more of a title or job description when CTR was alive.”
Rita Ashworth: “Yes – I have wondered about the Sakyong lineage too -you dont find it mentioned in the will for example.”
J.VItale: “To me that goes against the essence of the shambhalian teachings that everyone is capable of manifesting them completely and in a sense the lineage question at this point just goes out of the window lets not even mention the door.”
Rita Ashworth: “WE need to look at lineage in more depth — perhaps with more western eyes.”
Michael Sullivan: “What I mentioned about attention going away from the Trungpa lineage was that there appears to be a de-emphasis on the Trungpa tulku, and a shift to a family lineage. ”
James Vitale: “As for the hijacking of the lineage and assets, etc, certainly I have concerns. On the other hand, from what I know of Trungpa Rinpoche, having never met him directly, I would guess that he really couldn’t care less about these meaningless details.”
John Tischer: “It’s no secret that VCTR wanted a family lineage, and that his actions late in his life were focused on setting up that. ”
Andrew Safer
S: “Is the Trungpa line going to continue?”
CTR: “I don’t think so.”
The Mishap Lineage: Transforming Confusion Into Wisdom by Chogyam Trungpa (Shambhala Publications, 2009), p. 92-93
Rita Ashworth: “Did you also hear that Ray has just done a 28 day dark retreat – wow-I think if I was a Tibetan Lama I would make him a lineage holder just for that”
Michael Sullivan: “personally I think that recognition of Pema’s place in the lineage is long overdue.”
Rita Ashworth: “SI is not the only option for doing this practice – if people want to do it. *** Therefore we do really have to consider the lineage question more fully in light of this and other changes in the world of dharma.”
Edward: “The whole idea of lineage is somewhat of a joke if you ask me.*** The ideas of lineage and tulkus served a spiritual function, but they also served a political function of maintaining control.”
James Vitale: “The purpose of lineage is to contain and preserve the proven methods and realization that has been fostered and developed through the history of practitioners. When people have been doing things for a couple thousand years, they learn what works and what doesn’t. ”
Edward: “embracing the lineage provides a kind of protection from making mistakes, a freedom from the burdens of free will, a kind of security that one has found “it” “
S: “Is the Trungpa line going to continue?”
CTR: “I don’t think so.”
The Mishap Lineage: Transforming Confusion Into Wisdom by Chogyam Trungpa (Shambhala Publications, 2009), p. 92-93
This little tidbit of absurdity requires its own comment. Are we asked to take seriously a revisionist document that is being published by the hijackers of the lineage TWENTY-TWO YEARS after the death of Trungpa Eleven? This quotation is an obvious invention, a piece of disinformation put out for the consumption of fools. In the inimitable words of Dr. Evil, throw me a frickin’ bone, here! The Twelfth Trungpa has been born, enthroned, and divested of all his worldly and spiritual assets. This is not frickin’ in doubt. His picture is on the blessed Konchok website, right here http://www.konchok.org/trungpa.html. Crimony, it is the equivalent of blasphemy to deny it! The question for all of you people is why you don’t give a pile of garuda poop about him! Perhaps garuda poop would be more precious, actually. His total yearly support of $8,000 is less than the Sakyong’s walking around money for a week.
Dear Tara
Thank you for that summation of quotes from people about lineage -it does show that we are all experiencing questions about the present situation of carrying the teachings forward in both the Shambhala and Buddhist formats.
I think at some point the Trungpa in Tibet will come over to the West and then we shall see what the sangha makes of him here up until that point we do still have to carry the teachings forward here, and my inspiration to do that was Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche so I have decided to work from this inspiration at the present time in the world.
I must have met about twenty lamas in the past in the 1970s and 1980s and the one that really impressed me besides Trungpa Rinpoche was Karmapa 16 – I remember being blessed by him when he came down from his throne and circulated round the audience – I think I must have slightly ignored him the first time I was blessed because the second time I looked up he was hovering above me with a big beaming smile on his face – a smile that filled the whole of the world.
In some respects I would like the lineage question to disappear and that we were all united again in the sense of having that giant of a man Karmapa 16 alive but that is not the case. I have to consider what is happening in the sangha now and come to my own way of dealing with the lineage question -otherwise I would be basing my actions on just following the flow of an organisation whether in Tibet or Canada and that I can not do even if everyone accepts that they really have the correct position.
So thats where I am on lineage – re the present discussion
the thread slightly changed with Suzanne’s comment on Shambhala vision so Tara do you have any comments to make on this aspect of the Vidyadhara’s teachings. As I have written elsewhere I think the Shambhala teachings should be open to all faiths to the nth degree as the Vidyadhara wanted. To me everyone should be invited to this shambhala party indeed even at weddings my mother said you should invite the people you dont get on with……that has to be the case at all
celebrations and indeed the shambhala teachings are a celebration of life.
Perhaps it is time to change this thread to a discussion of shambhala vision and leave the lineage question on the back burner for a while – whilst we contemplate it more in our own way.
Tara I would love to hear your comments on the Shambhala teachings.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
This thread began as a discussion of the “Genuine Chogyam Trungpa,” and that is my focus here. Bernie Weitzman began it as a sort of olive branch to other “students of the Vidyadhara,” telling them that “we are free to teach within the community,” and inviting them to channel their own “Essential Chogyam Trungpa” and “join the Sakyong in fulfilling his father’s vision.” What followed was a series of comments in which older students were critical of hurdles placed in their path as teachers in the Shambhala centers. Inquiry began to focus around John Tischer’s statement that “loyalty to Sakyong Mipham is a requisite … many who aren’t exactly eye to eye with the situation are excluded … so … should one be loyal to one’s own understanding of the teachings as we’ve been taught by the Vidyadhara, or Sakyong Mipham’s path?”
I have entered the discussion as a forme