Comments on: The Keys to the Kingdom

By: rita ashworth

rita ashworth — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:42:19 +0000

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

By: John Castlebury

John Castlebury — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:15:55 +0000

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]

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:34:13 +0000

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.

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:17:23 +0000

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.

By: Ngakma Zer-me Dri'med

Ngakma Zer-me Dri'med — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:11:21 +0000

“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?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:07:06 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:44:22 +0000

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.

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:22:48 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:08:17 +0000

“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.

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:00:10 +0000

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.