The Keys to the Kingdom

105 Responses to “The Keys to the Kingdom”

1. John Tischer on May 19th, 2009 8:46 pm
   

   The Shanbhala teachings were revealed during the Vidyadhara’s life
   directly to his students. This was not merely a local event, but one
   prophesied for centuries in Tibet…that the Shambhala teachings would manifest in the Dark Age.

   To me, it’s a living myth. Perhaps the Shambhala teachings will be like
   the dragon in the cloud…some times visible….some times shrouded. To
   me, the question of whether the transmission will be preserved or not is
   moot….I feel it already permeates the world.
2. Tsondru Garma on May 20th, 2009 1:44 pm
   

   Well, fittingly, a very intuitive poetic reply to a very intuitive poetic post.

   I really enjoyed reading Susanne’s post: for it’s in between the lines approach, and for its interesting ideas. Particularly, the ironic notion about the outsiders containing the inside.

   Perhaps and most probably, the Shambhala teachings will live in new forms; as John suggested, they will be like “the dragon in the cloud.” or in other ways, as yet unforeseen. I also hope for the success of more concrete ways of ensuring the survival of both the Vidyadhara’s Shambhala Teachings and his unique way of presenting Buddha dharma which goes to the bone. Books, tapes, videos, web sites like this one, Fabrice Midal, the chronicles, etc.

   and, of course… word of mouth via older teachers and students. Also, I was thinking about the various younger generation of Rinpoches who were influenced by the Vidyadhara… and who still teach traditional Buddhism with the extra appreciation that they received from their exposure to Trungpa Rinpoche.
3. Tsondru Namkha on May 21st, 2009 8:15 am
   

   I know these responses are “correct” but in my heart I feel there should be more group action toward carrying forward the authentic spiritual legacy of the Vidyadhara. Currently, officially, the legacy, authentic or otherwise, is fully under the control of Shambhala International and Osel Mukpo. I myself always thought that Nova Scotia was to be the physical place that Shambhala would be formed and manifest and emanate in today’s world. However, most of Trungpa’s students who moved here have moved away again. And many of them never moved here in the first place. I wish all his students who have meditation centers would open one up here in Nova Scotia. (Close to Kalapa Valley would be a good place. Halifax was never named as the center of things here.)
4. tsondru garma on May 21st, 2009 1:26 pm
   

   Dea Tsondru,

   I agree with your heart. Even though we golden oldies will all eventually die off, that sort of actual group manifestation of Trungpa Rinpoche students would be a wonderful and concrete propagation and protection of the precious teachings. I think younger students would join. Good luck in Halifax!!

   love,
   Tsondru Garma
5. Marguerite Stanciu on May 21st, 2009 3:23 pm
   

   Dear Suzanne

   Thank you for this most poignant of postings. We are not alone.

   I feel that the Vidyadhara Chogyam Trungpa’s teachings are indestructible. But you perhaps have no idea what it has been like for myself and many others to be a cry in the wilderness for the last 15 years, to have the strength to stick with your own truth in the face of huge and heartbreaking opposition.

   I lived in Nova Scotia for 11 years and only left for my husband’s work. There is a land of Kalapa and there is a transmission about that and that’s not going to go away because it is out of the conventional realm.

   The kingdom of Shambhala is not going to go away. So I hope that people will join us. It’s a beautiful country.
6. Aba Cecile McHardy on May 22nd, 2009 2:04 pm
   

   So Ho Ho Ho my Hearties, scattered around the Universe in whirling
   galaxies. Keep your eyes peeled so as not to miss it:
   Wonderments!!
   No Regrets!!.
   Occasions for Great Joy!!
   Change the metaphor. Perhaps because expecting bearers of ‘Golden Keys to the Kingdom’ – Surprise Surprise! Realization that what is seeded , self existing, in curious and unexpected places, because so needed, are Secret Gardens. Keep your own Beacon Bright so you can see and recognize the loveliness..appreciation of you all, John, Tsondu, Marguerite, Susanne Vincent.
   Great Love
7. Suzanne Duarte on May 23rd, 2009 7:35 am
   

   Hmmm. John is right that the transmission already permeates the world – for those who know how to keep the Great Eastern Sun within view. I think Susanne Vincent is addressing something else – the manifestation of the transmission in Enlightened Society. She says, “It would be so much more convenient for so many people if the beacon of Shambhala did radiate a great big pulse of authentic presence at us all the time.” She never even met the Vidyadhara, never experienced the sangha while he was alive. Yet she finds something missing, something promised in the Shambhala teachings, as do many of us who experienced VCTR’s authentic presence, as do some other newer students who were attracted by his teachings to the Shambhala Mandala and show up on this site to express the feeling that something is missing.

   What is missing, perhaps, is the “actual group manifestation of Trungpa Rinpoche students [which] would be a wonderful and concrete propagation and protection of the precious teachings,” as Tsondru Garma put it in this thread. I could be wrong, but I got the distinct impression that that group manifestation is what VCTR envisioned and intended. Did he not speak of keeping the sangha together in his will? Why have so many students of the Vidyadhara left the Shambhala mandala? Why is there a need for Radio Free Shambhala? Why are there no open lines of communication “from top to bottom and bottom to top” within the sangha and the hierarchy of the Shambhala mandala – as Acharya Richard John admitted during his interview with Julia Sagebien on the Chronicle Project? http://www.chronicleproject.com/chroniclesradio_dispatches/index_dispatches.html

   Aba Cecile McHardy, why do I get the feeling that you mock us when you make comments on this site? Do you think that keeping our “Beacons Bright” should prevent us from seeing the shadows? I question whether mocking is helpful when people are genuinely expressing the pain of recognizing that something is missing.

   When did authentic presence come to mean not being present to the dark as well as the light?
8. rita ashworth on May 23rd, 2009 8:43 am
   

   Myself think a revolution is called for and its about time for it to happen.

   There has to be some push to get these teachings out into the world in a rush almost -religious ardour I dont think so – its just a question of the Time.

   Governments falling down in the world and there is just no trust happening anywhere and Shambhala does have some tentative answers about how life could change in this world of ours.

   Myself hoping to meet up with Mr Karelis when he comes to UK in September – hope there are others who will be coming here aswell. Definite need to check out of the whole structure of giving the teachings in such a long process -there needs to be people talking about these teachings on street corners. Just get the ideas out there in whatever way you can think. Think that is it.

   best

   Rita Ashworth
   Stockport UK
9. Aba Cecile McHardy on May 23rd, 2009 9:01 am
   

   http://westernmountain.org/drala.html
   The Drala Principle – how to connect Yes?
   As you speed along life’s highway don’t forget to stop and eat the roses!
10. John Tischer on May 24th, 2009 1:25 pm
    

    I think the experience of Directing Shamahala Training, if it’s done
    properly, can’t be much different from what the Scorpion
    Seal has to offer. But it’s not taught that way anymore, is it? With
    the same magic and authentic presence? To me, that’s why Shambhala
    Training was so amazing….that the Rigdens’ mind was
    present….Rinpoche’s mind was present….on the spot.
    I’m not imagining it happened. Is the idea
    now to centralize that power in SMR and he disseminates
    it so there are no other stand-out teachers that might turn into a
    “Reggie” or a “Bill” ? One possible logic….and makes sense in
    terms of kingdom building….you don’t want spin off rivals.
    They got enough already with the aforementioned,
    plus Perks, Jim Green, Patrick Sweeney….yada yada…. So
    controlling the kingdom could be a factor.
11. James Elliott on May 24th, 2009 3:41 pm
    

    As with all things under the umbrella “Shambhala Buddhism” there are at least two things jumbled together that probably ought not be.

    First, there is no one ‘pure transmission’. His teachings were too diverse.

    And I doubt Trungpa Rinpoche’s “spiritual transmission” is what is being protected. When I hear that term it refers to enlightened mind. I don’t think that needs protection. Frankly I doubt a collective effort could be made that wouldn’t undermine it anyway.

    However, before vajrayana or transmissions, Trungpa Rinpoche’s approach to Western culture was unique and seems at risk.

    It’s often said within Shambhala “VCTR’s teachings were for then, and SMR’s teachings are for now”. How could this be? Some also see an undermining of the importance of shamatha and a fading away of that being presented with teachings on spiritual materialism.

    The other thing perhaps at risk is the vision of Shambhala Society. I doubt this is a transmission like TGS or abisheka or a Werma lung, though some speak of it in those terms.

    Shambhala Society is also not a new lineage. A society is not limited to the scaffolding of a Buddhist school with hierarchies, a beginning middle and end etc. That’s fine and useful in a Buddhist school, which transmits an approach to realization with particular disciplines for students who have been drawn to that teacher (and visa verso) due to style, karma and all the mysteries that make such a relationship a powerful upaya, however larger society won’t hold together under those kinds of stresses.

    I believe this is a major cause of the marginalization often referred to.

    Citizens of a larger society are not devotees by virtue of heritage, inheritance, birth or geography. So there are a number of practical reasons that any spiritual lineage on one hand and on the other a Society simply can not be the same thing.

    However, the proclamation that we are ‘Shambhala Buddhists’ seems to say they are the same. A quandary.

    Even if we don’t analyze the words of our teacher on that level, a plethora of historical evidence strongly suggests that joining church and state governance is a formula for disaster. History ought to give pause, even if the teachings do not.

    Because it isn’t really about a transmission, I’m not sure it’s up to anyone to carry forward a particular transmission. It’s not on that level. Perhaps the best we can do is to remember and remind, keep his vision alive with this and sites like the Chronicles, and stir up genuine debate on what these things actually mean, with a focus far beyond our own personal enlightenment.

    It would certainly be a mistake to focus on any one understanding of Trungpa Rinpoche, but perhaps his teachings before vajrayana and official transmissions, his teachings on culture, and basic practice and spiritual materialism, was where some of his most influential powerful and unique teachings most brilliantly manifested.

    In the inspiration of the gap,

    James Elliott
12. Suzanne Duarte on May 25th, 2009 11:35 am
    

    John and James, very well said! Thank you. Very rich compost. I have two thoughts relating to both posts:

    1) Trungpa Rinpoche’s direct students, such as ourselves, all received a piece of his total transmission. That is, he planted seeds in each of us that ripened our own particular karma and potential. Thus, we each understand his teachings in our own particular way. Certain things he said stood out for each of us and became conviction and confidence. There was never a sense that one-size-fits-all. In that sense, I differ from James’ view that ” I’m not sure it’s up to anyone to carry forward a particular transmission.” That is, I think it’s up to ALL of us to manifest and proclaim what we received. After all, VCTR made sure than many of his students were trained to be teachers. Each of us seemed/seem destined to increasingly become our own unique selves, carrying our own unique understanding of our teacher’s teachings – which is one of the reasons it seems such a shame that the field of ‘authorized’ teachers within the Shambhala mandala has become so narrowed and controlled. John’s speculation that ‘you don’t want spin off rivals’ does appear to be operable. The richness of the field of VCTR’s transmission has thus been narrowed, and perhaps impoverished.

    Another thing comes to mind: when VCTR was alive, the hierarchy of teachers was not set in stone. Yes, Lodrö Dorje was the seemingly permanent head (Loppon) of Practice and Study. But people were moved around a lot from one position to another – a few years here, a few years there. Some of us fell on our faces, but it was all a learning experience, and being an ‘Ambassador’ to outposts was never forever. After ambassadorship, people had to go out and find a livelihood like everybody else. The process seemed intended to ripen karma and create well-rounded individuals. The pot was continually stirred, and there was never much of a sense of security in having a position within the hierarchy while VCTR was alive. THAT was part of his transmission! “Buddhadharma without credentials.”

    2) The Shambhala vision of ‘Enlighened Society,’ I believe, was based on a vision of diversity unified by mutual realization of dignity, confidence, authenticity, upliftedness, etc. We were all meant to discover solid gold within ourselves and become kings and queens of our own mandalas, which would enrich the Kingdom of Shambhala. VCTR saw the potential for enriching the kingdom in many people and traditions, and brought them into the mandala to enrich the culture and education of his students. There was a sense of inclusiveness and appreciation, not of competition and rivalry. At least that is how I experienced his world from fairly close in. The richness and magic (drala) was dispersed, as John describes the experience of directing Shambhala Training. It was not owned by or concentrated within the titular center.
13. Susanne Vincent on May 26th, 2009 7:43 am
    

    Thank you for every contribution, and please don’t stop.
    Thanks, John, for your opening words: ‘The Shambhala teachings were revealed during the Vidyadhara’s life directly to his students . . . the Shambhala teachings would manifest in the Dark Age.’ I thought for a moment too, about Shambhala vision as living myth – and about magical realms and beings that disappear when nobody believes in them any more, and felt momentarily glum.
    I have loved to read the posts from Marguerite, Tsondru Namkha, Rita and Suzanne – whose last post echoes many of my thoughts, and whose earlier questions are mine, too. Aba Cecile McHardy, I feel you are not adversarial, but a soothsayer, and possibly in an altered state.
    I hovered over Tsondru Namkha’s words: ‘Currently, officially, the legacy . . . is fully under the control of Shambhala International . . .’ and gulped. Thank you for writing that, seeing it in print is somehow more gulpingly shocking than just thinking it. Is it really possible to copyright a spiritual path? Of what does a spiritual path consist? Refer Four Dharmas of Gampopa, no patent evident. Does somebody own my spiritual path, then? And does a spiritual path exist separately from the people who walk it? I am very interested.
    It’s probably heretical, but I do feel that once there is commitment in the spirit of refuge, the spiritual path becomes more of a self existing thing – once our enlightened genes are activated we open more to the nature of things, and there is a rolling impetus like a downhill rock. Mountain guides are needed.
    As Rita says, the teachings need to be shouted on street corners. And although there is sound sense in entering the yanas sequentially (!) does the path really take a standard linear route? To me, the idea of institutionalised curriculum-based spiritual progress (must be a triple oxymoron) is just too mechanistic. Which Kagyu guru ever woke up as a result of such a thing? Vision must always arise to meet the needs of the time.
    The statements about a group manifestation have a lot of juice in them. ‘Manifest’ has occurred twice, once around the teachings doing it in the Dark Age, and once in a sense of co-creative genius emerging from the vessels themselves. Manifest means apparent: when something is manifested, it can be grasped, touched and perceived. Teachings can probably be said to ‘manifest’ in just one mind, a sort of private viewing, but I think what we mean by manifesting in the Dark Age is that the teachings are the response to the Dark Age. I think also that if they are bodhisattvas, the teachers themselves are responses to the Dark Age.
    (In the old tales, the Response to the Dark Age was always going to come from elder warriors sleeping under the hillsides . . .)
    I think that to make this response was the purpose of the Vidyadhara’s life. I feel that when he went, he waved at you all, and said, ‘I’ve given you everything you need . . . ’. His own response, and (good point James) his cultural creativity, were pointedly brilliant – he even schooled himself in the language of comparative religions to grasp the ragged cultural heritage he needed to cut through, and he gave all his trappings away in order to sit beside you – to sit beside all of us, on the level, not on a golden cardboard box. He created mountains of written works and talks and expended mountains of energy on your education and mentoring. I’m pretty sure something rubbed off.
    The world is desparately short of straight up spiritual teachers. The world is very very full of marketing and media. Nakedness is to be found hardly anywhere. The world is starving for authentic presence. No institution can manifest that, it needs a cultural movement, populated by heroes. That’s about all I know.
    SI doesn’t own the archetype of the spiritual warrior, nor of the legend of the kingdom of Shambhala, which is at least a thousand years old. The spiritual warrior arises in all cultures. Here in New Zealand, many Maori want to get closer to the pure heart of their own warrior heritage and I know of some who have even embraced Latoka warrior practices. I’ve also met, in sworn police officers, and even some young ‘squaddies’ (rookie soldiers), a heartfelt sense of honour, of noble behaviour, loyalty, courage, shila, willingness to dedicate whatever it takes for the protection of others, in a sense of ultimate service (which is why the betrayal can feel so great if that noble cause reveals itself as corrupt). There is rich soil everywhere.
    I’m of the generation that seriously believed for at least a few moments that flying saucers were going to come and take us away from all this, and now we are elders looking at a world where the very infrastructure for sustaining species is crumbling and now it seems even Time is running out.
    Eldership is interesting: the need for a sort of economy of scale and effort arises. Now we don’t want to do all the spade work any more, what’s the smartest, most efficient way we can serve this world? What’s the most powerful stuff we know, that needs to be known, because it’s hot – it’s strategically required in this era? What don’t we have the right to have die on our lips? Even if the suffering world is a mere stage-set, as players, we do need to play consciously. We have a life, and maybe a chance to save this world.
    We do have some clues to what enlightened society is about:
    ‘. . . being loyal to others, loyal to the most intimate experiences that you’ve shared with others, and it is having loyalty to the principle of Shambhala vision. I would like to encourage that enormously. The Shambhala training is just an educational system, and we are not asking for your loyalty to that, particularly. You can hold on to being a Freudian or a Jungian, or to whatever philosophy you hold. Nonetheless, you should also hold your loyalty to Shambhala vision. That loyalty is twofold. Quite simply, it is a commitment to (1) working gently with yourself and (2) being kind to others. When those two concur, there’s no alternative, no other way but to develop enlightened society. Enlightened society is pragmatic: it comes from trust, faith, and the genuine experience of reality. At the same time, it requires great and further vision to propagate this vision to other human beings, to bring them into this society.’ Great Eastern Sun p137
    Rita, I really enjoy what you say, maybe things just don’t have to be complicated. Perhaps the point comes where we know what the gift is that we need to bring. It ceases to be a matter of employment, more a driving imperative. Wherever there is passion, aggression and ignore-ance, there is a huge need for people to wake up. I feel that the Response to the Dark Age isn’t about churches, and is absolutely not about dressing up as Tibetans, and that with sufficient ‘great and further vision’ the whole terrain needs to be scanned and skilful means considered.
    In the younger students now, I see a lot of motivation, high intelligence, an exuberant response to dralas, and a need for teacher interaction and getting personal. Levels 1 – 5 taught with magic, openness and exactitude are jewels of great price, but I don’t meet enough Shambhala teachers who are awake to more than the sound of their own voices. Put a sign up on the street! Meditation for the Dark Age! (Or has mindfulness been copyrighted by somebody now?)
    As a mere peasant of the realm, I do not know what sorts of copyrighted magical paraphernalia are needed in order to convey the view of how things really are into another’s consciousness. I recall a visiting pipe-carrying elder of one of the North American tribes who was robbed of all his drums and herbs and relics and pipes and had the stark realisation that to walk truthfully he had to walk naked – to convey and be the manifestation of the teachings ‘without credentials’. (There’s more enterprise in walking naked – Yeats.)
    Is it the darkest hour of the dark age yet? It does seem worse than we thought. The buddhas of the three times and the great teachers would surely express their disappointment! Not just the age of materialism, or even degradation, but of the serious undermining of the connective tissue of our own habitat! The Groundless Era! No polar bears! No fish! No car! No superannuation! No bank! No telecoms! No power! No coastline! All of these are well-evidenced possibilities. What’s left?
    Al-lah in Arabic means that which remains when everything is removed. We may be living in unusual times, do we all know that? Perhaps we should print pamphlets, Beginner’s Guide to Emptiness.
    When Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was with his students, there was an enormous amount of juice. He was in love with you, and you were in love with him. Such exchange of (metaphoric) juices leads to a kind of energetic pregnancy, I think. Pregnancies of one sort or another always arise after great energetic connections. Eventually a magnum opus simply has to be born.
    You must feel that this post has gone on long enough, but I’m wondering if the initial question I asked wasn’t phrased very helpfully. We must consider the Time – the prevailing hexagram – and how the Superior (Wo)Man needs to act in accordance with it.
    So how would this be – What would be an appropriate response to the Dark Age by the former students of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, given what they know and have been given? Comments around the need to further an inclusive society, melt boundaries and nuke all separating conditionalities will be especially welcomed.
    With much love
    Susie Vincent
14. rita ashworth on May 26th, 2009 12:48 pm
    

    Dear All

    Thank you for your further comments on Shambhala Society.

    I think I have come to the position where I dont want to follow Shambhala Buddhism as it now is being promulgated. Shambhala society interests me much more and in producing this society in this world I would wish to work with other religious groupings to manifest it – this doesn’t mean I will stop being a Buddhist just that in regard to the Shambhala teachings I dont lock into the present system being taken in SI.

    There are too many old hands raising queries about the present system for me to be interested in it. Primarily influenced in this opinion by Robin Kornman’s talks on google – man he even translated the teachings that SI is now using and for him to be out on limb from the organisation when he was alive speaks volumes.

    Still feel we have not explored our own traditions in the west fully in relation to the building of shambhala society and I believe that the Sakyongs turning to the established tradition in Tibet should not be the prime focus of practitioners here – buoyed in this viewpoint by CTR’s comments in the Lions Roar about establishing American Tantra in the states.

    Still ‘miffed’ also about the changes in regard to the way they were instituted i.e. the sangha not even consulted about them and also the non-accommodation of ‘dissenters’ within SI that also speaks volumes about the way the organisation is being run at the present time.

    Also to some degree I am now more confident about my own direction and my own ‘religious experiences’ that I dont need the structured formal progression of SI to go further with my appreciation of the dharma and shambhalian vision.

    Looking forward to practicing shambhalian teachings/practices within the context of a larger religious grouping in the near future. Still hope to maintain contact with SI groups in GB but they are not now my prime spiritual recourse for the teachings that CTR gave in his lifetime.

    Would welcome comments from people reading this post.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
15. rita ashworth on May 26th, 2009 2:10 pm
    

    O yes and if anyone in the UK is in to helping me arrange a possible meeting venue for Mr Karelis they can email me on ashworth@easy.com but as of yet of course I still dont if he is coming to Manchester but just in case I was thinking of this venue –

    themonastery.co.uk (you can google it) -its in Gorton near Manchester,UK

    Will be looking at it in the near future -also if any other old hands wish to come and teach on the dharma or shambhala vision let me know and I will see what I can organise.

    well best again …….over and out from the library

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
16. Keith P. Myers on May 26th, 2009 2:31 pm
    

    I find this discussion interesting because it touches on a question I have had in the past but wasn’t sure how to ask. I have read many of Trungpa Rinpoche’s books but do not live close to a practice center. My background has been in Zen prior to learning as much as I can about the Shambhala vision. The Zen lineage I am most familiar with is that of the White Plum Asangha composed of the followers of Maezumi Roshi. I see a distinct difference between White Plum Asangha and Shambhala. In White Plum no power and authority is centralized. Maezumi Roshi granted dharma transmission to several people prior to his death and each has gone on to “do their own thing.” Bernie Glassman Roshi has the “Zen Peacemaker’s Organization”, Genpo Merzel Roshi has the “Big Mind” approach, etc. Why do we not see the top students of Trungpa Rinpoche doing the same thing? I get the impression that part of the answer to my question is that this is typically not done in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in general. But I think not doing this is the reason this discussion has unfolded in the first place. Why would any senior student or Acharya in the Shambhala tradition feel that they cannot teach indepentantly what they specifically and individually have learned from Trungpa Rinpoche with their own interpretations and additions as they see fit? Why do we not see senior students carrying on Trungpa Rinpoche’s legacy in their own ways, as Glassman Roshi, Merzel Roshi, and others have done for Maezumi Roshi’s legacy?

    Keith
17. Marguerite Stanciu on May 26th, 2009 4:18 pm
    

    Hello Keith

    “Why do we not see senior students carrying on Trungpa Rinpoche’s legacy…” indeed that is a good question. I think there are some people who are out there in a more obvious and deliberate way and there are many more who try to quietly embody these principles in their daily lives.

    From my perception, there seems to be some fear involved and also a lack of what we call Vajra Pride. I think we need some of the “Big No” at this point.
18. Suzanne Duarte on May 27th, 2009 7:25 am
    

    Keith poses a juicy question:

    ” Why would any senior student or Acharya in the Shambhala tradition feel that they cannot teach indepentantly what they specifically and individually have learned from Trungpa Rinpoche with their own interpretations and additions as they see fit? Why do we not see senior students carrying on Trungpa Rinpoche’s legacy in their own ways, as Glassman Roshi, Merzel Roshi, and others have done for Maezumi Roshi’s legacy?”

    I have puzzled over this for many years. For one thing, it may be that Tibetan Buddhism can seem to be more hierarchical and centralized, and some people may take that more seriously or rigidly than others. Some people, let us call them ‘Saturnians,’ find more security in more structured social arrangements and take ‘form’ more seriously.

    Along with hierarchy comes the ‘empowerment’ principle in the form of lineage holders. Saturnians take this quite seriously and put a lot of faith in titles. That is, they accord more authority to designated ‘lineage holders.’ I’ve met many lineage holders, thanks to Trungpa Rinpoche, and some of them truly have the ability to knock one’s socks off and evoke spontaneous devotion. However, I am also aware that lineage holders have to prove themselves after being empowered. Being designated a ‘tulku’ does not necessarily mean that one is ‘realized.’ For example, not every single Karmapa distinguished himself.

    But within Trungpa Rinpoche’s lineages there is also the ‘crazy wisdom’ principle, which he embodied quite beautifully by breaking a lot of rules and forms in order to teach the dharma in a way that is appropriate to this time and place. He did this, as we know, without losing his status within his lineages, although he risked doing that. He was further empowered by the 16th Karmapa and HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche BECAUSE he was self-empowered.

    Self-empowerment, of course, is a potential in all human beings. The Buddha, after all, did it. He empowered himself to break free of social forms and become enlightened, so we call it Buddha Nature. The ability to wake up and transcend ourselves, our habitual patterns, is actually a quality within all life. It’s how life evolves. Evolution in any life form (or social form) is marked or triggered by the disruption of habitual patterns. Disruption is the Uranain principle, another astrological term. Uranus, as a planet/archetype, is more powerful than Saturn, the planet/archetype of form, which is why Uranian energy has the ability to disrupt Saturnian habitual patterns, which Saturn fears. Uranus enables humans to become self-empowered/enlightened.

    All of us possess Uranian and Saturnian archetypes, along with others, but these two apply directly to the quandry at hand. The Uranians in our sangha are the dissidents asking questions, some quietly, others not. This RFS site is Uranian, allowing us to make ourselves known. Stay tuned to hear more about what we’re up to.
19. rita ashworth on May 27th, 2009 2:32 pm
    

    Yes – interesting comments.

    I was thinking an outsider looking into SI would find the whole thing very bizarre -people have done decades of training, gone into three year retreats and come out again, teach all the way round the world but still do not feel ’self-empowered’ to do stuff in the world and are waiting for one individual the Sakyong to set up the whole caboodle.

    Yes say I was into the Sakyong even if that was the case – one mans view of the way Shambhala should evolve in the world is not going to cut it for the 6 billion pods out there, even the Tibetan tradition knows that.

    So maybe its an American thing of not upsetting the applecart and not trying other ways of reaching people out there -84,000 teachings they say for people in the world(!?).

    Forget lineage holders, following the somewhat status quo and think what you want to manifest in the world with the help of people maybe who just can teach samatha meditation……….think I would like to throw the baby out with bathwater and go out of the frying pan into the fire. Remember the Regents talk on one New years day -practice as though your hair was on fire (pun on the year of the Hare)ho-hum.

    Shambhala society what could it be………..its intriguing, isn’t it?!

    best

    rita ashworth
    stockport uk
20. Suzanne Duarte on May 27th, 2009 3:14 pm
    

    You make me laugh, Rita! Thank you! Yes, let us all try to envision what Shambhala Society could be if it were not corralled, owned, trademarked and marketed by those who seem more interested in building an institution than in propagating a vision and practice that is accessible to all human beings. I’ve been working on my own eco-dharmic Dharmagaian version for many years. Pema Chödron has been propagating mind training and has reached many people. Other teachers – Reggie, Bill Karelis, Bill Scheffel, Frank Berliner, Fabrice Midal, Michael Carroll, Irini Rockwell, the late Robin Kornman, and I’m sure many others – have developed, are developing their own styles and versions of VCTR teachings with creativity and passion. It would be nice to hear from them on this site, too. It just seems to take a little guts – you know, fearlessness, daring, warriorship – to go freelance. But, who knows, maybe they’ll come and join us and make themselves known. Personally, I like the idea of Ronin, lots of Ronin networked around the world, cross-fertilizing Shambhala seeds of courage and confidence planted in many places.

    KiKi SoSo
21. John Tischer on May 27th, 2009 9:37 pm
    

    I tried to write this before. I think what we’re seeing is a shift in paradigm
    that can’t be explained. It’s scalable from the whole world, down to Shambhala.org, down to Shambhalacali, Tepozt;an. Mexico. It’s unfolding because now is the time.

    To paraphrase Hakim Bey, “when it’s steam engine time, you have steam engines.”

    I don’t think ideas based on established paradigms are going to have much effect.. Certainly looking at what is happening is important. Critical thinking. Sometimes it’s better not to act. Maybe that’s a personal decision.
22. ashoka on May 28th, 2009 4:18 am
    

    “but still do not feel ’self-empowered’ to do stuff in the world and are waiting for one individual the Sakyong to set up the whole caboodle.”

    This is far, far, far from the case. People may not always feel they want to teach the dharma, but that’s not necessarily what the Shambhala teachings are about. As lay practicioners, the point is to go out into the world and use your training to manifest basic goodness in secular situations. Many people are doing just that in their professional and personal lives, both in their relationships with their loved ones and in their career fields.

    I think it’s totally understandable that people who aren’t comfortable in the institutional structure of Shambhala are searching for ways to manifest their training outside of a structure they’re uncomfortable with, but I have to disagree (again!) with Suzanne’s analysis of why some people might feel connected to the Sakyong and to SI. First, obviously some people (like myself) think he’s a good teacher and have benefited from his instructions. Also, and perhaps this is a theological debate, a great deal of the Vidyadhara’s teachings revolve around form. He taught that an organized society with a Sakyong was a beneficial practice situation to raise group lungta, and the idea of a Sakyong is mentioned in the first stanza of the Letter of the Black Ashe. In some ways that could be a microcosm for one’s individual practice experience (”ruling your world?”), but my own personal interpretation of his teachings has led me to believe he saw merit in a structured lineage. It’s up to all of us as individuals to decide if that’s unfolding in a way we feel comfortable with, but again, it’s not fair to say that “some people just like structure.” I certainly don’t feel that way, I feel like I’m following the instructions of Trungpa Rinpoche by making an effort to work with the frustrations of the forms he created.

    As to the idea of lineage holders, when the Karmapa visited Boulder the first time, the story is that the Vidyadhara told his students that, although he didn’t feel the Karmapa was much of a teacher, he said that, “as the lineage holder we will present ourselves well and give him the respect that befits that role.” Supposedly they met at the airport and he told an attendant, “something’s happened with him, he’s more realized than he was when I first met him.” It seems to me that, although the Vidyadhara could be wrathful with folks like Akong Rinpoche who tried to bottle up his teaching style, and was never afraid to buck the system and follow his own inspiration, he always showed a kind of cheerful respect for his lama colleagues in the Kaygu lineage. Unless he really felt they were corrupt, which again travels back to the point of personal interpretation of a teacher’s intentions.

    Not trying to start a flame war, at all, just offering a perspective.
23. Suzanne Duarte on May 28th, 2009 8:27 am
    

    Hi John Tischer. I agree that we’re seeing a paradigm shift and that ideas based on established paradigms are not going to have much effect. But actually, to me it looks like adhering to old paradigm patterns can make things more complicated, or worse. I’m not sure the shift in paradigms can’t be explained in very broad terms – for example, at the level of the paradigms of our civilization’s relationship with the Earth. I and many other Dharmagaians have been teaching and writing about it for many years. Whether our views on it are completely accurate – for there is certainly mystery in the process – I do think that having some sense of the outlines and trajectory of the changes helps people to let go and face the realities of the Time. I feel that facing the realities of the Time, rather than remaining in the cultural (old paradigm) trance, is essential for keeping our sanity and helping others to keep theirs.

    Susie Vincent said, “We must consider the Time – the prevailing hexagram – and how the Superior (Wo)Man needs to act in accordance with it. So how would this be – What would be an appropriate response to the Dark Age by the former students of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, given what they know and have been given? ”

    This may be what you are responding to, John. You say, “Sometimes it’s better not to act.” Sometimes the I Ching does counsel non-action. Maybe the “personal decision” you mention depends upon the conditions of the time and place. But I think it’s good to have something to offer those who show up to receive it.

    Lately I’ve been thinking about how Mind Training for the Dark Age is becoming more and more relevant. This is what Pema has been doing, although without direct reference to the Dark Age and its actual meaning. But now, as things heat up and speed up, there are more and more people who are ready to face the actual circumstances of the Dark Age – the end of industrial civilization due to peak oil, climate change, and ecological/economic disintegration. I don’t know about anybody else, but these are the people I’m interested in reaching with VCTR’s teachings, since I think they’ll have a better chance of keeping their sanity and thus of surviving – with the teachings. Thus will humanity and the teachings survive the end of industrial civilization. That’s the purpose of the Dharmagaians website I’m building. So back to work . . . .
24. John Castlebury on May 28th, 2009 9:09 am
    

    NO COMFORT ZONE

    The elements matter
    To the nth degree
    And myriad stories
    Spun from sundry hot and cold
    Matter not at all
    This coastal refuge
    Smelts the ore of good and bad
    Eroding centre and fringe –

    Diametric opposites
    Are reduced to dust
    As sheer raw power
    Of undiluted nature
    Spins gold out of straw
    Spins comfort out of
    Depending on conditions
    Such as yes or no –

    Goodness is always with us
    It leaves us no choice
    Such as either A
    Or B or both A and B or
    Neither A nor B
    Not for or against
    Is comfort of no comfort
    Rid of best or worst –

    [Pembroke Shore, Yarmouth County, NS]
25. Keith P. Myers on May 28th, 2009 11:02 am
    

    In the west, our societies evolved in response to rejecting the idea of having a “King” as the ultimate authority and ruler. So as an outsider, one of the things that has struck me as odd about the Shambala organization is this emphasis on having a King and centralized authority. Trungpa Rinpoche was without doubt a spiritual genius. But I have to wonder if his vision of “enlightened society” for the west may have been less than perfect when it centers around having a “King” in charge. Most westerners (I should qualify and say most Americans) would not necesarily find this to be appealing.

    Keith
26. James Elliott on May 28th, 2009 5:18 pm
    

    Suzanne, I didn’t mean to imply there was nothing to be done, only that the “spiritual transmission” of Trungpa Rinpoche is not something any student can do in whatever way, unless one truly is that realized. Teaching meditation is one thing, but transmission is something else. If there are students capable of that holding out, I don’t think it’s many.
    There are all kinds of good reasons for that. Trungpa Rinpoche’s talks not only about the benefit but necessity of lineage are quite thorough. I don’t think Bill or Reggie is trying to escape that.
    Ashoka remarked that not everyone’s going to be an up-on-the-dais teacher. I had a discussion about that with a friend here once. It’s said in some teachings, and I heard Trungpa Rinpoche say it at least a couple of times, that after one ‘gets it’ one returns to what one did before. My friend said “… that means doing what one did previously while working to wake others up.” My argument was; “No, just doing what they did before in a dharmic way. That may have influence, but not with the intent to ‘do’ anything or to change anybody. He insisted that regardless, an enlightened person always works secretly to wake people up. I frankly don’t see how that could be a basis for a healthy society or how such a mindset could ever be truly genuine; too much strategy.
    In all of this I see the issue of separating politics from one’s spiritual path.
    Trungpa Rinpoche is/was my root guru. But he didn’t teach me a whole lot about politics. He pointed me in that direction (among many others) and there were certainly numerous remarks about politics and society and relationship, etc., that I contemplate to this day. I regard his comments about politics and a number of other things as his perspective about those things from an awakened state, rather than a dharmic teaching which I could make an effort to embody. It seems very unlikely that all realized people see the world in exactly the same way. In fact in one Vajrayogini Tris he clearly states that we are not attempting to see things all the same way.
    Mr. Meyer’s concerns echo this lack of separation with his question about a king. Trungpa Rinpoche seemed to favor a parliamentary system; however, I think Mr. Meyers may be on to something if referring to ‘absolute monarchy’. Some of the marginalization referred to, has to do with a perhaps unofficial assumption that one ought to regard the king or ruler of a society in the same way one regards one’s vajra master.
    This is no different than demanding all citizens must be on the same spiritual path. That may be all good within the sangha of a specific teacher, but a larger society, in which all members may not, in fact cannot, be dharma students of the current monarch/president/Prime minister, will need leadership very different than that of a vajra master’s in order to hold together without schisms and factions splitting off.
    That might be a place where the Shambhala vision could tangibly touch earth.

    James Elliott
27. Suzanne Duarte on May 28th, 2009 8:31 pm
    

    Hi James,

    Well, I think we need to sort out what we mean by ‘transmission.’ You seem to be using the word in the strictly formal sense, as in this lineage transmission of this practice, that lineage transmission of that practice. In that case, yes, I agree that a teacher needs to be authorized or empowered to give a particular transmission. I have great respect for the lineage tradition, and deeply regret the erosion of some aspects of the Vidyadhara’s lineage traditions in the current situation.

    However, there is also a way to speak of the thunderbolts that one received from the Vidyadhara as ’spiritual transmissions’ of particular truths or dharmas. This has to do with his spirit or energy as much or more than formal teachings, and is a looser way of speaking of the Vidyadhara’s transmission of the teachings. As you know, everything he did was a teaching. Different students got different parts of his total spiritual transmission, in this looser sense. Susie Vincent implied that his students were impregnated by their contact with him. Some of us feel that way. I do. But apparently not all do.

    When one is pregnant, one has to give birth unless one has aborted at an early stage. If one did not abort, and especially if it was given to one to teach, one is compelled to embody or manifest the transmissions one has received, understood or realized. This does not mean that one has to ‘give transmissions’ of secret teachings or sadhanas. There’s an enormous treasure house of VCTR teachings that are not restricted.

    As for Trungpa Rinpoche saying “after one ‘gets it’ one returns to what one did before,” it’s funny, but I didn’t hear that or get that from him. Personally, I never returned to what I did before, not once. I was not directed that way and my path did not unfold that way. Just goes to show how different students got different teachings or ‘transmissions.’

    Best wishes,

    Suzanne D.
28. ashoka on May 29th, 2009 12:56 am
    

    I don’t know what Trungpa Rinpoche intended per se, but for my part I think some measure of representative leadership is necessary for any organization, let alone society. I don’t think anyone who was raised with enlightenment ideals is going to swallow the idea of absolute monarchy. Finding a middle ground when a lineage becomes a clan seems to be a challenge.
29. Suzanne Duarte on May 29th, 2009 6:59 am
    

    Hi James Elliot,

    I think we need to sort out what we mean by ’spiritual transmission.’ You seem to be using the word in the strict formal sense, as in this lineage transmission of this practice, that lineage transmission of that practice. In that case, yes, I agree that a teacher needs to be authorized or empowered to give a particular transmission of a particular teaching or practice.

    But there is also a way to speak of the thunderbolts that one received from the Vidyadhara as ’spiritual transmissions’ of particular truths or dharmas. This is a looser way of speaking of the Vidyadhara’s energetic transmission of he teachings. As you know, everything he did was a teaching. Different students got different aspects of his total spiritual transmission, in this looser sense. Susie Vincent implied that his students were impregnated by their energetic contact with him. Some of us feel that way. I do. But apparently not all do.

    When one is pregnant, one has to give birth, unless one aborted at an early stage. Those who didn’t abort, especially those to whom it was given to teach, feel compelled to ‘give birth’ – to embody or manifest the transmissions one has received, understood or realized. That is, one feels compelled to pass on – like a ‘hot potato,’ as Susie also said – the ‘good news,’ the wealth that we were given. That is definitely part of the transmission of the dharma that teachers trained by VCTR received. But that doesn’t mean that we have to go out and ‘give transmissions’ of secret teachings or practices. There is a wealth of unrestricted teachings, beyond meditation instruction itself, that can be shared and propagated if one has realized them.

    As for Trungpa Rinpoche saying that “after one ‘gets it’ one returns to what one did before,” that is not a teaching I heard or received. I never returned to what I was doing before, not once. I was not directed to do that and my path did not unfold in that way. Just goes to show that different students got different aspects of VCTR’s wisdom.

    Ashoka: you say, ” Finding a middle ground when a lineage becomes a clan seems to be a challenge.” That is an intriguing statement. Questions arise: Are you talking about blood lineage or spiritual lineage re: “when a lineage becomes a clan”? (it seems to me that most Tibetan spiritual lineages are not blood lineages.) To what extent can enlightened society (Shambhalian society) be established on the basis of a family or blood clan or lineage? VCTR told some of us that we were part of the Mukpo clan, which implied that being a Mukpo doesn’t depend on blood – it’s a spiritual connection. The Shambhala vision that I received appeared to be based on the universal potential of ‘enlightened genes’ – the inborn capacity of human beings to awaken and uplift ourselves. No blood or spiritual lineage can have exclusive possession of that capacity. These issues bear directly on the perceived problems with Shambhala Buddhism.
30. rita ashworth on May 29th, 2009 12:35 pm
    

    Interesting – yes I thought I would raise some debate when I started talking about lineage I am beginning to think that there is a structured lineage re the Sakyong and maybe one could call it the inspirational lineage in that there are people in the world that are so touched by the shambhala teachings that they wish to propagate them. I count Robin Kornman in this inspirational lineage -here we have a man who was near death but still gave talks on the shambhala teachings and of course he did say at one point ‘we are the lineage holders of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche’ -meaning the close American students he taught in the states.

    Perhaps its the case that people have to risk to be lineage holders in order to propagate the teachings ie if one has a true heart only the blessings of the lineage will result. There is of course the story of the Buddha’s Tooth where in the legend it turned into a diamond after the supplicant had so much faith in the teachings.

    Yes I would say there is form and structure in most societies in the world but there is also even in western society people who go beyond the present structures and try to envisage how people can live in a more harmonious way – from the industrial revolution in the UK people have been trying to develop a more equitable society in the world. I know this is somewhat mundane aspect of society when you compare it to the vision of Shambhala but it is part of the solution.

    Yes and of course we did have an authenticated lineage holder with the Regent so westerners are capable of leading the whole thing so why does not the present Sakyong empower people in this respect? I have some really serious qualms about a family lineage ie it could preserve the status quo, it doesn’t allow for the maverick teachers in the sangha, and people who feel that they received a ‘real’ transmission to teach by CTR.

    Yes also I thought I would raise comments when I said forget lineage holders because in some respect the whole idea of a lineage holder is holding people back from teaching as’they’ see fit in the world people are self-checking themselves to fit in with ‘on’ message of SI. I feel there needs to be more freedom to experiment in just teaching the basic shambhala teachings-really who does have official stamp on the Buddha’s teachings? I think there needs to be more exuberance and joy about giving the teachings out to your ordinary man or woman in the street.

    Would love to hear more comments – anyway I am going to go my own way some more – might come a cropper but I think its worth my time

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
31. Keith P. Myers on May 29th, 2009 2:45 pm
    

    I appreciate Rita’s comments because I feel I am “the man on the street.” I have no Shambala center nearby. I know very little about the tantric path, but I resonate with what has been written about the “Shambhala vision.” I have gotten a lot out of the writings of both Trungpa Rinpoche and Pema Chodron. I have a collection of Pema Chodron audio. But “empowerments” and “deity yoga” and a central authority recognized as a “King” all seems very strange and foreign to me. It just seems to me that if a group is truly serious about creating an “enlightened society”, the basic Shambhala teachings would be the way to go, not the more elaborate and exotic tantric teachings. It also seems to me that the Shambhala teachings would be better spread into society on a “grass roots” level by multiple people that are able to pass it on in their own way by starting their own groups in whatever community they live and working with the local population. This seems more likely to reach more people and have a wider effect on society than formalized shambhala centers with set curriculums that only hold shambhala teachings on specfic dates and at limited times through-out the year. For instance, I have been interested in doing the basic series of Shambhala weekend retreats. There are 2 Shambhala centers each about 300 miles away and neither of them are holding the basic series of retreats on a complete and sequential manner that I would be able to attend. But if there was someone in my area that could guide me through the same material over time without doing the formal and accepted weekend retreats, would this be acknowledge by and acceptable to Shambhala International? I’ve gotten the impression that it would not. But I may very well be wrong. So a related question emerges…..is Shambhala a complete and sufficient spiritual path in and of itself?…..or does one have to progress to the Tantric elements?

    Keith
32. Jim Wilton on May 29th, 2009 4:34 pm
    

    Keith, I do think that Shambhala is a complete path. However, I don’t think that you have to compartmentalize too much. In my experience, Shambhala has a lot in common with tantric practice, particularly Ati or Dzogchen practices.

    I certainly agree that if Shambhala ever spreads into the popular culture it will be on a grass roots level as you suggest.

    I wish you the best.
33. John Tischer on May 29th, 2009 4:36 pm
    

    Hi Suzanne….

    ” the point is to go out into the world and use your training to manifest basic goodness in secular situations. Many people are doing just that in their professional and personal lives, both in their relationships with their loved ones and in their career fields.”

    I like this by Ashoka, and think there’s a lot to it. There are all kinds of problems in the world we can help with…I have people dying all around me here in Mexico I’m trying to help a little. You can’t tell what effect you have on people is one good thing to remember.

    Some clarifications….there are many family lineages in Tibet….
    The Mindroling lineage of Khandro Rinpoche is a prominent one…most
    of them are Nyngma householder lineages, like Khentze Rinpoche’s.

    “In the west, our societies evolved in response to rejecting the idea of having a “King” as the ultimate authority and ruler.”

    I don’t agree with this idea by Keith, that western societies “evolved” at all in the Twentieth century….all the political systems that came into being at that time (throw
    democracy in with them) have proven to be failures. There have been successful Monarchies, on the other hand, that are referred to in the Shambhala materials, where the ruler (Ashoka, Prince Shotoku, ect.)
    had been able to uplift the whole of their society to a more cultured
    (enlightened?) level. Some of these dynasties lasted for hundreds of years. Maybe Lincoln is the closest the USA has as an example of that kind of leader.

    The final proof of failure of these political systems is that they’re all still more concerned than ever with fiddling with power while the planet burns.
    Personally, I feel the world is on the verge of a nervous breakdown….and maybe that’s exactly what it needs.
34. Suzanne Duarte on May 30th, 2009 5:57 am
    

    Hi Keith,

    You ask good questions. It’s refreshing to hear the views and questions of “the man on the street.” Re: whether Shambhala is a complete and sufficient spiritual path in and of itself, I believe it was originally intended to be. The Vidyadhara told me in a private interview in 1985 that “We need more Shambhalians. They don’t have to become Buddhists.” At the beginning of the Shambhala Training program, there was a Shambhala Education program to teach/train directors of Shambhala Training. All the directors were VCTR’s Buddhist students, but they/we were trained to present ST as a stand-alone program.

    As for your question:: “But if there was someone in my area that could guide me through the same material over time without doing the formal and accepted weekend retreats, would this be acknowledge by and acceptable to Shambhala International? I’ve gotten the impression that it would not.” I believe you are correct, Keith.

    You say, “It just seems to me that if a group is truly serious about creating an “enlightened society”, the basic Shambhala teachings would be the way to go, not the more elaborate and exotic tantric teachings. It also seems to me that the Shambhala teachings would be better spread into society on a “grass roots” level by multiple people that are able to pass it on in their own way by starting their own groups in whatever community they live and working with the local population.” I agree with you, although I do think that directors of Shambhala Training ought to be people who’ve been trained – not just anybody who has read Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior.

    It used to be that local centers would organize the levels of ST and would bring in authorized Shambhala Training directors to teach them. Local people who had already done a level would staff it. This process helped to create Shambhala communities.

    Barbara Blouin has been researching how Shambhala Training has been changed. She has said it hasn’t been easy to get information. I hope that she will be able to publish a report on this site sometime this summer. However, that won’t be much help to you.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts and questions, Keith. They are like a reminder of the original intentions for Shambhala Training. Somehow it seems that “the man on the street” has been forgotten.
35. rita ashworth on May 30th, 2009 7:57 am
    

    Yes I agree with Suzanne that people should be trained to give the teachings but I am not sure about the present way the shambhala teachings are taught thats why I am interested in the ‘revised format’ for the shambhala teachings that BIll Karelis has briefly mentioned.

    I dont know perhaps the whole thing should go back to basics -what does the man or the woman in the street require to get to grips with manifesting shambhala principles in their lives. Do we need to devise a much simpler, basic system -just raising questions at this point.

    As to family lineages they may have been prevalent in Tibet but not in the west I think and of course this is an overarching statement people have got into religion because of insight or revelation. The whole of Christianity is based on this one only has to look at St Paul who has greatly influenced our culture in the west.

    Of course, what is in the bible has been revised and revised. Christ at times is pictured there as having a royal lineage but German biblical historians have proved these additions to be false. Why should this talk be relevant to Shambhala because it is the concept of King and Queen manifesting in our own lives that is important and who instigates this could be some one with his/her own take on reality as we know it which comes from their own connection to for a better word the ‘divine’

    As the title of this post reflects who has the keys to the kingdom – a veritable Christian concept if you want one……..just some thoughts…….hope the debate goes on.

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
36. damchö on May 30th, 2009 2:33 pm
    

    I can’t agree with you here John, for a few reasons. First of all, I would say democracy is quite a new thing in human history. We have some rare and extremely limited examples like ancient Greece, but actual self-government at the level of a nation-state is quite young, don’t you think? I don’t believe we can simply say it has proven to be a failure. Of course there are all sorts of problems–corruption by money and so on–but in certain respects it has proven remarkably resilient. And in a few countries political corruption has been kept under control to a surprising degree. Didn’t someone once say that democracy was the worst form of government–apart from all others? …

    As for successful monarchies, how much do we know without simply taking someone’s word for granted? What was it really like to live in Ashoka’s realm? Do we actually know? I mean, yes it appears in Shambhala texts as an idealized society, but what does that actually mean? I think these are quite complex questions. And which dynasties are you referring to that lasted for hundreds of years, again “successfully”? I am not an academic historian and have zero credentials here. I do read a lot of history though, and one thing I’m continually made aware of is the pervasiveness of corruption through power. Over, and over, and over, and over. Always the very best of intentions. And always the wiles of ego and group ego.

    In this regard the main point I’d like to make is: I think the real issue is less the various surface forms of government than the relationship to power itself–checks and balances and so on. And here one thing that very much concerns me is the bringing together of politics and religion, particularly religious movements which have either a messianic or utopian flavor. I would very much include Nazism and Communism here, both dogmatic faiths which were convinced they had the complete truth and were driven to purify the world of its errors and usher in a new dawn etc. Likewise, it has been argued that when Shinto was drawn in to become the national religion of Japan, harnessed to the doctrine of Emperor divinity and sacred Japanese utopian purpose, that at this point there was no turning back. Criticism of such necessary “truths” became intolerable and thus censorship became more and more restrictive, tightening the noose ever further. Asia needed to be liberated from the decadent West and from its own benighted self, and Japan was called upon to do it. It was the One, etc…

    So for me the issue is one of humility. My personal concern with Shambhala is that I do not believe it has learned the lesson of the corruption of power. So many aspects of the way it is organized now and the way it conducts itself lead me to say this.
37. John Tischer on May 30th, 2009 6:24 pm
    

    .” Didn’t someone once say that democracy was the worst form of government–apart from all others? …” Yes…I believe that was Mark Twain, and he wasn’t being funny. If you consider the USA a democracy anymore…..
    well….nothing personal, but I think that idea is a function of brainwashing.
    Now that Obama, the savior, is in office, I guess that is the ultimate test.
    Let’s see if he can transform the USA from Consumer Central to a nation interested in alternative energy, carbon footprint…ect. . To do that, at least,
    the propaganda has to do a 180. given that the populace has been dumbed down over the past thirty years to accept a President Bush. The founding fathers asserted that the only way democracy can work is if the public is educated. Since Vietnam, at least, this “dumbing down” has been a strategy to stifle dissension. It seems to be working.

    In China, during one of the dynasties, (I don’t know which….I’m not a scholar….) applicants for political station would often go to remote areas
    to write poetry…..for one reason because the arts were a part of the
    civil exam, and also because it made them look humble….a kind of reverse lobbying, pehaps.

    I agree with you that the main issue is humility. Absolute. In that, I think
    Sakyong Mipham is a fine example. But humility and power? Trungpa Rinpoche, the Sixteenth Karmapa, Khentze Rinpoche are the examples
    that come to mind. I feel strongly that in order for enlightened society to manifest, that type of leadership will have to be present.
38. John Tischer on May 30th, 2009 6:45 pm
    

    Perhaps the current template is the Seventeenth Karmapa
39. damchö on May 30th, 2009 10:31 pm
    

    I very much agree with you John about the state of things in the US. For that matter, even if we were able to achieve a real and healthy democracy, it wouldn’t be worth anything without wisdom and compassion of course. The merely political will always have those limitations, which is why some vision or other of uplifted society and culture has to be at the centre of it all. On that all of us here can agree.

    I’ve had almost no personal contact with the Sakyong but can definitely say that I’ve seen the very opposite of humility manifesting in more than one acharya and in other people in important leadership positions. The issue isn’t whether or not we are all capable of this: obviously we are. The issue is the health of the system, the state of checks and balances.

    I see almost no checks and balances. The acharyas pledge supreme loyalty to the sakyong, the kasung pledge supreme loyalty to the sakyong, and to the acharyas whenever they make use of their authority. Centre directors so far as I can see always follow the wishes of acharyas and senior kasung. So while theoretically the kasung are supposed to act as an independent check within the system…in practice I believe that everyone simply works together to preserve a certain self-image of Shambhala. I’m sorry if that is offensive to anyone. It is just my experience over many years. Our system in the US is flawed and deeply corrupted by money, but at least the principle of divided powers–executive, legislative, and judicial–is recognized as crucially important by many people still. And to a certain extent it functions.

    In general what I sense in Shambhala is an ever greater tightness, indeed uptightness. A desire to control more and more of everything that is said and done.
40. John Tischer on May 30th, 2009 11:02 pm
    

    Damcho,

    Thanks. That’s what I meant about power. I don’t see this Sakyong
    projecting his vision into the community right now, Much of the criticalness
    of the debate on these forums seems to be about the organization…not
    the Sakyong per se. On the one hand more or less, that’s what happens when you go to meet a teacher….there are obstacles. On the other hand is what do we (everyone) do with the Vidyadhara’s great vision?

    I think that the point is to get on the path…however one does that. Meditate, study the dharma…..

    Fankly, I think much of the speculation one sees here is for the great minds…..not me.

    good luck and all the best
41. James Elliott on May 31st, 2009 8:50 am
    

    Suzanne,

    I may have been unclear. Trungpa Rinpoche didn’t say that “everyone must return to what they were doing”.

    At a Naropa talk in response to questions about the aim of vajrayana, like “what do people who have accomplished the path then do”, he said something like: “often they simply return to what they were doing.”

    He was implying it isn’t always a big messianic deal. Sometimes people become teachers, fine and good (anjali), but sometimes it’s simple and ordinary, and that’s fine and good too.

    The notion Trungpa Rinpoche’s students are either compelled to give birth to what was received (laudable), or one has given up (not), sounds worryingly black and white.

    I’m certain there are all kinds of ways to live the teachings, and I’d wager most of them don’t include formal teaching or even ‘trying to wake people up’. If that’s not the case, then perhaps we are presaging, even out here on the fringes, yet another wave of culling the unworthy.

    Some are saying there should be more room for experimentation rather than being restricted to S.I.’s sometimes questionable status quo. Without glossing over unhealthy patterns, but without opening that can either, striking out on one’s own is very risky.

    Unless there is enlightened mentor-ship it’s better than even odds that bad things will happen. Clever, well informed, intellectually rigorous mentor-ship is not enough. Not only could one misunderstand the teachings intellectually, or reinterpret or edit them.

    Without some form of centralized and genuinely realized authority, the door would be thrown wide open for all kinds of scoundrels to take advantage of people who do not yet have the kinds of insights we may be taking for granted. The quality of the teachings alone is no safeguard.

    If corruption is a problem now, within the context of formally teaching spiritual practices (as contrasted to politics or administration), throwing off Shambhala International’s authoritarian yoke altogether would only exacerbate that.

    There have already been experiments. One attempt I know of first hand which went against what used to be the Vajradhatu Charter, (i.e. an experiment that broke the rules) was mentored by an acharaya. That ended horribly (if one can ever truly say it’s over), because there were scoundrels involved, and because no one involved with authority had any realization or will worth speaking of.

    The problem there was not that the S.I. was too restricting; it was that there was no central authority at all, no one involved had any proactive realization, people were manipulated and lied to, and to this day none have been called to account for very real damages.

    One won’t fix such things by fragmenting authority even further. Wouldn’t it make more sense to invoke that same authority – again and again and on several fronts – to take on the responsibilities it must, in order to create the enlightened society it claims to propagate?

    Isn’t that one of the aims of RFS?

    James Elliott
42. ashoka on May 31st, 2009 9:05 am
    

    Suzanne, I was referring to the combination between a spiritual community and a political structure. There is a reason why the founders of this country eliminated any possibility of that; the track record of those societies throughout history is not good. Chogyam Trungpa was a proponent of lineage, even in his system challenging way, and he set up a government structure that was part lineage part kingdom. Would that work as a social organizing principle if put into practice in the long run? Without extreme devotion and a sense of what Acharya Ferguson calls “the dream of beloved community,” no, probably not. So, it’s a big question mark whether the Shambhala vision is conducive to this culture and time period.

    I wasn’t referring to blood lineage, but he did look straight to his son when he empowered the next king of Shambhala. I have my own personal views on why he assumed the form of royalty for him and his family, but the truth is I don’t fully understand it and I never have. But all you have to do is read the fictional Memoirs he wrote to see that it wasn’t just a formality.
43. rita ashworth on June 1st, 2009 1:07 pm
    

    Yes lineage is a great subject – the truth is I dont think any one knows for sure how the whole shambhala vision of enlightened society will pan out. I think SI is an experiment in the making as is Rays experiment with the teachings. Fragmentation can be good or bad one only has to look at the English reformation for this, whose to say -it’s a judgement for whichever scholar you follow.

    Yes the Vidyadhara did appoint the Sakyong as the lineage holder of the Shambhala teachings but he also appointed a western Regent and said this Regent could appoint a successor-the question also is would the Vidyadhara have appointed further teachers like the Loppon to pass on the teachings-one will never know but I believe, only believe, that he would have done so -therefore I believe there should be more older students in SI doing what Ray and others are doing.

    I have a feeling like any great ruler that the Vidyadhara was hedging his bets on what came after with the concept of a Sakyong and a Regent that he appointed…….there are so many contradictory remarks about envisioning a shambhala society that I dont think we will ever get to the bottom of it. But for me personally at the present time I find the way the teachings are presented and taught to people are too complex, and now too much connected to a Tibetan way of doing things.

    Hope for some further comments on these viewpoints

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
44. John Castlebury on June 1st, 2009 1:28 pm
    

    The final lines of Trungpa Rinpoche’s poem [29 November 1980, Keltic Lodge, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia] “Merrier than the Maritimes” are:

    The total vision of Nova Scotia should be based on Capitol of Sydney.
    When Sydney is raised to its highest level, the rest of the peninsula can be brought up at its best.
    Thus we partly conquer the Atlantic Ocean.
    Victory to the true command.
    Take pride in our peninsula.

    That seems like such an unequivocal statement: “The total vision of Nova Scotia should be based on Capitol of Sydney.”

    [Pembroke Shore, Yarmouth County, NS]
45. Mark Szpakowski on June 1st, 2009 8:07 pm
    

    My wife posted a comment on the Shambhala Times site, re their current theme on community, that’s relevant to this discussion.

    An excerpt:
    

    In Halifax our sangha community is deeply fragmented and we’re not
    talking about it, as a community. Not long ago I asked a Desung, “Do
    you think our community as a whole is healthy?” He thought for a few
    moments then said, “The community that gathered (at the then-recent)
    Garchen was doing just fine.”

    I wonder if this is indicative of the go-forward attitude–Onward for
    those who are inspired, and for those who aren’t, that’s their
    responsibility.
46. ashoka on June 2nd, 2009 1:31 am
    

    The Regent’s Shambhala title was the “Katham Sikyong.” It is essentially a chief minister. If we’re still working within the model of the Shambhala Kingdom/teachings that is.

    Mark, that’s interesting but what do you propose? I think the issue for some people with the split, is that they feel comfortable and inspired by the community, and others don’t. Is there actually middle ground there? People here want specific things; they don’t like the package. At a certain point isn’t it like a divorce or a break up? People have to move on when they decide that there’s no way to bridge certain gaps. In those situations the most mature find ways to stay connected even if they can no longer share a life.
47. rita ashworth on June 2nd, 2009 12:58 pm
    

    Yes the Regent was the chief minister in the Shambhala teachings but he was a lineage holder in the Kagyu dharma and of course he did co-found the Shambhala teaching programme with others in the Vidyadhara’s name at the time. I dont know how he would look at the way things have turned out – perhaps the sangha should ask his successor
    Patrick Sweeny about this. At the time of the TCS I was dead against
    Mr Sweeny as a lineage successor primarily now when I think with hindsight about the matter it was because I did not have enough information about what had occurred in a literal, factual sense. The meeting on TCS at Karme Cho Ling never happened.

    Such events are a reminder of what is happening to a lesser degree in the sangha at the present time. People have not been consulted about the various changes and indeed if the majority really want them. In addition people who belong to the ‘old school’ we may call it have not been accommodated in the present set-up. If older students taught by the Vidyadhara fundamentally have the belief that the traditions should be separate perhaps there should be a split – Robin Kornman was and others are very perceptive about the teachings, myself I just cant ignore their take on what the Vidyadhara taught.

    One could ask who is the mature proponent in the discussion of these matters people who raise questions about what has happened or people who keep mum about the situation. Describing the present situation to my sister in a shorthand way to get some more insight into things she said yes things do change but people like to be consulted about what is occuring – even in the ordinary, everyday world you cant manufacture loyalty to a new system out of hat nor can you ask people to adopt to it if they actually ‘believe’ the new system is not for them.

    Yes I will probably be involved with SI in a peripheral sense re Miksang etc etc but not the whole new way the Sakyong is teaching.

    On a brief aside to the above I am organising visit for Mr Karelis to the UK so again if anyone is in the UK and would like to help please email me on
    ashworth@easy.com

    Again best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
48. James Elliott on June 2nd, 2009 2:03 pm
    

    Thanks Mark. Suzanne brings up a good point. The elephant needs more attention.

    One important point: the words society, community and sangha aren’t synonymous. Sangha is a gathering of dharma students around a teacher who have found something, who have at least some fledgling realization, and further who are specifically working to expand that realization. In the Lineage Tree, the sangha are the bodhisattvas. It’s not ordinary, and it’s not about politics. Then sangha as the 3rd jewel becomes meaningful.

    A community is something else entirely, not nearly so specific and built on much more diverse principles. Using these words as if they mean the same thing is something like using “Grand Central Station” “Route 66” and “Transportation” interchangeably.

    For the most part we are all referring to community, the only thing policies might have any influence on anyway.

    Another point is the notion that membership in the community, within Suzanne’s description as well as others, is defined as depending on what beliefs are held, either individually or as a group, as if it might be critical whether we collectively focus on ‘the vision of Shambhala’, whether we ‘hold the view’ or as Ashoka commented, have “extreme devotion and a sense of what acharya Ferguson calls “the dream of a beloved community,” or even whether we may think the king is a fink.

    As if the mission of Shambhala is dependant on, just for example, a large group of people having extreme devotion or a pleasant common dream, or believing the king is divine, or some other belief, or else without our striving collectively to be ‘that way’ it will all fall apart.

    This may be one of the leading causes of so much marginalization.

    Communities exist even when the members have different beliefs. They are built on all levels of who we are as humans, of which beliefs are only a minor part.

    Communities do not form to serve one person, one vision, or some other narrowly defined interest, not if they’re going to last. Brains don’t work that way, nor do people, nor communities. Defining what beliefs one must hold before granted full membership, paradoxically causes marginalization and fragmentation. Because that’s not at heart what it’s about.

    Suzanne points out there are people who have spent their lifetimes helping to develop the Vajradhatu / Shambhala community who now feel marginalized. There are a number of reasons that may come about, and I applaud her pointing out that defining the disenfranchised as having some kind of personal problem is not only the wrong approach, it’s just wrong.

    Frankly, I don’t think the administration really understands why it’s happening, most likely because they’re working from erroneous models of community and human nature.

    James Elliott
49. damchö on June 2nd, 2009 7:40 pm
    

    “Some of the marginalization referred to, has to do with a perhaps unofficial assumption that one ought to regard the king or ruler of a society in the same way one regards one’s vajra master.”

    Thank you for raising this question James. I think it’s a crucial one. There are all kinds of kingdoms–from the parliamentary or democratic all the way to the totalitarian. As a kingdom, how does Shambhala–in actual practice–function?

    It seems to me that Shambhala as currently conceived and set up is unavoidably theocratic. When the great majority of those at the top of the political hierarchy have taken samaya with the king, how on earth can politics and religion be separated? I realize that theoretically it might be argued that they are separate–I believe the phrase I’ve heard is “elective monarchy” or something similar? However, without a balance of powers–and along with the various loyalty oaths–I have trouble seeing how this could actually function. And my own experience is that it doesn’t.

    I think your distinction between sangha and community is so important. Within Shambhala in the broad sense there are some who have taken vajrayana vows with the Sakyong and many (most) who have not. Most haven’t taken vajrayana vows with any teacher and never will. The former group may at times encounter certain kinds of treatment not only from their teacher but possibly even from their peers which would simply be experienced as abuse to those in the latter camp.

    It is all too easy for that kind of mindset to “trickle down” and affect all levels. I feel the frustration, marginalization, and disrespect that many have spoken about here can be traced back to just this expectation of unquestioning loyalty trickling down from the fusion of king and vajra master.
50. Keith P. Myers on June 3rd, 2009 2:36 pm
    

    Damcho wrote:
    “think your distinction between sangha and community is so important. Within Shambhala in the broad sense there are some who have taken vajrayana vows with the Sakyong and many (most) who have not. Most haven’t taken vajrayana vows with any teacher and never will. The former group may at times encounter certain kinds of treatment not only from their teacher but possibly even from their peers which would simply be experienced as abuse to those in the latter camp.”

    I think this is the crux of the matter. How will the Shambhala vision and enlightened society ever be realistically accomplished on a widespread basis when the emphasis of the governing organization is on the Vajrayana path? If the Shambhala teachings are a complete spiritual path in and of themselves that is supposed to appeal to a broad spectrum of people, why is there such an emphasis on the Vajra teachings? I don’t see these teachings appealing to westerners on a widespread basis. They don’t appeal to me. I find the down to earth straight-forward Zen path much more appealing. Yet I can see commonalities and useful concepts within the Shambhala teachings that also appeal to me. But personally, I don’t see a large segment of the Amerian population accepting the Vajrayana path, or the idea of a “King” being in charge and calling all the shots. The way things spread on a grassroots level and take hold in a society is by people with understanding and insight going forth and teaching others. Having rigidly outlined requirements and limited training/teaching opportunities and tight control by a central authority is just not going to spread things in a “grassroots” fashion very well. At least that’s my opinion.

    Keith
51. damchö on June 3rd, 2009 3:26 pm
    

    I agree Keith. And with regard to the diffusion of the dharma, I’m reminded of someone I know who goes to a small centre. Her MI had asked her to apply for Guide training because there aren’t enough people who can officially give meditation instruction there. She’s such an excellent person–so generous, smart, endless energy, dedicated to the dharma. But her main teacher–a well-known Tibetan lama–happens to be outside of Shambhala. And so it turns out Halifax wanted to speak to her directly “about her motivations”, she told me, and whether there would be a conflict in her being a student of someone else. She was only going to be giving the most basic meditation instruction! But in the end she was turned down.

    Another friend of mine, early student of Trungpa Rinpoche and someone encouraged by him to teach, was awhile ago invited to give a talk by a Shambhala centre. The invitation was then overturned by Halifax. Though an exceptionally qualified and I think wonderful teacher whom the centre specifically wanted to have visit, he’s not 100% “with the program”, so…

    When I hear stories like these I really seethe, then become very sad. The world so desperately needs wisdom teachings. I don’t believe this kind of tightness with regard to them is helpful.
52. damchö on June 3rd, 2009 3:32 pm
    

    John, thanks for your good wishes, and I send them in return.

    Suzanne, you sound like a true warrior and that warms my heart.

    And thanks to all the other people here with great insights and passion for wisdom.
53. John Castlebury on June 3rd, 2009 7:03 pm
    

    THOUGHTS ARE TO KISSES

    I may kiss a thought’s cheek but if I caress
    Her breast or cup her mound in my palm,

    If I kiss her tongue, press pelvis-to-pelvis,
    If I roll her nipple just so, next thing I am

    Falling into bed with this thought I just met;
    Whereas if I kiss a thought’s cheek simply

    As one kisses an acquaintance’s not meant
    As prelude or overture or sport or foreplay –
54. Suzanne Duarte on June 3rd, 2009 8:33 pm
    

    damchö, thank you for your stories of people you know who have been marginalized by SI. It is good to have examples of the marginalization we’ve been referring to.

    Ashoka wrote: “I think the issue for some people with the split, is that they feel comfortable and inspired by the community, and others don’t. Is there actually middle ground there? People here want specific things; they don’t like the package. At a certain point isn’t it like a divorce or a break up? People have to move on when they decide that there’s no way to bridge certain gaps. In those situations the most mature find ways to stay connected even if they can no longer share a life.”

    I think that the metaphor of a divorce trivializes what has happened in the succession to power of Sakyong Mipham and the conversion of Vajradhatu to Shambhala International.

    To me it feels larger, much larger in magnitude. Although this metaphor doesn’t exactly describe the situation, it is as though a monastery that has been built by one generation to house a very ancient and complex set of sacred lineage teachings and practices – let us call it Rimé, has been taken over by another lineage. The new lineage claims to represent that same set of lineage teachings and practices, but actually doesn’t maintain the continuity, and changes the teachings and practices to include ways of doing things that are unrelated to the original lineage streams that inspired the founding of the monastery.

    Over time, the sangha that together built the original monastery are forced to make a choice: convert to the new lineage or leave. ‘If you don’t like it, too bad.’ The ‘monks’ and ‘nuns’ who built the monastery and were trained in the original lineage streams, and who cannot in conscience convert to the new lineage – cannot abandon their devotion to the original vision, are then kicked out. They are told, ‘We don’t need you.’ So they are made homeless. What they’ve dedicated their lives to has been taken away. They don’t even have any place to practice together anymore. They have no infrastructure in which to carry on what they’ve vowed to carry on. They are no longer welcome within what they helped to build.

    How do the ‘monks’ and ‘nuns’ of the original monastery respond to the coup that has occurred? Some convert and deny that it was a conversion – they say it’s just the same because they’ve forgotten what the monastery was like before the coup. Others who cannot convert meet in cyberspace, since they’re homeless, to communicate with each other and support each other – as any decent sangha does. Some, who feel the coup was a hostile takeover, symbolically ‘picket’ the monastery and are largely ignored, except by a few youngsters who shower them with insults from the ramparts.
55. Jim Wilton on June 4th, 2009 6:43 pm
    

    The new teacher invitation rules are a hot button for me. I am on the Visiting Teacher Invitation Committee of the Boston Shambhala Center. I also helped to organize the local Board in Boston in 2001 (Boston Shambhala Center is separately incorporated as a result more of history than logic). So, by disposition and prejudice, I tend to want to err on the side of local control on most matters.

    However, as the SI mandala gets larger, I think that there are reasons for having some central governing rules. The new rules give quite broad authority for local centers to invite teachers. For one thing, teachers who have taught at any Shambhala Center previously are grandfathered in terms of authority of local centers to extend invitations. For new teachers, particularly Tibetan teachers, the rules require consent to the invitation from SI.

    This irritates me quite a lot, but I think there is good reason for the rules. Local centers are part of the SI mandala and visiting teachers understand that the Centers are SMR’s centers — just as they were CTR’s centers in the 1980s. So it makes sense that invitations come from Halifax. The rules, however, recognize existing relationships between local centers and teachers and don’t try to disrupt those relationships by adding any additional bureaucracy.

    The rules are also in place because there is a new emphasis on establishing and clarifying a path for Shambhala students. In CTR’s time, there was a strongly felt (by some) division between Shambhala Training and the Kagyu Buddhist path. And with Shambhala Training, there was a lack of direction after students had completed the initial levels and the graduate program. Practice of Werma sadhana was not emphasized — and it was left to individual students to find their own connection with it.

    The new visiting teacher rules and the newer Shambhala practice path are meant to address these problems. Maybe not everyone will agree that these are problems that needed correction. But it is hard to deny that there is logic behind the changes.

    However, as someone who just had a heated argument on these issues at a committee meeting two nights ago, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t irritating.
56. John Tischer on June 4th, 2009 10:06 pm
    

    At Tepotzlan Shambhala Centre, (aka Shambhala Cali}, Patrick Sweeny has taught. And older Trungpa students/teachers have been rejected…such as Newcomb Greenleaf I’m not saying right or wrong.

    In this instance, at least,
    the local Shambhala authority seems to be calling the shots. I question Mr. Wilton’s assertion, if I’m getting it right, that Shambhala Central has much knowledge, let alone control, about how business is carried out on the ground at smaller centers. The dharma centers and large urban ones,
    perhaps

    I do think the microcosm (my particular situation) does mirror the macrocosm. I’ve seen it in Vajradhatu/Shambhala for the past almost
    forty years.
57. tsondru garma on June 4th, 2009 11:57 pm
    

    Actually, I think Jim is right, that there IS a new policy. Here in Boulder I heard a worse version of the new policy: that Kagyu and Nyingma teachers in general would no longer be invited after this year.. That they will be “phased out.” So I’m hoping that at least, Jim’s version is the correct one. (that at least the old regulars would be grandfathered in.) But I don’t know that yet for sure….??

    Furthermore, the new organization of the Boulder Center that is in the process of emerging, based solely on the official Shambhala Path, is eliminating the traditional Office of Practice and Education Department. The Office of the Shambhala Path will be the ONLY office for practice and study.

    That seems a bit stifling…whereas at least so far until now… we’ve had lots of offerings for people on other old style Buddhist paths ( within the community) …classes about Trungpa Rinpoche, and a lot of room for older students to teach various topics of interest to Buddhadharma students, at all levels. I’ve enjoyed the space that has been here at Boulder for its diversity of paths, and that diversity has never seemed to threaten the Shambhala Path as it has evolved at our center.

    I’m not at all optimistic about this change.. It seems that the new system will limit the scope of the Center to a smaller view for the sake of providing a specific program for the students in the mandala. Not quite the right balance between too tight or too loose. How are things going at other centers?
58. Toab on June 5th, 2009 11:03 am
    

    That Kagyu and Nyingma teachers will be phased out is highly unlikely, I should think. Where else will they teach? That Shambhala centers stop being the rent-a-center for other teachers who have not established their own centers but whose students are disdainful of the Shambhala path, well, that would be great. That Shambhala Centers focus on being used for training, and therefore the preservation, of the Shambhala Terma, which (in my ridiculously un-informed view) is greatly enhanced by training in Rime Tibetan Buddhism, that would really be great, too.
59. Jim Wilton on June 5th, 2009 6:01 pm
    

    I have read the new policy on teacher invitations. It is certainly the case that existing teacher relationships can continue. So, for example, Boston Shambhala Center has visits scheduled this year from Khandro R., Changling R., Dzigar Kongtrul R., Tulku Thondup and maybe one or two others. All but Changling R. have taught at the Boston Shambhala Center before and Changling R. has taught at other centers.

    The other aspect of the rules are to formalize the teacher invitations so that they are extended in the name of the Sakyong. This aspect of the rules doesn’t bother me.

    In all cases, the local centers actually extend the invitations — with whatever formal or informal process they have in place to do that. So that hasn’t changed.

    The question of which teachers in the sangha are asked to teach has always been a sensitive issue. I don’t think that this is addressed in the new rules — although there may be a sense that invitations to Acharyas to teach is encouraged. These decisions, I think, are all made on the local level. There is some ongoing training beginning with the new curriculum that Adam Lobel has developed with input from others.

    I do feel that the Kagyu practices particularly have been deemphasized. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, this bothers me. But I do think that there are reasons for the approach. I expect the Sakyong feels a strong inspiration to transmit the Shambhala teachings — since we are the only holders of this lineage. It is just a long path through the Scorpion Seal retreat and I worry whether we will have enough new Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara practitioners to hold feasts in a few years — even in larger centers like Boston.

    The fact that Group G of the 3 year retreat has been deferred by a year for lack of applicants is, I think, a discouraging example of the lack of emphasis on the Kagyu path.
60. tsondru garma on June 5th, 2009 6:30 pm
    

    Jim, I was told that the teachers who have already been invited to our center this year can teach, but that next year things will change. Is there a link to review some of these new policies that you have discussed??? There are a lot of rumors going around about other things as well. It would be helpful for me to actually read what is written, etc. (btw, I got my information from a good source.)

    Meanwhile, someone showed up at a Chakrasamvara Feast recently and said they just took CV abhisheka with the Sakyong and there were 50 participants!!! Good news! But how do Kagyu practitioners fit in with the overall plan? Perhaps these folks were people from the past who finally made it to Chakrasamvara… I share your concern about losing the energy of the Kagyu lineage as we were taught, or as we could be taught by other Tibetan teachers who are part of our extended family of the past.
61. John Tischer on June 5th, 2009 10:11 pm
    

    It doesn’t surprise me that SI would be phasing out other Kagyu visiting teachers. And it doesn’t surprise me that some of these teachers are in the
    process of establishing their own centers in the USA. One of them was treated ….let’s just say not as a lineage holder should be treated…at
    Shambhala Mountain Center a couple of years back by some of the senior staff. These teachers know well, I believe, exactly what’s going on in SI,
    whatever they think about it.
62. John Castlebury on June 6th, 2009 3:22 pm
    

    NO BIG DEAL

    “Now what?” becomes “So what?”
    Not even “So what?” but a shrug.

    Not even a shrug as if there is
    Still something to shrug about,

    Not even “So what?” as if there is
    Still something to not care about.

    “Now what?” becomes “Who cares?”
    Then ask who asks “Who cares?”

    [from White Clouds, Samurai Press, 2009]
63. tashi108 on June 6th, 2009 3:45 pm
    

    Hi,
    I am not practicing in the Shambhala lineage. I am a disciple of a Karma Kagyu teacher, who taught a lot in Vajradhatu on the invitation of the Vidyadhara and later the Sawang/Sakyong. And I really cant believe what I read here. Its real sad and also a bit offending(for samsaric lurkers like myself) after all the work the work that was put into Vajradhatu by masters like HH the 16th Karmapa, Tenga Rinpoche, Thrangu Rinpoche,Khenpo Rinpoche and many others. Actually my Guru always praised the qualities of the Vajradhatu-Sangha.
    Its also funny because for us Kagyupas Trungpa Rinpoche was always foremost a Kagyupa and the Shambhla teachings were seen as a skillful means to reach non Buddhists and not as a seperate buddhist lineage( this may not be correct, I am describing how it was percieved from the outside)
    Anyway, maybe that is just impermanence. I imagine Milarepas Yogi/Repa disciples were at times also a bit irritated about having a monk(Gampopa) as new lineage holder and felt he was watering down the pure Vajrayana.

    best

    tashi
64. Suzanne Duarte on June 6th, 2009 9:04 pm
    

    tashi108, thank you for your outsider’s view. At least some of us (former) insiders, it seems, share your views, such as: “for us Kagyupas Trungpa Rinpoche was always foremost a Kagyupa and the Shambhla teachings were seen as a skillful means to reach non Buddhists and not as a seperate buddhist lineage.”
65. Edward on June 7th, 2009 7:42 pm
    

    Was the Buddha a Buddhist?

    My old teacher taught that religions, and institutions and paths and so on are all secondary to awakened mind, and one way you discover awakened mind is through meeting someone who has it.

    If it weren’t for people who had awakened, there would be no Buddhism, and no anything-else. Awakened people do not exist merely to propagate a religion, but to help others to awaken. The religious teachings, institutions, etc. are just skillful means to that end.

    We have to be careful if we think that something is a skillful means to get people to join our religion, at least as an end in itself. Is our religion an end in itself for us?

    I see the Shambhala tradition in part as a test for insecure Buddhists. If a Buddhist is insecure and lacks confidence, he will feel threatened by the existence of a separate tradition called “Shambhala”, and will want to conquer that tradition and own it, so that it does not seem like a threatening outside tradition. Such a person would like to create “Shambhala Buddhism”, and merge everything together into one soup of “non-separateness”. Ego does not like diversity, ego feels threatened by any reminders that there is unconquered territory out there.

    People sometimes talk about the need for more ethnic diversity in certain sanghas. Well, that’s good, but I think before we can effectively allow for more diversity, we first have to be honest about the fact that ego does not like diversity, not at all. Otherwise we’re just adding one strategy on top of another on top of another. And far more threatening than ethnic diversity is spiritual diversity.

    Which is why the Shambhala tradition that VCTR promoted was such a great thing, and such a great test for us.
66. Suzanne Duarte on June 7th, 2009 10:35 pm
    

    Bravo, Edward! I was hoping you’d show up on this thread.
67. James Elliott on June 9th, 2009 2:39 pm
    

    I’d like to second Suzanne’s comment about Ashoka’s analogy. One’s involvement in a community is not analogous to a relationship. Further, marriage or relationship is so amorphous it can be employed to support anything. Along with the admonishment that mature people work with it or (other immature people?) just go away, the analogy then becomes analogous to the boss who says to an employee “If you don’t like working here, go get another job.” when both know full well that jobs are hard to find.

    It is also grating to hear involvement in the Shambhala Community as a “package deal.”

    Just a couple of ways, even if not intended as such, marginalization is generated.

    Edward, perhaps without meaning to, raises the issue of Shambhala International as an institute/church propagating a specific spiritual path, or whether it’s a political entity. A spiritual path can and ought to be put in juxtaposition to awakened mind as he has done.

    A political entity however can’t be meaningfully held up to the same light. Political entities, and indeed all the policies and relationships that create community, work very differently than the disciplines and practices one surrenders to in order to accomplish the path. That distinction is imperative, has all kinds of implications and is all too often glossed over in Shambhala.

    I assume most of us agree it’s incorrect to regard disagreement with some Shambhala policy as caused by psychological problems. In exactly the same way, problems some may have with the state of things in Shambhala shouldn’t be summarily or exclusively attributed to problems with someone’s ego.about

    Doesn’t ego manifest as generating constant change just as often as it might avoid it? Doesn’t ego use… anything… everything?

    Either way, on the level of community or society the approach that ego is the problem implies there’s no chance for a just and inspired community or society until everyone is fully enlightened, something that is unlikely to ever come about. (New people are being born every minute, and very few of them are garudas.) Such an approach all too easily can become then the basis for some cruel assumptions.

    But perhaps more to the point there are probably logical reasons for the decisions made. I don’t accept that the paths taken by Shambhala, for example, are simply ‘a manifestation of ego’, any more than I think disagreement with some policies is either. I’m more interested in what the reasoning was.

    Ego manifestation has to do with each individual’s path, and I’m not sure what discussing that serves, even if true. Policies and proclamations, the reasoning that went into decisions, the need for diversity (or not), the basic approaches and likely results, about those we can have productive debate… potentially anyway.

    James Elliott
68. rita ashworth on June 9th, 2009 2:44 pm
    

    I just checked out the site called the Dechen Community in the UK -its my former teachers site. It is a very Kagyu site – they even still do the recitation of meditation texts in Tibetan! I suppose the Kagyu path if it is to survive in the west will also have to evolve whether the evolution of it parallels Shambhala International I dont know. I find Traleg Rinpoche an interesting kagyu lama that Fabrice Midal has mentioned as having a good appreciation of Trungpa’s teachings so I think I will check him out when he possibly comes to the UK.

    I think we need lamas to work with who have an acute appreciation of the
    West and can ‘adapt’ their way of teaching to westerners-surely also Traleg Rinpoche and others have a great knowledge of the Shambhala teachings -perhaps there is a requirement for people on rfs to ask these teachers about shambhala so that we can garner more information about the legends and the philosophy of shambhala because at the present most of our knowledge about shambhala has come through SI.

    Through questioning of lamas people who are contemplating not staying with SI may get a more rounded view of the shambhala terma.

    Re more kagyu/nyingmpa lamas not being invited to shambhala centres – I think it should be left up to the centres who they want to invite. Tne only person who i think there was a ban on by Trungpa was Ole Nydhal but maybe there was some confusion about that – I dont know the ins and outs of that old arguement.

    Manchester is going to be packed with Buddhists in July because Dechen has invited the other Karmapa, Thrinley Thaye Dorje, to come – stating in their blurb that they are non-partisan about the Karmapa’s status. They have booked GMEX which is an enormous arena in town. Should I ask this karmapa about shambhala?! Dunno – what do people think?!

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
69. Jim Wilton on June 9th, 2009 7:38 pm
    

    Tibetan lamas in general don’t know anything about the Shambhala terma (they may know something about Shambhala as a cultural reference). I think that CTR generally took the view that Tibetan lamas can take Level One if they interested. Except for Dilgo Kheyntse R. and Trangu R., I don’t believe that CTR gave transmissions to any Tibetan lamas. Likewise, I don’t expect that SMR has given transmissions outside of our sangha (perhaps to the Ripa family– but I’m not even sure of that).

    So, for better or worse, propagation of these teachings is up to us.

    I am surprised that DCL is hosting the “other” Karmapa. I guess they aren’t following the new teacher guidelines in Europe (or maybe he was invited before the guidelines came out). It does make you see the need for a central policy on visiting teachers.
70. John Tischer on June 9th, 2009 8:47 pm
    

    I’m not a particular supporter of that Karmapa, but even Pema Chodren had dinner with him. I think it’s about circling the wagons…more and more.
    Tibetian lamas may know little of the actual Shambhala teachings of
    VCTR….but they are very aware of how SI presents itself to the world.
    I’m not saying I know what they see. All I’m saying is. that aspect, the
    organizational one, has no clothes.
71. Edward on June 10th, 2009 11:03 am
    

    Basically I see VCTR as a man who had a very high level of realization. He was realized to an unusual degree, I think. And a lot of the things he did and decisions he made were for the sake of enlightening others, and we can examine those decisions carefully to our benefit, perhaps.

    I’m not sure that VCTR’s successors, now or in the future, will necessarily all have the same level of realization. So if Osel Tenzin or Osel Mukpo reverse decisions that VCTR made, it’s good to consider why VCTR made those decisions. The more we do that, the more we can support VCTR’s successors as good, informed citizens.

    If creating a non-Buddhist umbrella tradition called “Shambhala” is something VCTR did, why did he do it? Maybe asking these questions is part of guru-yoga. Some people obviously feel it was a slick marketing technique to get folks to become Buddhists, if I may put it that way. I suggested in my last post a different explanation.

    And Mr. Elliot…. of course organizations have egos, and egoic mechanisms operating! That’s not a bad thing, it just is. But what good is it to study the teachings if we can’t apply them to the practical situations in our lives?

    The word ego means “I” or identity. Something that has a self-identity. Perhaps has a central government… and so on.
72. Tsondru Garma on June 10th, 2009 12:22 pm
    

    Edward,

    I really agree with you and have appreciated your last two posts. VCTR certainly WAS an unusually remarkably realized person, I’ve been studying tapes of his various early seminars a great deal these days, especially the questions and answers. He gave so much, yet at the same time was inscrutable, and left so much up to our own efforts as students to try to delve deeply into the meaning of his teachings. He could go “between the lines” so remarkably well!!! The new system does not appear to provide that same wisdom and depth. It is neat, well organized, and closed.

    I also agree with you about your view of ego in setting up organizations, and with John about “circling the wagons.” This aspect is quite sad…. since the seeming original attempt in all these changes was to create an “Enlightened Society.” At this point, (in my view) these ongoing new heavy handed directions and pronouncements bode poorly for that original goal.

    There are just so many and multifaceted issues going on. (and more not yet mentioned and also to come later, I’m sure.) I’m sorry to repeat myself, but especially since these changes are ongoing, I am so grateful that we can at least air them and discuss them, even though we have no control over the changes and even though we are finding our own ways to work with our personal practice. It has been personally so important to me to have this place to come to, to find much appreciated common ground with others and to explore and express painful issues in an intelligent and in- depth way.

    thank you everyone,
    Tsondru
73. rita ashworth on June 10th, 2009 12:57 pm
    

    No its not DCL thats hosting the ‘other’ karmapa -its another group in the UK thats hosting him. I am not sure who is the real karmapa but I have read in the past that the karmapas were appointed by the Sharmapa so I am very open about the whole thing.

    Re the shambhala terma obviously Trungpa received them but they are also connected to the Tibetan culture and wider areas of Asia – if you listen to Robin Kornman on google he goes into this aspect of the ‘historical’ issue of Shambhala. In addition Trungpa also lost a 1,000 page book when he was coming out of Tibet on Shambhala – I dont think this book appeared in a historical vacuum but was entrenched in the history of the region.

    And of course we now have the dark retreats which are also prevalent within Tibetan culture and now Welsh culture because they have this practice about 100 miles down the road from me under Namkhai Norbu
    Rinpoche’s guidance – so dark retreats persay are not unique to SI.

    And of course there is just the drala aspect of the teachings sometimes I think this is the most important teaching within the Shmabhala teachings that VCTR gave to us – in some respects if you read the warrior book the teachings are quite logical if you follow this way of life, do this meditation the dralas will appear perhaps thats why the teachings are gathering strength in the west with our emphasis of logical positivism in the world.

    So say you did all of the teachings with SMR – you think you are guaranteed the dralas -is this what people think…….its a conundrum or do the dralas also subvert that ‘ideal’ -

    Aka society also the drala of a society -say you built the centre in Halifax its there now before you – would that be the end of it -no I dont think so because society is made up of diverse peoples you would have to leave room for arguement/discussion/evolution thats what societies do they are not static so shambhala society could not be static hence my quiblings about the role of a fixed monarch. I feel that we just have not really understood the sakyong principle as a philosophy ie that everyone is a king/queen -this is revolutionary and in Europe you would have probably been burned for such a concept in the middle ages.

    As to the melding of Buddhism and Shambhala -can we ponder a little more deeply on this ……….anyone have another way of doing it besides the present sakyongs way -trying to do a little bit of philosophy here -if you could find another way it would be another key to the kingdom. Personally I think one way myself would be contacting the dralas within our own culture through dream or actual revelation as in Tilopa receiving teachings from the primordial Buddha Vajradhara but also perhaps there could be more samsaric ways of doing the same thing-something to think about?!

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    stockport uk
74. Tsondru Garma on June 10th, 2009 3:36 pm
    

    Rita,

    I do so agree with you about the Centre in Halifax, yet another expensive building (and project)… and I feel the whole way it has been presented is actually solidifying the central metaphors of what the teachings of Shambhala actually are, rather than bringing them to fruition in people’s minds. ..as you said re: the king principle.

    thank you for your thought provoking post!
75. James Elliott on June 10th, 2009 7:26 pm
    

    Edward,

    I’m not sure I believe in group ego, but I didn’t say that organizations don’t have themwe . . I said working on ‘ego’, cutting through it, is a personal path. I have to work through my ego, you have to work through yours, he has to work through his and so on. It is not my job to work through your ego, nor you mine. The exception is of course a vajra master with whom one has entered samaya, but that is not a norm one can build policy on.

    And the only way that overcoming ego is going to happen for a group or an organization or society, is if each individual takes that approach for themselves. The notion that a group’s ego could be cut through, independent of the individual states of mind, doesn’t sound reasonable to me, hence my doubt of their existence.

    I have never seen it be helpful or constructive on any practical level to point out the functions of someone else’s ego, other than in the context of dharma teachings which are intended to inspire students to work on their own ego. Unless one has attained a stable and fairly advanced level of realization, that’s probably the only way to apply the teachings constructively.

    Beyond that the way to relate to the world, is simply to be as compassionate and as open as we can be. I don’t believe those ego models are tools we can or should use in order to more skillfully get others to be… all that we want them to be.

    In relating to an organization, if we explain what they do in terms of knee jerk ego reactions, like the fear of change, rather than examining policy and how it was derived, what concerns were driving them, what was being protected, what was seen as threat, etc., then it is like we are speaking a very different language than what we are observing, and we will not be capable of relating to the situation directly in terms that might lead to some sort of understanding or maybe even agreement. It’s like talking to someone about their character flaws in order to get them to change a policy about membership, or something like that.

    And again, I don’t think ego is hooked on avoiding change. That is only one of countless ways ego can confirm its existence. In fact ego is so tricky, if we approach an organization in terms of how we see its neurotic ego manifestation, and how we can work with that to bring about some result, then I suspect we will end up chasing our own tails. It’s entirely too shifty for that. It is this inability to outsmart ego that shamatha is so very good for.

    Maybe I’m being naive, but I kind of think the best way to outsmart ego of an organization, if there is such a thing, is to stop defining it that way, and instead relate to what’s actually being done, how and why, what the perceived concerns were, what the intended goals, etc. with as few built in assumptions as we can.

    James Elliott
76. Tsondru Garma on June 10th, 2009 10:13 pm
    

    James…Maybe the use of the word ego is variable. Individual ego is seemingly endless and bottomless, like samsara…. and that is what we usually have to work with as practitioners. And we can only work on our own, as you say. But then, individuals come together to form various types of groups, and then groups seem to take on lives of their own..(”family ego mass” nationalism, cultural identity, etc) and act according to their best interests, that sort of thing. Like societies, families, cliques, etc.

    I can sense the complexity of what you are saying, but can’t quite articulate how to respond. Perhaps, it is mainly the difference in leadership….VCTR was human yet realized, and tried to create situations and forms that would wake people up and provide the Dharma and Shambhala teachings to people.. and he was open to suggestions as he worked his way through situations to find better skillful means. He actually said that “vision comes out of working with a situation.” (sorry, a rough rendition of a real quote from the Trungpa Lineage series) Not to say that “ego” hasn’t always been a problem for people in the forms he created, but people had to face up to it as practitioners.

    The current organization has a lot of good intentions in it…as many good minds seem to be working together to make it happen…yet we are also troubled by the many complaints enumerated in the posts on this site. And it seems that there is no real openness where it really matters, or hope of being listened to, even to people who have tried to speak up from within.

    Perhaps, instead of accusing the aspects of the organization that seem “unhelpful to waking up” as “ego,” we should merely attribute them to unenlightened policies.
77. John Castlebury on June 11th, 2009 9:16 am
    

    I can talk oneself into anything, accepting one myth or another. Still, whatever I is entertaining is only present as a conjecture. Mental content that I is talked into is the way I always entertains us, and whatever I talks oneself into is what we engage and embrace. I sees any idea as a sound basis for its conceptual embroidery; so I goes astray since I construes as true a mere story I imbues with illusory being by materialising and seizing.
78. Fans Schuring on June 12th, 2009 9:00 am
    

    Hello, read it or not, I like debate. But seem to remain utterly alone in my memories of the past, my assumptions now or my perceptions. I accept this and also that words don’t change that. My perception is that this goes for everyone, whether they want this to be so, or like it, or not.
    This is not meant absolute. It’s relative, especially in it’s implications.
    I like James plee for history and looking at the practical situation, goals, plans, actions, of an organization. But how open can you look, and at all aspects? There’s often a lot about the old CTR days and less involvement in now, or starting out with separating first.
    Past is gone. So is the faultfinding (as well as the positive criticism) on rfs about SI until yesterday, until a minute ago. Even if the words are here, it’s so.
    My experience from old days and nowadays doesn’t differ much. Why is that? Am I naive? Maybe, but if not naive, does one have to waste so much time on things that go their own way with or without you.
    Excuse me for generalizing, but that’s what it looks like.
    I’ve worked in some organizations, of course, have to earn something, and still do, and will for some time, pensions are out of time it seems. But I find mostly:
    Nobody is in control, you can’t really get an organization to take the blame for anything. The managament? O.k., they go out, or some of them. Then what? It works or goes bankrupt. And SI works for now. Lower level people come and go, almost unnoticed. How many left in the Vidyadhara’s days b.t.w.?
    Why is the old days of CTR seem to be questioned less? Comparing past to future ends in most threads after lots of opinions with: ‘we all have our transmissions and have to make the best of passing them on’.
    How is that really different for CTR students and SMR students? I don’t see it. Only the former will die sooner.
    Back to ego of organizations, I agree these don’t exist at all, like the ego of individuals doesn’t exist at all.
    To realize, or at least agree on that none-existence, while otherwise there’s not much point to talk as buddhists, shambhala or otherwise, consider that the good old days or you and you perfect teacher, or your old organization are gone completely. And a new situation to replace that sense of ‘a good and special experience’ has not arisen. This is openness for me and is the case all the time.
    One thing I hear about organizations is: if they waste a lot of time, trying to please everybody, they easily go down. Contrary, a bodhisattva seems to go for welfare of all, but such person is not an organization, nor a buddhist per se and doesn’t seem to mind going down. So I wonder how well this goes together: organizing/bodhisattva-path. Or how open an organization should be and still exist.
    How on earth do we know all these ungraspable large amounts of things about the world and others anyway. I think it’s mostly virtual assumptions.
    I assume being a dragon, owning the keys to the kingdom personally. Heh ho.
79. rita ashworth on June 12th, 2009 1:33 pm
    

    “People may not always feel they want to teach the dharma, but that’s not necessarily what the Shambhala teachings are about. As lay practicioners, the point is to go out into the world and use your training to manifest basic goodness in secular situations. Many people are doing just that in their professional and personal lives, both in their relationships with their loved ones and in their career fields.” Ashoka Mukpo

    Its interesting that the last few posts have been going round the issues of organisation/ego as I was thinking about the same thing. I find Ashoka’s comment above in a previous post pertinent to this as it reflects on group situations or could one say an interaction of egos in society.

    I was thinking of British society v American society in this regard, if you look at American society it is individualistic whereas most institutions in the UK have a social basis coming out of the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century. And of course there is the social contract in Europe stemming from the French Revolution.
    Canada is a mixture of Europe and American mores but I can tell you when I was in Canuckland I was horrified by adverts against unions that I saw on the TV you just wouldn’t get that in the UK. I do think some societies by their history have a closer connection to an enlightened society else why would CTR have commented on the great civilisations in China, Japan etc etc if he wasn’t pointing to something actually ‘concrete’ in history. So we are not just talking psychologically about ego meeting ego in the various group situations that we have.

    The concept of enlightened ’society’ I think means that at some point some ground rules will have to be established about the actual politics of the whole thing perhaps based on conceptions of human rights developed within the UN.

    I would also want to go further than Ashokas comment ie I think it is a duty of people who ally themself to the a conception of an enlightened society that they actually start investigating about how they are going to manifest that politically in the world – I believe Trungpa pointed to these ideals in the Sacred Path of the Warrior with his comments on politics – so to leave this whole discussion of politics up to the present Sakyong would be wrong it needs to be explored more acutely by us all. I think more discussion of politics would be another key to the kingdom. I dont think my arguement invalidates James more perhaps psychological exploration of society and organisations but adds to it with maybe a more concrete touch.

    Personally at the present time I do not feel these ‘issues’ are being explored to the full within SI especially in relation to a proposed building in Halifax, if its to be a cultural centre it just wont work – I think like any philosophy it has to be a centre where politics is discussed and diverse arguements are put forward, but, of course, I will explore these ideas with others here in the UK too.

    rita
80. Frans Schuring on June 12th, 2009 5:03 pm
    

    Reading Rita’s words, I had the thought that the enligtened kingdom is our daily koan.
    Gesar, Ashoka Maharaja, emperors of Japan, China and so on are examples or stories to illustrate the koan. We could indeed study those. Maybe some of that is usable still and can be made into concrete ways again. But our situation is already here: work, home, traffic jam. We can study that constantly and practice sticking to basic goodness in our situation constantly.
    But just as dharma teaching is not for everyone, politics or yoga isn’t either. And certainly being an emperor is not. The koan is to manifest oneself as contributor to the kingdom in a way that best fits, I would think.

    What’s wrong with a cultural center if the meaning of cultural is broad enough? I read the interview with Steve Baker about this a week or so ago, but don’t remember if it was meant only for just arts. But I think not, if that is so you are right, it won’t work for much else.
    But to me such a place sounds like a perfect home for philosophers and (beginning) politicians and many other inhabitants like for instance the CTR-delek-people.
    Frans
81. rita ashworth on June 13th, 2009 8:55 am
    

    Thanks for the further comment Frans – I meant politics in its most broadest sense, for example, I was watching one of Michael Haenke’s films last night called ‘Funny Games in the USA’ – its kind of semi violent but is a comment on the divide between the middle class and the disempowered one might say. I think he is exploring the issues of politics in society most acutely – I hope people can look at his films more closely.He’s fingerpointing at what causes society to go awry with the medium of film.

    Was also thinking that this is what Trungpa did alot in his writing – remember reading a comment in one of the transcripts when he compared the violent blue masked hordes of ol GB thousands of years ago with the majestic civilisations of China, Japan —-the whole comment I think was a metaphor -he’s playing with images, contrasting images making scenes appear in your mind -its ordinary magic!
    Perhaps one may say comparable to Jesus’s parables another key to the kingdom – metaphor/parables/stories make the ego subside somewhat.
    And of course as he said to Jack Niland everything I do is Shambhala Art.
    So I really do not see how you can separate the two of politics/art -its a symbiosis and surely with philosophy it must also be the case because it too deals with universal meaning and not the particular as our dire scientific methods do and our meanderings in the shopping malls of samsara.

    So meeting your own ego in its interactions with others is politics – how can it not be so – you must have read some german philosophy on the whole thing its acutely aware of the universal from Kant to Wittengenstein.
    and I have only studied a little of philosophy – no what makes civilisations grow is ideas and western ideas from St Paul to dear ol Ludwig are shifty and one might also say etheral. Look around you why do people go to churches -its all very strange when you look at things – not trying to be oblique but just everso looking closely at society.

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
82. John Castlebury on June 14th, 2009 12:42 pm
    

    Quote from Frans, June 12th:

    “How on earth do we know all these ungraspable large amounts of things about the world and others anyway. I think it’s mostly virtual assumptions.

    “I assume being a dragon, owning the keys to the kingdom personally. Heh ho.”

    An Informal “Keys to the Kingdom” Survey:

    1.) Do you assume being a dragon?
    2.) Do you assume owning the keys to the kingdom personally?
    3.) Do you assume ungraspable large amounts of things about the world and others?
83. ashoka on June 15th, 2009 3:34 am
    

    “I think means that at some point some ground rules will have to be established about the actual politics of the whole thing perhaps based on conceptions of human rights developed within the UN.”

    Ha, well you hit a nerve with me on that one. I’ve worked for human rights organizations in the past, and I’ve long viewed the UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR (UN rights declarations and treaties) as the guidelines for about as good a world as we’re all going to get. I don’t think that any of the rights prescribed in those instruments are incompatible with the Vidyadhara’s teachings about Shambhala society (in fact I see the principles of Shambhala warriorship as an extremely useful vehicle for training in the skillful means required to actualize those principles in the world), but if Rinpoche wanted his students to vote on a Sakyong he wouldn’t have empowered successors the way he did. I mean I think the whole thing rests on, if we take the long view, a Sakyong’s leadership qualities. Presumably if he (she, someday?) is wholeheartedly practicing the Shambhala/Vajra dharma, there will be no personal territory to protect and he/she will be in tune with the needs of community members and be able to make decisions that incorporate their concerns and priorities. But that doesn’t mean that everybody is always going to be happy, or that individual perspective’s are going to work out all the time.

    It’s anathema to many principles that are sacrosanct in my professional world to say this, but democracy is not a silver bullet. In fact, it can lead nations to take extremely self-defeating actions…look at Israel. There are different interpretations of internal politics there, but the leadership is slave to a fundamentalist movement of settlers who have the potential to ultimately destroy the nation itself. With leadership that did not necessarily have to kowtow to the demands of those voters, would Israel be safer and in less conflict with its neighbors and the world? Perhaps it needs a universal monarch… But, then again, if that monarch was not in possession of wisdom and humility, things could be even worse. This is an old argument, very old, but from one perspective, I think the onus would be on those who feel that the rulers of Shambhala society should adopt teaching programs based on referendum to explain why the root guru of the community insisted on being referred to as “Lord” and made decisions unilaterally, albeit with great awareness and insight.
84. rita ashworth on June 15th, 2009 9:04 am
    

    Yes I agree Ashoka that democracy is not a silver bullet but it is a good starting point when we have bad and indecisive leaders in regard to what is now happening in Iran and to a lesser extent within GB with the expenses scandal (people can google stuff about what is occuring in GB relating to this Issue).

    I suppose you are pointing to the training of a leader within a shambhala society whether such a leader could combine the religious and political aspects of that society. I think on the whole in the west we have decided against that in regard to the historical progress of societies.However, yes it is a possibility but the leader would have to ascertain the rights of all his/her citizens to follow their religious tradition as they see fit you could not have an overarching bias to ones own tradtion as is the case with conception of ‘Shambhala Buddhism’ – I still dislike the splitting off of an ‘elite’ with ‘higher’ teachings as questionable hence my interest in the futherance of a shambhala society with the same teachings open to all from whatever lineage holder who is prepared to give them in that sense.

    Yes UN rights put within a context of a Shambhala society would be a good thing – perhaps you can have talks with people in the UN as they are in New York. Not joking about this governments are open to any philosophy going round as I know from my own brief experience working for Her Majesties government in all its guises – they are on the back step now on things and they are looking to the outside world for help.I personally I have sent stuff on the Kasung to the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence – they buy all sorts of books for their libraires as I well know.

    In addition I still do not truly know Trungpa’s full take on politics – I have read the will and further notes to it made by David Rome and for the umpteenth time I mention yet again the National Assembly mentioned there and Trungpa’s allowance of voting within that Assembly – its been left to the Sakyong at present to interpret this with his own reflections but it still has not been fully discussed within the sangha.

    As to Israel truly an issue that affects us all in the world and strangely a connection with Manchester as Chaim Weizmann the founder of the Zionist movement taught here. I agree the situation calls for decisive leadership in both the Arab and Israeli worlds but I think Israel needs to move first because the sense of injustice felt within the Arab world by Israel is almost insurmountable. And of course for Israel read America -well all the Shambhala citizens have senators dont they write to them, create a fuss on this issue, investigate it within a shambhala politics class (if they ever come to pass!).

    As to relating the above to the keys of the kingdom Christ was not born from a leadership clan but became a leader through the power of conviction as did the Buddha and both of these leaders ‘acted’ within our world and their ‘actions’ are politics
85. Martin Fritter on June 15th, 2009 6:43 pm
    

    Cross posed on Sadhaka Talk.

    I got sucked into this:

    First, it seems completely appropriate for SMR, or his designated representative or representatives, to review who teaches at Shambhala centers, regardless of lineage. When he was alive, Chogyam Trungpa was very concerned about who would be invited to work with his students. The more permissive policy after his death always troubled me.

    I, like many of the older students, am concerned by the apparent de-emphasis on the Kaguy and Nyngma teachings if favor of the neologistic “Shambhala Buddhism.” However, it should be made clear that the way Trungpa, Rinpoche presented the Kaguy teachings was very different that they way they were presented in Tibet and by other Kagyu lamas at that time, the very strong emphasis on sitting being the primary case in point. Tibetan-ness was played down. For example, we never pronounced Sanskrit terms like the Tibetans do and tried to adhere to a some what anglicized quasi-Sanskrit pronunciation. We were consciously developing an American Buddhism with explicitly Kagyu roots. (Rinpoche was very clear that we needed a foundation in Hinayana and Mahayana followed by Anuttarayoga practices before Dzogchen.)

    I certainly support relying on our own teachers, trained our lineages, and I especially support use of the Acharyas, although I personally have no interest at all in the way the teachings have been re-defined and the practices changed.

    I just received the SMC 2009 catalog. There are no outside Tibetans teaching dharma events. Some of the Buddhist teaches may not be part of the SI sangha – I’m not in touch enough to know who’s who. Slightly less than half the programs are Buddhist. There’s a lot of Qigong and Yoga and Drumming and Running and Nine Rites of the Munay-Ki.
86. Lee Weingrad on June 16th, 2009 11:12 pm
    

    I want to say how much I appreciate the effort and devotion that goes into examining these issues.  I say that because I’m someone who spends many hours a day trying to “get it right” as far as expression goes, with partnerships, brochures, connections with our friends and hoped-for friends in high places.  We operate out on a limb here in China and I have to follow the breadcrumb trail through the forest. But we don’t  always find the trail and I don’t operate in a vacuum.

    I’ve always believed that my own personal path with our philanthropic work was tied to my connection to practice and the Vidyadhara.  The more I saw that the less it became important to have some kind of regular dharma-centric activity here in Beijing.  There are also restrictions on this kind of thing as well, although within the ex-pat community it’s pretty wide open.

    Why do I bring this up?  It seems to me that there is a lot of discussion that is based upon either intellectual accomplishment  –”I read blah-blah-blah many times and I can tell you that the dzogchen view…shambhala..blah blah blah.”  Or relationship to a teacher — particularly the Vidyahdhara or SMR:  ”I was there when we grew the trees for the Karma Choling Farmhouse and let me tell you…” or “I was the uncle to the wine master of the Kalapa Court.”  I hear the latter a lot on the Chronicles and it’s understandable, because many interviewed people were close to Rinpoche.  Unfortunately they end up mainly talking about themselves.

    I think that in examining a sense of exclusion that arises from the current imperial fiat, we often go to those places where we can do either intellectual or relationship battle with the powers that be.  I’ve thought about this over and over because of my non-position here in Beijing as far as buddhadharma goes.

    Once during a winter vacation on a beautiful tropical island in the middle of the Andaman Sea, Damchu Rinpoche came to me and told me to stop reading dharma books.  So I did for a while.  I came to see that what I was left with by the Vidyadhara was neither in the realm of intellect nor in relationship.  It’s my life, my work, my family and all the subdivisions thereof:  eating shitting being tired, being happy, etc.

    So I think what I’d like to say as a surviving Civil War veterans one among many who have felt that the ship has pulled out without us:  in the immortal words of the Vidyadhara, “you can’t miss the boat, because it already left.”

    We should look beyond the logic of the intellectuals such as Dr. Loebel and certainly beyond the qualifications of those who preach the gospel because “I was there. (and you weren’t).”  We have to trust our whole lives and not reduce it down to our practice or lack of it, or marriage or lack of it, or cash flow or lack of it.  This is where we can find not only the Vidyadhara speaking directly to us, but inerrantly, clearly.  On the basis of that we can gather with similarly minded brothers and sisters.  We don’t need login, nor a building and we certainly don’t need permission.

    Lee
87. Christopher Huck on June 18th, 2009 2:29 pm
    

    Lee,

    Well said! Thanks for that.

    Regards,

    Chris Huck
    Oaxaca, México
88. John Castlebury on June 18th, 2009 7:07 pm
    

    Free of opinion or opinion-holder or opining
    No need to rest on pseudo-self-assertiveness
    Back to a time when opinion has yet to form
    Before opinion climbs from the oceanic soup

    To uncensored space of pre-opinionatedness
    That opinions strive to steer our focus away
    As if the opinion-holder’s very life depends
    On a scheme of chameleon self-camouflage

    [from "IMHO", White Clouds, Samurai Press, 2009]
89. Fans Schuring on June 19th, 2009 6:17 am
    

    To John C.,

    Thank you for this quote.
    Before, you asked some questions about me saying:
    “How on earth do we know all these ungraspable large amounts of things about the world and others anyway. I think it’s mostly virtual assumptions.
    I assume being a dragon, owning the keys to the kingdom personally. Heh ho.”
    Your questions, 1.) Do you assume being a dragon? 2.) Do you assume owning the keys to the kingdom personally? 3.) Do you assume ungraspable large amounts of things about the world and others?, were answered by me straight in the E-mail message that notified me of you comment.
    But to my dismay, that was the wrong link. I found out the hard way, after finishing the half an hour or so answer, it had disappeared. Too bad I thought, and it was getting late, I shouldn’t have spent that time anyway, forget it.

    Now, your latest quote from White Clouds seemed to me to make my point much better, than I did/could ever do.
    This uncensored space of pre-opinionatedness, that we can connect to, but not express other then by being authentic, I guess, makes us, at least me, feel sad a lot about all the futility of starting from assumptions and going from there into whatever struggles and so on. So much opinions striving to steer our focus away from the afore mentioned space.
    When I wrote that last part of my comment (Your third question), that’s how I felt. So I guess I needed some kind of happy ending, simple man as I am, or else I would have clicked away the contribution right there. But I felt I hadn’t written it for nothing either.
    Then I came up with the other statements (your second and first questions). Assuming to be a dragon is not that inscrutable, otherwise I wouldn’t need such an assumption. But as path it may be an interesting assumption to make, or opinion. I do however, assume owning the keys to the kingdom personally. Because who else would hold them for me, (if there are any, for the kingdom could be completely open already)? Plus, as for any path to the kingdom, with or without keys, it is my personal thing to walk on it.
    Good for you to make me think twice,
90. damchö on June 21st, 2009 2:32 pm
    

    Chris, thanks for your recent posts. You write: “I believe that CTR’s mandala has been moving in a Confucianistic direction… Harmony is no longer “ordered chaos” but social harmony and fitting in -knowing your place, being a part of the whole and obeisance to the ruler who is appointed by Heaven… People are rewarded for contributing to the social harmony primarly through loyalty… ”Codes of Conduct” take the place of taking spiritual risks… Outcasts and real non-conformists or free-thinkers are not encouraged…”

    Some excellent points there. A few comments–

    I was drawn into dharma like so many through the tantric flavour of Trungpa Rinpoche’s published talks. It was specifically their utterly fresh, brilliant, non-religious directness which caught me. I’d seen enough religious moralism for a lifetime and wanted nothing to do with it–all the dualistic, body-fearing judgmentalism, self-hatred… On the contrary, I was looking for a genuine path which could lead me clear out of that pathology, and beyond. Eventually I came across the Shambhala book and there, in the presentation of basic goodness and tender-hearted fearlessness, I found something I felt was quite stupendous in its potential to help our world.

    At a certain point I moved to a practice centre for a time, and one of the first things I witnessed was the way in which the powers-that-be dealt with a couple of people who’d been discovered (actually informed upon) smoking a joint. Now it is indeed true that doing this is against the rules of the centre. But that isn’t the point. All kinds of moments in our behaviour–very much including that of teachers–fall short of the ideal. (And of course sometimes it’s good or necessary to break rules–VCTR gave that message in many different forms.)

    But here, the entire event was dealt with in–how shall I put this–pretty much the exact same way it would be within a Christian fundamentalist family. There was a powerful sense of shame made to surround the “evil-doers”–not to mention much hypocrisy, in that probably the great majority of senior students in Shambhala have partaken of substances of one kind or another and indeed for many these acted as an important catalyst for future practice. In any case the people involved were duly expelled, in a manner devoid, so far as I could see, of an understanding of basic goodness. The whole thing really surprised me at the time, not to mention turning my stomach. It would no longer surprise me, as I would come to see innumerable instances of it in the years following.

    I think your contrast between orderly chaos and social harmony is spot on. In the end there should be no conflict between the two notions. There is indeed a Confucian component to Shambhala–as you rightly say, not ancestor worship, but the idea of natural hierarchy. However, again as you point out, this has taken over, as it is wont to do once spiritual movements become religious institutions with territory to protect and expand.
91. damchö on June 21st, 2009 2:34 pm
    

    (continuation of post, having reached the character limit…)

    In short, the wide-open tantric flavour of VCTR’s world seems to me to be almost all gone from Shambhala. The remnants which remain are negative ones, ie “wrathful” outbursts from recent seminary graduates who think they’re now entitled to be thoroughly nasty to others in the name of supposed “kindness”. But the “spiritual risks” and free-thinking you refer to…very hard to find these days. I believe that were Allen Ginsberg growing up today and first discovering Buddhism, he would not find a place within Shambhala. Rather, he would be met with moralistic, disapproving judgment, much to the impoverishment of the community.
92. Chris on June 21st, 2009 8:23 pm
    

    Dear Damcho:

    Yes, and I forgot to mention Qui gong and arranged marriages to bring two clans together added to the Confucianistic flavor.

    When I entered the mandala in ‘83 I remember vividly how the “gate” was very wrathful and clearly a vajrayana gate. My own social self masks were being exposed by the teacher and older, more processed practitioners all the time.. There were no smiley, happy faces, in person or in brochures,to greet you. Quite the contrary, the mirror was always being held up to expose one’s disingenuousness and “bad faith”.. You knew ,, this was going to be a difficult journey from ego’s point of view. There were no happy , friendly spiritual guides , you were committed, or not. I am so grateful for that honesty that the mandala presented in those days. And I think most of us would say that the greatest teachings for us came from teachers and other older students who didn’t babysit us and didn’t enable our “social selves”. Now Shambhala training was a different path, in that it was more about becoming a “civilized citizen.” My concern with the merger of Shambhala Buddhism is that this vajrayana flavor will be lost, and is going the way of the dharma in the West in general, coopted by pop culture and so many other “small dharmas” that it will be hard to recognized the Buddhadharma in 100 years. It will have been de-radicalized. By CTR keeping it separate, it kept both paths clear. If one wanted a happier life in samsara then Shambhala was the way to go, but if one wanted to really cut through ego’s trip, then the Lions Roar of the Dharma was proclaimed to be the way of liberation. Shambhala was for making us better human beings, and the buddhadharma was for liberating us from the human realm all together, with its cycle of endless suffering. Tsoknyi Rinpoche talks about these two directions all the time. You can have “feel good dharma”, and that’s “o.k. ” A lttle practice, but not too much, just enough to make “me feel better and enjoy samsara”" You practice first to become a more decent human being, but if you stop there, then there is no liberation. You could come back as a cockroach the next time. So the choice becomes about going deeper, really practicing the dharma and being thoroughly “cooked” in the dharma. It seeems by merging the two paths, into Shambhala Buddhism , that choice is no longer there. It will continue to be confusing for people coming into the dharma who are really committed to a Buddhist path, and its direction of full liberation from lifetimes of confusion in samsara. . To add the buddhism part, to Shambhala, while cutting out the Kagyu-Ningma path to liberation seems, frankly, to be misleading to new students. And people should listen to John Rockwell’s talk , if they haven’t. This is clearly the direction it is heading, i.e. emphasis Shambhala path. According to Rockwell, The Sakyong is not going to be offering the Kagyu- Nyingma path in the future, you can ask for it, but even then, it is up to him to give it to people case by case.
93. Edward on June 21st, 2009 9:19 pm
    

    Hi Chris,

    I’m enjoying a lot of your comments. However I have a question about this:

    Shambhala was for making us better human beings, and the buddhadharma was for liberating us from the human realm all together, with its cycle of endless suffering.

    Is the goal of being liberated from the human realm considered to be the goal of vajrayana, mahayana, or hinayana?

    My old teacher used to say that the desire to get out of this place is the kind of desire that can (and often does) result in rebirth. “Oh no! I’m back here again?! Frak!” But perhaps I misheard him. Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “liberation from the human realm” as a goal.

    If one wanted a happier life in samsara then Shambhala was the way to go, but if one wanted to cut through ego’s trip, that the Lions Roar of the Dharma was proclaimed to be the way of liberation.

    Is this what Trungpa Rinpoche said?

    I appreciate your point, and I appreciate the extensive practice that many Buddhists engage. However, I’d also like to put in a plug for Shambhala teachings, which are kind of groovy in their own right. I haven’t noticed a similarity between them and Confucianism at all, though their benefits may be similar in some ways.

    Seeing basic goodness as the ground of *all*, and letting go of *all* reference points and *all* fear of death (or of rebirth, etc.), which I believe was the teaching I received at Level I or II, is pretty good teaching, so far as I can tell.

    If you feel you have fulfilled this teaching, please let me know as I’d like to become your student. I know of no higher realization. Actually, you would probably scare the crap out of me if you are anything like Trungpa Rinpoche was reputed to be in his later years.
94. John Castlebury on June 22nd, 2009 8:35 am
    

    STROKE OF LUCK

    From apparent obstacle arises stroke of luck:
    Because we never quit we always make the best of it.

    We never wash our hands of the world or anyone;
    Thus, we are victorious!

    Not one life lost, a bloodless coup.
    We pierce the enemy striking his nervous system.

    The warrior’s horse goes smoothly by enemy archers.
    Arrows of hope and fear fall harmlessly.

    Undaunted by the foot soldiers of skandhas,
    Eluding the shocked cavalry of kleshas –

    Prayer flags snapping like galloping horses!
    Shadow prayer flags alive on the grass!

    From apparent obstacle arises stroke of luck:
    Defeat is transformed into blessing in disguise.
95. Chris on June 22nd, 2009 12:44 pm
    

    I did not say this , about freedom from the human realm , Tsoknyi Rinpoche, son of Tulku Urgyen who gives the direct pointing out of Dzogchen Ati ,said this at many retreats. Tulku Urgyen gave the Dzogchen pointing out to all the grandfather lamas (they often taught each other and gave teachings to each other) including Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche.That was how much respect for his lineage of Dzogchen they had. Google Tulku Urgyen and read the tributes to him from all the great lamas. And since any goal oriented behavior, such as stressing thoughts and actions that focus on spiritual results in some future that never comes is the very thing that would prevent us from relaxing into the pure awareness of the here and now, or rigpa, of course that is not what CTR or any teacher said. From what I can see, the current Shambhala mandala is all about future results and many many programs to get there.So no, that is not what I am saying. The gist of this was “don’t kid yourself” if you think that a little bit of practice here and there, even a little retreat now and again, will result in complete liberation from samsara. You may have a happier life in this life, but then “who knows” in the next life what will happen, if it is wasted in busyiness, and social concerns, and religious church dharma concerns. Busy trying to “save the world” etc. etc. that from the human perspective is but a projection anyway. We see the world as “human’s” do and therefore are in delusion, just as hungry ghosts etc have different projections upon the elements and energies and see it differently. This is Buddhism 101..
    The human realm is the best rebirth of the 6 realms, because from there it is easier to be liberated, but it is still the realm of desire and suffering because humans are so caught up in attachment and desire.

    And no Edward I never heard CTR say or write this anywhere, I am sorry if I gave this impression. I was extrapolating from my own experience with Shambhala path . I am sure that someone could be liberated if they did the Shambhala path fully, just as someone with a lot of practice from a previous life could be liberated by just having the pointing out instructions in Dzogchen , one time, from a qualified lama. These things can happen, but liberation only happens for most of us with lots of practice, with the right intentions, going in the right direction and without any goal.
96. Edward on June 22nd, 2009 1:00 pm
    

    Hi Chris,

    Yes, I agree; that sounds good. Sorry if I got carried away there!

    The funny thing about sitting practice is that sometimes, rather than delivering peace of mind and warm fuzzy feelings, it seems to stir up all kinds of stuff! Sometimes I feel more messed up than I ever was before I started sitting! lol.

    That’s why if I was a meditation teacher I’d be hesitant to promise all kinds of pleasure and self-improvement from meditation, as some people do.

    A few months ago I heard someone (let’s call him “R”) get asked how quickly meditation can produce results. He said within the first 5 minutes you’ll start getting benefits.

    I suppose that could be true in a way, but it’s not necessarily the way I would have answered that.

    Actually, let’s not call him “R”, let’s call him “RR”. I really liked RR in many ways, except I’m suspicious of making those kinds of promises to people.
97. Chris on June 22nd, 2009 1:08 pm
    

    “Initiatory experience is present in this very moment and nothing can be done to facilitate its advent. Any kind of preparation or fore-practice muddies the waters in its assumption of a goal to be reached. Access to the clarity and the zing of reality, on the contrary, is more likely to be found in an innocent pristine mind that has not been conditioned by the cultural and religious assumptions af a “sophisticated” tradition. Purity of karma, putative rebirth, guru-relationship, degree of meditation concentration, facility in visualization, levels of attainment, and so on, are all issues pertinent to acceptance and success within a hierarchical cult wherein a particular ideal form of social and psychological behavior is a goal to be acheieved: but to the formless experience of Dzogchen , such considerations have no relevance.”— from Keith Dowman’s “Old Man Basking in the Sun: Longchenpa’s Treasury of Natural Perfection”.

    I guess people have to ask themselves , does going through years and years of prepatory practices and expensive programs in the current Shambhala mandala participate in the flavor and intention of the Shambhala teachings, of CTR that emphasize “basic goodness” from the first? That the royal seat was not external but was our “own seat.” It shouldn’t be taking all these expensive programs and external king worship to discover this years and years later. Is this necessary, or is this to keep the mother church in existence?

    One can have this pointed out right now. Dzogchen is not about religious organization, or hierarchy, or being caught up in group “do good” social activities, or guru worship, those things are obstacles to it. Even compassion is viewed differently in that it cannot be cultivated it is already present in the here and now, and focusing on a object of one’s compassion reifies dualism and self and other. Compassion arises in the here and now in the form of skillful means it takes. It cannot be cultivated anymore than basic goodness can be cultivated. it has never not existed and never can be destroyed. So what is there to be doing , except resting in it? That is the practice. Easier said than done, of course, but better to have this clearly pointed out, i.e. facing the right direction: ” looking at one’s own face and resting in one’s own place”, with nothing to do or modify. That was what Level One Shambhala pointed out . Anything else is fluff and obstacle.
98. Edward on June 22nd, 2009 1:22 pm
    

    Also, from what little I know, CTR’s Shambhala teachings have nothing to do with saving the world, per se. Trying to ward off death or destruction is I think what he called “setting sun vision”.

    I think CTR’s Shambhala vision has more to do with first accepting death, and then seeing if you can’t have a more dignified or compassionate life from that point of view, and so on.
99. Chris on June 22nd, 2009 7:44 pm
    

    Yes, and I have posted about this before. When I was first caring for Taggie Mukpo in Rinpoche’s little house, pretty much as he had left it because this was 1991, only 3 1/2 years after he had died, ghosts and all, I came across an old film from 1976, an interview with CTR by a Vermont journalist regarding the same “save the world” mentality. (Young people always think that us “old dogs” haven’t been through what they are experiencing, but we too were concerned about warfare, the environment etc, and felt compelled to do something about it, but samsara is samsara and is always the same, you can’t fix it you have to liberate it by liberating your projections and own confusion that is a veil over the primordial purity that is obscured but always present) but anyway I wish someone could get ahold of that little, sweet interview with CTR, whose basic transmission to all these intense, serious considerations about the state of the world which was embedded in the interviewers questions, was “Relax, everything is just fine as it is”. Of course they aren’t showing that film anywhere these days in SI, it wouldn’t fit in with the “saving the world” mentality and appealing to PC correctness which to me is just pandering to the common denominator, and has nothing to do with Shambhala or Buddhism, but anyway, .The film was called “The Art of War.” Its him, on film , giving a transmission actually, and it would cut through all the “He said this, and he meant that” with a stroke. He was grinning and found the questions very amusing, but never compromised his view, It came thourgh very clearly, gently and stopped the interviewrs mind I believe.
100. Chris on June 22nd, 2009 8:07 pm
     

     Maybe someone has that film, or saw that interview? It would be so helpful to show all the younger students distracted , as we were, before we found the authentic dharma by trying to save the world . Don’t we all remember what a relief it was to just sit down and stop the spinning? After years of all those “save the world concerns?”. He used to laugh, remember at Allen Ginsberg when he did that sit-in? It was the same spinning, except what is heartbreaking is that spinning is now part of the current SI mandala, instead of a break from it. Spinning and distraction has been incorporated into the Shambahla mandala instead of the wide-open space that allowed us finally relax.
101. Ngakma Zer-me Dri'med on June 22nd, 2009 8:11 pm
     

     “A few months ago I heard someone (let’s call him “R”) get asked how quickly meditation can produce results. He said within the first 5 minutes you’ll start getting benefits.”

     Did Richard Reoch really say this? When and where? What were the circumstances?

     Taken out of context, that statement is so far gone from the teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche that we might as well be teaching people TM. Can anyone reading this imagine saying such a thing while teaching on meditation?
102. Edward on June 22nd, 2009 8:17 pm
     

     Hi Ngakma Zer-me Dri’med,

     It was not Richard Reoch. Since I did not take careful notes and my memory might be faulty, let’s leave it at that. He was not a representative of Shambhala International.

     Actually, I can be more specific if I quote his website: “Techniques drawn largely from Tibetan Yoga — but also from Zen, Theravada Buddhism, Qigong, and a number of indigenous traditions — are used to access our hidden potentials, illuminate our inborn nature, and re-invigorate our movement toward wholeness.”

     dharmaocean.org

     Aside from all the goodies that are promised, I really liked meeting him, in many ways.
103. Edward on June 22nd, 2009 8:34 pm
     

     Offering goodies might be a good way to teach, but I’d say it’s an extremely advanced way to teach, which I myself have a hard time even imagining anyone doing.

     I think when it’s done right it might be called “crazy wisdom”– working in a direct, powerful, and perhaps dangerous way with the fantasies that people bring to you.

     Probably a lot of teachers offer goodies of one kind or another– saving the world, putting an end to rebirth, attaining a calm state of mind. But are they all crazy-wisdom masters?

     Anyway, I liked Mr. RR’s daring nature, so I wish him luck.
104. John Castlebury on June 23rd, 2009 9:15 am
     

     NO MINDER OF MIND

     And no mind to be minded or not
     And no minding to do or not to do

     Is innate projection-free fresh state
     Is innate pre-projection blank slate

     This super-aware raw intelligence
     Is in the space between projections

     This is what we forget we ever saw
     Until we are reminded that it is so

     [from White Clouds, Samurai Press, 2009]
105. rita ashworth on June 24th, 2009 1:42 pm
     

     I have been thinking around some comments posted on this site in relation to the shambhala teachings being a container for the buddhist teachings. Intially I thought of the container as bowls within bowls but then thought a bit more and came up with image of a body, which I think is also used within Hinduism as a metaphor for the creation of the universe, -the body image is a container, it contains the heart, lungs etc etc, but one can’t work without the other – so when Davee talks about the ‘core’ of the enlightened society being the vajrayana teachings I think it is a too mechanistic viewpoint – or in another sense I thought you cant have two ‘conceptions’ of Awake you can only have Awake persay. Now relating this to CTR’s presentation of the shambhala and vajrayana teachings in the world they must both lead to enlightenment – I dont think he shortchanged people of other religions with a lesser path of shambhala and elite vajrayana teachings for others – I think he was just telling different ’stories’ to different people in a sense what they needed to hear at the time. Now as for putting the werma sadhana within the realm of a ngondro this CTR did not do -the cake of the sadhana to use another metaphor was placed on the table and in his life-time he did not take that cake off the table-he freely offered it to all the people of the world. Now I still believe we should offer it to people – even if they dont like the cake offered – its our treat for them, its up to them whether to take it or not.

     Would love to hear other comments on the container principle -perhaps it would enlighten us all.

     Best

     Rita Ashworth
     Stockport UK

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!