Shambhala Buddhism and the new curriculum

June 16, 2009 by Barbara Blouin    Print This Post Print This Post

An Interview with Acharya Adam Lobel

Reporting and commentary by Barbara Blouin.

It was in 2000 that Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche first announced that Buddhism (according to the Kagyü and Nyingma traditions taught by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche) and the Shambhala teachings of Chögyam Trungpa were no longer separate or distinct, but were “inseparable.” Trungpa Rinpoche also spoke of the Buddhist and Shambhala teachings as inseparable, but he also said that Shambhala had its own independent basis. By creating what is now called “Shambhala Buddhism,”  the Sakyong has undermined that independent basis.  Since he first spoke of “Shambhala Buddhism,” various changes have occurred in the way the Buddhist path and the Shambhala teachings have been presented and organized. It is significant that the name of the organization founded by Chögyam Trungpa – Vajradhatu – was changed to Shambhala International, and, more recently, to Shambhala. 

The Sakyong’s underlying purpose of bringing together Buddhism and Shambhala is to create a “unified path.” 

By asking our students to move through a unified path, they will be exposed to a range of skillful means that best represents a complete expression of our mandala as a whole. The view of a unified path is not to blend the Buddhist and Shambhala language until it is indistinguishable. The view is to allow the singular power of both expressions to nourish, challenge, and deepen our students. The Shambhala teachings and the various practices and views of the Buddhadharma each have their own distinct purposes and we must understand their differences.

[This] path does not necessarily lead to seminary or advanced Vajrayana practices. Instead, a person struggling in the darkness and fear of the setting sun could be sufficiently inspired, roused, processed, and softened by these stages to find themselves living a healthier and more dignified life. People of all faiths and backgrounds can walk this path; no Buddhist commitment is requested until entering Vajrayana seminary. 

Source: The Way of Shambhala Overview in the Shambhala Training Manual

Before “Shambhala Buddhism” came into being, there were the Buddhist teachings and there were the Shambhala teachings of Chögyam Trungpa. How could Shambhala Buddhism join these traditions without changing both of them profoundly? I thought that 1 + 1 = 2. But here, 1 + 1 = 1, -or so it seems. 

My attempt to understand what “Shambhala Buddhism” means eventually led to learning as much as I could about what is being called “the new curriculum.” Although this is only one part of major changes the Sakyong has made in the way both the Shambhala and Buddhist teachings are presented, I decided not to try to do too much – to only chew on what I might be able to digest. My first step was to contact Carolyn Mandelker, who is Director of the Shambhala Office of Practice and Education. We met in Carolyn’s office at the Halifax Shambhala Centre and talked for close to an hour. That meeting with Carolyn was useful, but I also felt that what I learned was not much more than a road map: This is what happens first, and next …. and next … Such-and-such programs have or haven’t been changed. Carolyn repeatedly told me: “This is a work in progress.” It became clear to me that this was a much bigger subject than we could explore in any depth in the time we had together.

My next step was to send an e-mail to Acharya Adam Lobel to ask for an interview. It was Acharya Lobel, together with Carolyn Mandelker and Acharya Christie Cashman, who worked together intensively to create this curriculum, under the guidance of the Sakyong. In April I spoke with Acharya Lobel by phone; we talked for close to two hours. An edited and abridged version of that interview is the basis for this article. 

1. What is the new curriculum? 

Somewhere between one and two years ago,  Shambhala International began to  introduce “the new curriculum.”  Currently, this curriculum is being piloted in 16 Shambhala Centres – eleven in the United States; three in Canada; and two in western Europe. These sixteen pilot programs are distributed among small, medium, and large centers, including one practice center: Dorje Denma Ling in Nova Scotia. Other centres continue to offer Shambhala Training without the classes. 

The new curriculum is a key component of The Way of  Shambhala. Following Shambhala Training Level I, now a briefer one-evening-and-one-day program, participants may choose to continue with a series of six evening classes called Meditation in Everyday Life, which is not a part of the new curriculum. 

The new curriculum begins after Level II. During Level II, participants are encouraged, but not required, to register for the Tiger series of six weekly evening classes. Tiger and the rest of the new curriculum – Lion, Garuda, and Dragon – can also be taken independently of  Shambhala Training. In the centers where the new curriculum is offered, it alternates with the Shambhala Training levels. Dragon, the final series, happens after Level V.  Students also have the option of following the Shambhala Training levels without the classes.

2. Interview with Acharya Adam Lobel  

Adam: The basic process of creating what we’ve been calling “the new curriculum” was initiated in 2005. The Sakyong arranged a conference call with Carolyn Mandelker and Acharyas John Rockwell, Christie Cashman, Jeremy Hayward, and myself. We were the people who the Sakyong gathered to say: let’s look at our curriculum overall. After that we went through a series of meetings and retreats. We spent five days together at to Dorje Denma Ling, practicing the Werma sadhana and thinking about what the Sakyong was asking us to do, as well as how to respond to the needs of centers.

The intensive, on-the-ground portion of our work has been carried out by myself, Carolyn Mandelker, and Christie Cashman. A lot of this new curriculum has been based on the requests and the needs of centers that we’ve been hearing from for the last maybe twenty years. The Sakyong has been talking about this curriculum from a lha, or heaven, perspective, but he also wanted us to connect with earth. A lot of our work has been trying to look at our huge, diverse community with a wide range of different needs. There are large centers with many teachers, and small centers with no teachers. We have centers where people can only do programs on weekends, and we have centers where people can’t do weekend programs. And we worked hard to offer programs that will be skillful in these different contexts.

Question: How, exactly, have Buddhism, in the Kagyu/Nyingma tradition of Chögyam Trungpa, and the Shambhala teachings been brought together in the new curriculum? From what I’ve seen so far, two things seem to be going on: Buddhist and Shambhala teachings are presented side by side; and in at least one instance that I know of, Buddhist and Shambhala teachings are mixed together, in such a way that new students would be unable to distinguish which is which. For example, the Four Immeasurables chant that appears on a handout for Lion, which ends with the last line of a Shambhala chant. That bothers me.

Adam: Why does it bother you?

Q: Because it’s the joining of a traditional Buddhist chant, and a Shambhala chant that was created by Chögyam Trungpa. I don’t know how often this kind of thorough mixing takes place.

Adam: As far as I can recall, I don’t think there are other examples quite like that. The way the Sakyong guided us, and most of our intentions throughout developing this curriculum, was to try to think of the student, and to ask: What would be of benefit to students at this stage in their journey, in terms of the incredibly vast range of teachings that we have in this tradition? What are some of the kinds of key words, teachings, practices, and ideas that will really touch a person at this stage in their journey, someone who is trying to understand what we’re all about? Along the way, we would often present something to the Sakyong. Then he would say something, and we would give that some form. He’d often say things like: “Stop thinking about the categories that you have in your mind, that you think students should know, and start thinking about what really would be of benefit.”

Q:  I said that it seemed like Shambhala and Buddhist teachings are being presented side by side. Would you agree that that’s an accurate statement?

Adam: It’s definitely an accurate statement. The language that the Sakyong has been using, and that we’ve been using, is a “unified curriculum.” It’s trying to draw on the richness of all of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings, and put them together in an accessible, inviting, experiential, and transformative way. When we talk about the the new curriculum, which is part of The Way of Shambhala I, it is one portion of a pre-seminary curriculum for people who are headed in the direction of Seminary.

There are three main components to the new curriculum. The first is the outermost stage of offerings. The outermost offerings are programs that have no prerequisites, and they are open to anyone. Shambhala Training Level I is in this outermost category, but it also can be envisioned as part of the Way of Shambhala.

The next part is what most people refer to as the new curriculum: the series of the classes on the four Dignities, called Tiger, Lion, Garuda, and Dragon. That’s what we have really worked through. There has been a tremendous amount of work and all sorts of failures and mistakes and re-envisionings, and going back to the drawing boards. We’re still revising the curriculum. 

The final phase of the pre-seminary curriculum includes the Sacred Path material, as well as a deeper study of Buddhist teachings such as abhidharma and lojong. There will also be a public introduction to the vajrayana, including a Sadhana of Mahamudra weekend. 

The basic approach to The Way of Shambhala is to map out an experiential journey. The first part of that journey is to develop basic mindfulness and a relationship with basic goodness and a sense of gentleness. 

Q: Using the Tiger series as an example: in the first class, are students introduced to the qualities exemplified by Meek?

Adam: Yes, and these qualities also seem to have a resonance with some of the qualities of an arhat, a dharmic person—the way Trungpa Rinpoche describes the Buddha and the dharmic person, who move with grace and gentleness and a kind of composure. The emphasis in the first class is to give students a sense of the basic quality that they’ll be practicing and studying and contemplating. The analogy for Meek is the tiger: moving carefully and with mindfulness, incredibly aware, senses awake and attuned, with discipline and gentleness and humility. 

Q: It seems, from looking at the schedule that Carolyn gave to me, that some qualities of each of the Dignities are presented in each of the levels, but not all of them. For example, the quality for Tiger here is contentment, but the other qualities to be cultivated are not named. Does the teacher talk about those other qualities as well?

Adam: In a sense we are emphasizing a central quality – “contentment” here. One way to translate the Tibetan word for contentment is “meek.” And we felt that, with guidance from the Sakyong, contentment was a kind of seed syllable for what we’re trying to communicate to students and give them an experience of. What comes with that, of course, is the relationship of contentment with the absence of arrogance.

We always explore what the Dignity refrains from. I think it’s one way to understand how Buddhism and Shambhala support each other. We look at the obstacle of arrogance, for example, for the Dignity of Meek. And then after exploring it, we look personally, experientially at our own arrogance. And we have an opportunity to study Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings on  the three kinds of suffering, in order to give students another language, another angle to understand where obstacles arise. I do not believe that we have exhausted the entire principle of Meek, but, rather, given one experience of it. Nor, of course, have we exhausted the teachings on the hinayana, by any means. We’re trying to give students an experiential taste that actually sticks with them in their body and their experience.

Q: I noticed some new words in the schedule for the Tiger classes – and one that is not in either the Buddhist or Shambhala vocabulary: “stress.” That was a surprise to me, and I’m not comfortable with it.

Adam: Trungpa Rinpoche used to talk about speediness all the time. I think it’s interesting to use the word “stress” because there is so much stress and  speed, and overall chaos, that so many people are experiencing in our world. And that’s precisely why the ground of this journey is a kind of mindfulness and gentleness.

Q: The schedule I’ve been talking about displays a basic logic: The first two classes are ground; the next three are path; and the last is fruition. There is also a clear pattern in each series, which is always the same: The first class is  … hmm, what? It’s not shown on the chart. The chart only says “Introduction.” Is the first class Shambhala and Buddhist? Classes two and three present Shambhala teachings, and classes four and five are Buddhist. The sixth class is Shambhala. Would you comment on this use of logic? 

Adam: I’ve stopped thinking about it in terms of which is Shambhala content and which is Buddhist content. There are elements of both trying to support each other. They offer a different language and perspectives, but they are not essentially different. For example, one student might connect with the teachings on the experience of the cocoon, and another student might feel supported by the clarity of the presentation of the five skandhas. 

Q: One aspect of my discomfort with this approach is that Trungpa Rinpoche clearly and repeatedly said that Shambhala is a secular path, and its purpose is to create enlightened society. And Buddhism, even though it’s nontheistic, is classified as a religion. There’s a priesthood, et cetera. So when you bring the two together, what happens to the secular teaching? I know there’s a lot of discomfort about that in our sangha. Have you heard that?

Adam: Sure. Speaking for myself, Carolyn, and the other acharyas I’ve been working with, we’ve all had our questions about Shambhala Buddhism, and we’ve  questioned the Sakyong and each other. We’re trying to understand what it means when those two words are uttered at the same time. In terms of the secular question – what do we mean by “secular”? And how did the Dorje Dradul use that word? And what was he trying to get at?

Q: Well, for one thing, Shambhala was something that anybody could learn and practice. Trungpa Rinpoche said that very specifically. You could be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. Or you could be an atheist. So it was secular and it did not lead to Buddhism. However, in the “old days,”  the Shambhala population was 99% Buddhist. In later years participants were less likely to be Buddhist; probably the majority of the nonBuddhists were Christian. I’m speaking from my own experience here in Halifax. 

Of course, it is true that Buddhism and the Shambhala teachings are compatible, but to the uninitiated, the Buddhist part was invisible. Some of those Christian Shambhalians were quite committed. (I am using the past tense, because I think they have “dropped out.”) They were considered sangha – by themselves as well as by the Buddhist sangha. Some of them were quite distressed when the Shambhala teachings became “Shambhala Buddhism.”

Adam: The vision hasn’t changed at all. This path is open to people of any religion, and the new curriculum is explicit about that. There’s no requirement to take refuge and become a Buddhist—unless someone wants to go to Vajrayana Seminary. So that means that people can go all the way through the new curriculum, including Sutrayana Seminary and Warrior’s Assembly, without being Buddhists. And that’s not just a bureaucratic point; it has to do with our view, which is the view of basic goodness, which is not based on religious affiliation. The whole point of enlightened society, and the whole point of our efforts to teach and to practice together, is because of trust in basic goodness, and extending that to the world. The Sakyong is encouraging us to move beyond the idea of giving students a choice before they have even been exposed to any real depth of experience or learning a practice, where we would say: “Are you a religious type? Do you want to be a Buddhist? Or are you a nonreligious type and want to be a Shambhalian?” Somebody at a Shambhala Center where I was working described it this way: she was standing on two logs in a river. One log is Shambhala and one is Buddhist. She felt that the two logs were getting further and further apart, and her legs stretched into a kind of split. And one of the things she appreciated about the new curriculum is that the two were together, and that offered her a stronger stance.

Q: Does it matter whether some, or maybe many, of the students going through this curriculum aren’t really able to discriminate which of the teachings are Buddhist, and which are Shambhala? You’ve been talking about that anyway – saying that the point isn’t to see which is which, but whether it works. For some people, it’s a big issue. Non-Buddhists no longer have the opportunity to explore the inseparability of Shambhala vision and their traditions: the deepest parts of Shambhala vision are marked with Buddhist language, imagery, and tradition.

Adam: I think it’s very personal. There are some students for whom that kind of analysis and understanding is very important, and there are others for whom it isn’t important. If a student asks me, “Is this Shambhala or is this Buddhist?” I would try to give as clear an answer as possible about the source of a given teaching.

I have spent a lot of time studying the Shambhala terma teachings, and I kept asking myself: What is different here? And what is the same? I’m happy and honoured to be able to spend my life exploring those questions. There’s so much richness condensed into this language of the terma that we are just beginning to unpack. Take anything – the Golden Key text, let’s say. What an incredible poetic masterful work. It’s amazing! To me, that’s what Shambhala Buddhism and this new path are all about: realizing that we are the ones who inherited this stream of teachings from Trungpa Rinpoche, and there’s no one else on the planet who is in that situation. And it’s our job to dive into it and to understand it and to unpack it – and then pass it on.

3. Finally …

My root guru and heart teacher has been dead for twenty-two years,  but his teachings continue to live in me and in so many others – through his books, through audio and video recordings, through the memories and personal testimonies of those who knew him, and through the devotion of an increasing number of those who never knew him during his lifetime.

We know that Chögyam Trungpa, from whose vast mind the Shambhala teachings arose, considered the purity of the Buddha’s teachings to be of the highest importance. In 1983, on the occasion of the installation of the Kangyur in the shrine room in Boulder, Rinpoche referred to other editions of the Kangyur (see a little background on the Kangyur) in Tibet or in China, that had been heavily edited by other sects. Those who altered these texts, he said, had inserted their own ideas and beliefs into the original teachings. He described the edition of the Kangyur that was being installed as pure and straight and unaltered. 

What he said that day in Boulder might be a clue for us, but we will never really know what the Dorje Dradul would have thought of the mixing-together of the Shambhala and Buddhist teachings, or of the new moniker “Shambhala Buddhism.” The only thing we can do is to connect with our own hearts and ask ourselves what we think about those changes, and how we feel. 

Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche always insisted that his students not accept as givens what they were taught, but closely and critically examine everything they read and heard – and only then would they be ready to make up their own minds. In this matter he was always absolutely uncompromising and fierce. 

In working on this article I have done my best to present “Shambhala Buddhism” as it was presented to me by two students of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche. I must admit that this process of asking questions and listening carefully to the responses that were given has not been easy for me. Although I have usually been able to follow the Sakyong’s logic, as it was offered to me through the filter of Acharya Lobel’s admirably clear intellect, in my not-so-secret heart, what I learned just didn’t feel right. It still doesn’t.

The way I see it, as Radio Free Shambhala has evolved, what is most interesting of all, and most vital and important, are comments from readers. I am eagerly looking forward to what you who are “out there” have to say, both the old dogs and the new pups – and especially those who disagree. I am also particularly interested in hearing from newer students who have started coming to Shambhala Centers since the advent of the “Shambhala Buddhist path.” 

From Lion: The Windhorse of Delight:

 

May all beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness.
May they be free from suffering and the root of suffering.
May they not be separated from the great happiness, devoid of suffering.
May they dwell in great equanimity, free from passion, aggression, and ignorance.
May all beings enjoy profound, brilliant glory.

Filed Under Shambhala Vision
Tagged:

Comments

280 Responses to “Shambhala Buddhism and the new curriculum”

  1. Christine Baranay on June 16th, 2009 8:53 am

    Thank you for taking the time to research and present your views, Barbara on the new cirriculum. Speaking as one who was fortunate enough to take Meek and Perky Levels recently as “new cirriculum” – I wholeheartedly applaud and welcome this new curriculum. Contrasted with Outrageous and Inscrutable which were not new curriculum, the difference was vast and O&L were far less rich.

    Furthermore, as a new person (4 years) to Shambhala, one thing which wasn’t mentioned is the number of people who drop OUT of the path of Levels well before even having to worry about whether they are Buddhists or not. The attrition rate was quite high at all centers from what I’ve heard . Certainly from my center.

    Moreover, I was often having to try to explain to people who had taken a Level 1 or 2, where/how/what Buddhism was and how it fit.

    They could SEE the shrine, knew they were in a place with Buddha statues etc. and yet, how it fit made little or no sense. So, they might take a Buddhist Study class, read one or more of CTRs books or other books and HIT THE WALL.

    Overwhelm would seep in.

    I feel fairly confident in saying that CTR wanted to bring the dharma to as many as possible – in as many ways as possible (ie. Shambhala Art, etc) –
    the terma of Shambhala came well after his initial planting of the dharma in the west.

    Terma is for the times — the 70’s is a far different time than today. People are not interested as much in bucking the establishment as they are in figuring out HOW to work within a very broken system. People by survey are hungry for a spiritual path.

    The inseparability of Shambhala and Buddhism is, to me, a natural expression of what CTR and the Sakyong wish to help bring about — Enlightened Society.

    And a lively, interested, curious, warm and welcoming COMMUNITY is where this begins.

    Perhaps somewhere, sometime — the old dogs who ARE so concerned and worried about what is happening to Shambhala might consider bringing a friend to a new Shambhala Level I — or even staffing one of the levels and sitting in on one of the six weeks of classes following a level.

    Nothing about Basic Goodness has changed. It hasn’t been pre-empted by the new curriculum — we just have to work harder I think to SEE it when our deeply rooted beliefs are challenged.

    It takes far more work to meet others across an aisle than to work side by side with the same ole gang.

    If we are to see some change in a world, rife with wars, settlements, slaughter — wouldn’t it be a good idea to start within a community of people who do know each other, who have cared for each other and who ACTUALLY share the same core beliefs (whether acknowledged or not). Perhaps what we could learn by actually coming together is that division has never brought people together — something we say so blithely yet rarely really work to achieve.

    We are not different. I bleed. You bleed. I die. You die.

    Now is when we might find our common ground for the good of the many. Not when it’s obvious and my bones and yours become the same.

    With love,
    Christine

  2. Barbara Stewart on June 16th, 2009 9:21 am

    I don’t want to get into the issue of the new curriculum, but I want to respond, briefly, to Christine Baranay. It is nice that you like the classes you are taking. But no, the 70’s was not a “far different time” from now. I have heard that said before, as a justification for brushing aside the Vidyadhara’s teachings — they were for then, and we’re different now.
    No, we’re not. Terma, the Vidyadhara’s terma, does not become obsolete in 30 years, or 200 or 800.
    I am not disparaging your appreciation of the new curriculum — I am not addressing it. I am talking about a willingness to dismiss the Vidyadhara’s teachings by blithely saying they don’t apply anymore. Do you really think he did all that teaching and created all those forms and the world of Shambhala in all its complexity for one generation? He was working for the future. He was thinking of the people to come all the time. He was creating the possibility of enlightened society for many generations to come, many.
    (And anyway, that statement that in the 70’s, people rebelled while today they try to figure out how to work in a broken system is simply inaccurate. In the 70’s, people were working within a broken system, too — getting degrees and jobs, etc. How do you think hippies turned into yuppies?)

  3. Christine Baranay on June 16th, 2009 9:54 am

    Perhaps I didn’t express myself as clearly as I had hoped. The Vidyadhara’s terma certainly does not become obsolete — if I had thought that then I would be advocating dismissing the Shambhala path entirely and asking our new cirriculum to be exclusively Buddhist. I’m not sure how or why you think this new curriculum sweeps his teachings away. But, again, the curriculum wasn’t the main point of my comment; rather, the seemingly deeply entrenched perspective that pits — them and us … how very odd in my view and frankly I think quite sad.

    In the Shrikalachakratantra, one of the six lands of Jambudvipa is Shambhala. And the eighth king to rule Shamhala was the Rigden Manjushrikirti – an emanation of Manjushri.

    So — no Barbara, I don’t think the Vidyahara’s terma will become obsolete.

    That wasn’t the intent of my comment. My intent was that I had hoped clearly to see IF there could be a joining of hearts.

    You see, apparently at the beginning of the reign of Manjushrikirt (a Shambhala Rigden) there were still adherents of various forms of discipline. He bestowed the empowerment of unsurpassable vajrayana on everyone in the land, causing everyone there to join the SINGLE FAMILY of the supreme vehicle. (page 150 A Garland of Jewels – The Eight Great Bodhisattvas).

    I’ve heard it said that those of us who are drawn to Shambhala are all Mukpo clan. But, perhaps that is just a nice story.

    Warmly,
    Christine

  4. Kelly Mitchell on June 16th, 2009 10:19 am

    Why can we say Kagyu/Nyimgma but not Shambhala Buddhism?
    At some point in every lineage, we see a lineage holder who was not the founder incorporating new teachings. More lineage holders do so than do not. Trungpa spoke of dharma as a living thing, adapting to new generations of students. The old curriculum was a process of trial and error, created by committee. It was not a monolith handed down by the Rigdens.

    I remember at KCL in 1999. We had the ‘Buddhists’ and the ‘Shambhalians.’ It was divisive, and both sides viewed each other with a bit of condescension. This is a slow process, especially with students who can’t trust it, but it has overcome a lot of that division. Students no longer have the vulgar luxury of picking sides.

    VCTR – ‘It is like the mountains and the trees.’

    student – ‘So Shambhala is the mountains and Buddhism is the trees, or Buddhism is the mountain and Shambhala is the trees?’

    VCTR – ‘Yes.’

  5. Ian on June 16th, 2009 10:21 am

    Here is a link to an image that appears on the front cover of Trungpa Rinpoche’s book, ‘Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior’, published in 1984:

    http://tinyurl.com/ndpv4z (a google books link to ‘Shambhala’)

    The image shows a garuda holding a smaller banner with the four Shambhala dignities. The garuda’s gaze appears to be fixed on the three jewels.

    What are your thoughts on the symbolism of this image?

    Thanks,
    Ian

  6. Barbara Stewart on June 16th, 2009 10:42 am

    I was addressing a specific paragraph in your first message. I will copy it:
    “Terma is for the times — the 70’s is a far different time than today. People are not interested as much in bucking the establishment as they are in figuring out HOW to work within a very broken system. People by survey are hungry for a spiritual path.”

    I did not say that the new curriculum sweeps away the Vidyadhara’s teachings. I pointedly said I wasn’t addressing the new curriculum at all. From what you wrote, it seemed you were dismissing the Vidyadhara’s terma because it meant for the 70’s or something. It sounds like you wrote too quickly. That’s fine, it happens.

    Yes, it’s nicer when people agree and get along. And I think there is plenty of heart-joining and consonance among newer and older Shambhalians. We’re here, we’re in Shambhala, we’re practicing, we are expressing devotion — sometimes, anyway. But the disagreements are worthy of respect and of being listened to seriously, at the very least. They are the product of thought and heart-felt caring– or at least the best of them are.

  7. Christine Baranay on June 16th, 2009 10:46 am

    Thanks Barbara for pointing out what I wrote and how indeed it could have read the way you read it. I appreciate it when I am shown just how my writing can be confusing. Clarity of speech isn’t quite as easy at clarity of mind — at least not yet for me. :)

  8. Judith Smith on June 16th, 2009 11:34 am

    Thank you, Barbara, for your unwavering inquisitiveness and demand for authenticity. This interview with Acharya Lobel and your comments — particularly your reminders of the Vidyadhara’s fiercest instructions to us — are greatly appreciated. As you pointed out, “asking and listening” is exquisitely difficult for most of us, as we struggle truly to listen and not lay in ambush waiting to pounce with our fixed opinions.

    I haven’t studied this, or even thought of this before, but we could wonder if Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo and Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye, when founding the Rimé tradition, experienced an uprising of questioning by the students of the times (probably monastic). The article in Wikipedia on Rimé says: “The movement’s name is derived from two Tibetan words: “ris” [bias or side] and “med” [lack], which combined expresses the idea of openness to other Buddhist traditions, as opposed to secularism.”

    And further, “Rimé was intended to recognize the differences between traditions and appreciate them, while also establishing a dialogue which would create common ground. It is considered important that variety be preserved, and therefore Rimé teachers are generally quite careful to emphasize differences in thought, giving students many options as to how to proceed in their spiritual training.”

    I don’t have a plan for where to go with this — it just arose in my mind, and I am just intending to create a peek hole. Are there parallels or equivalencies between Rimé and Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche’s creation of Shambhala Buddhism? Or is the subject of Rimé even relevant? (The article in Wikipedia is fascinating, by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimé

    Again, Barbara — thank you!

  9. Andrew Speraw on June 16th, 2009 12:51 pm

    Presenting Meek as “contentment” seems like it cheapens the whole path to use that type of language. “Contentment” and “stress” have such a self-help connotation: “if I understand Meek, then I will be content.” People who feel like they “don’t connect with” or “don’t get,” Chogyam Trungpa’s original teachings, maybe there is something to that- perhaps it requires further investigation. With that type of attitude one might as well dismiss Marpa, Milarepa, the Karmapa’s, and even the Buddha himself as obsolete.

    Outer space is very groundless, rootless, and vast- you might not be able to pin it down. Rather than simply arguing that traditional Buddhist teachings and secular Shambhala teachings were for a different time, it might take a little exertion to actually get into it and see what those teachings mean to you personally. Personally, the more I study the Buddhist teachings, the more I appreciate the possibilities of a secular path and vice versa.

    There is so much truth and so many enlightened possibilities in the larger non-Buddhist world, free from religion, names, titles, and empowerment’s. So how does that relate to the rituals of traditional Buddhism, the vision of a secular Shambhala, and then the new Shambhala Buddhism hybrid being presented now?

  10. Tsondru Garma on June 16th, 2009 12:54 pm

    Barbara,

    Likewise, I thank you for your diligence, patience, inquisitiveness and forbearance and yet still holding to your original questions and concerns.

    Reading about this issue, as usual, I have to appreciate that there are other paths than my own, and to respect the devotion and exertion of those students following this new way.

    Personally, however, in my own experience of “path,” having met VCTR in 1971, I am painfully aware of the numerous kinds of self deception and obtuse lacks of comprehension of the profundity of the teachings that have arisen for me and continue to arise over all these years. (not to mention, a failure to truly apply them to everyday life as diligently as VCTR tried to train us.)

    In particular, I found that taking Shambhala Training way back in the beginning, was really very helpful to do as a separate entity altogether; as it exposed at least some of many of my blind spots. Also, having a bit of confusion about the difference yet similarity of the two paths can be a good thing, so as not to get too fixed. It was indeed a powerful journey, all the way up to Kalapa Assembly.

    Second: I will never feel good about the way the Kagyu Lineage has been sidelined. It has somehow been vaguely included in a big chant that includes all the “great ones,” but really, these Kagyu Lineage holders were real people who transmitted their understanding of the nature of mind down through VCTR who gave that to us. There is just no replacement for that kind of spiritual power and energy. One needs the full and unadulterated dose. Having it sidelined, along with the powerful and brilliant Kagyu Sadhana practices that we have been given is a tragedy. (Also, didn’t VCTR strongly emphasize that we do the Mahamudra practices first before studying Ati????)

    Although I really have appreciated VCTR’s emphasis on the importance of the Shambhala Vision in full, I’m sorry to confess that in my old age I have somewhat sidelined the Shambhala teachings compared to my attempt at diligence in the Vajrayana path. Of course, I fully appreciate them in their full visionary intent. But there they are in the back of my mind, always there to be brought back up. Somehow, a sense of Shambhala form as well. BUT, I can always return to these teachings; and I am so grateful that I’ve been lucky enough to receive these two magnificent paths separately!!

    Sorry this was so personal.
    Tsondru.

  11. Davee on June 16th, 2009 1:26 pm

    Andrew, looking up what the Tibetan word is that was translated as Meek provides some clue as to where the word contentment comes in, it was there all along.

    Re: Rime. Interesting question, Judith. I was struck by a quote at the bottom of that Rime article from Bon teacher Tenzin Wangyal – which I read as advice to be not too tight and not too loose in a way:

    “A problem that seems very difficult to avoid involves the tendency of spiritual schools either to want to preserve their traditions in a very closed way or to want to be very open and nonsectarian; but there is often the danger that this very nonsectarianism can become a source of self-justification and lead to as closed an attitude as that of the sectarians.”

    Personally I don’t see how Shambhala Training is or was secular. It meets the definition of a religion by basic anthropological distinctions, to me. What exactly do we mean by saying Shambhala Training is secular? Because CTR said it was? Because it doesn’t require you to disavow other religious affiliations? I’m not sure we’re really all that clear what we mean by secular when we’re using that term.

  12. Martin Fritter on June 16th, 2009 2:25 pm

    There’s a lot going in with the new curriculum. The level or revisionism seems to be heavily masked. Characterizing Meek as “contentment” seems problematic. “Meek” is so pithy. “Contentment” seems, well, very pious and “Buddhist.”

    The changes to the practice curriculum aren’t being discussed. Will people really not be doing the Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara sadhnas?

    My impression is that people really don’t practice very much anymore.

    We used to try to get CTR to let us map the four karmas onto the four dignities. He wouldn’t go for it.

    (I wonder if my new avatar will come up with this post. I look just great!)

  13. Ian on June 16th, 2009 2:29 pm

    To add to Davee’s point, it might be helpful to recall that the Shambhala approach is traditionally described as being both secular and _sacred_ ..

    From a high level, this link might shed some light on the importance of distinction between religion and ’spirituality’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Spirituality

    “Some individuals draw a strong distinction between religion and spirituality. They may see spirituality as a belief in ideas of religious significance (such as God, the Soul, or Heaven), but not feel bound to the bureaucratic structure and creeds of a particular organized religion. They choose the term spirituality rather than religion to describe their form of belief, perhaps reflecting a disillusionment with organized religion… and a movement towards a more “modern” — more tolerant, and more intuitive — form of religion.”

    In other words, some folks may just not like kool-aid, period..

    Hopefully they would bring something else that they like instead.. perhaps a homemade kefir?

  14. Marguerite Stanciu on June 16th, 2009 3:40 pm

    Greetings

    The logic behind both the Shambhala and the Buddhist paths as presented by Chogyam Trungpa is exquisite and complete.

    Relating to the demands of being a Shambhalian in the world can be quite hard at times, particularily if you have a tendancy to want to be a yogi. Trungpa Rinpoche invoked a kind of creative tension between the two. That doesn’t mean that one can suddenly live in robes on the one hand and profess to be a Shambalian on the other. I think we are supposed to live in the challenge and that means do what is hard, not what is easy.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  15. William McAllison on June 16th, 2009 5:10 pm

    Well, for some reason I can’t avoid the silliness. Martin, you say you get the impression that people don’t practice much anymore. But since you don’t really know any of them, I don’t know where you get this impression. How long has it been since you have even been to your center, though living in Boulder I can’t really blame you. I am actually still involved and can tell you that people practice quite a bit. (and still recieve and practice VY and CHK, as I have said repeatedly)
    In terms of revisionism, I wonder if you know that the Shambhala source books were heavily revised to remove references to Buddhism by the Vidyadhara, the original transcripts are riddled with mixing the two, such as references to Vajrakilaya in the auto-commentary and many other moments where essentially he says that BUDDHADharma is the basis of Shambhala.
    Andrew, contentment is a very profound word, akin to immovability, it does not mean being happy in the dippy sense, but then you are always looking for something to be angry about(You really deserve a big HOW DARE YOU for your flip arrogance).
    I can’t help but wonder why so many(really just the same 9 people repeating the same things over and over) think that they know better than the man appointed by the Dorje Dradul as the heir to the throne of Shambhala, the spiritual and temporal leader. I guess HE (DD)had it wrong too. I suppose as the final terma is released, if it should have things that you don’t like in it then it won’t be the real Scorpion Seal either. Yet the DD entrusted the Sakyong to reveal it when HE felt it was appropriate( right now). So you all know better than your root Guru and his appointed successor!(don’t start about the Regent, Edward, the Sakyong is spiritual and temporal leader, head honcho, Vidyadhara approved)
    How can you be so smug and sure of yourselves? Not a lot of humility here. I think it would be best if you all just practiced what you have. For goodness sake there are a number of people who comment here multiple times a day. There must be a better use of your time.
    Tuesday Schedule
    8AM wake up
    830 breakfast
    9AM feel superior
    915 bash Sakyong
    10AM Reinforce own fixed views
    Noon Lunch
    1pm bash Sakyong
    2-4pm reinforce fixed views
    4:30 Bash Sakyong
    5pm-bed Feel Superior

  16. Mark Szpakowski on June 16th, 2009 6:02 pm

    One thing I find helpful in this discussion is Chögyam Trungpa’s notion of “buddhadharma without credentials”, which basically is a way of saying, in buddhist lingo, that you can be and teach from the nature of reality itself, directly. That’s actually how the Buddha himself taught, the mudra for that being touching the earth. It of course takes great realization to take such an approach: you can appreciate the entire buddhist path, all nine yanas, in exquisite detail, and still present that from the ground of nothing coming between you and things as they are. Your teaching of buddhadharma becomes more authentic then. As has been remarked of both Suzuki Roshi and Trungpa Rinpoche, when they taught, their talks weren’t just about the dharma – they were dharma itself.

    From that point of view, it’s quite possible and understandable to say that, for example, buddhism and shambhala are inseparable, like the two wings of a bird, or like the mountains holding the trees (and/or vice versa). This is not to say that the two approaches are not distinct – it is to say that ultimately, and as held in one’s personal view, they are not two – because reality is not two. It’s also possible for, say, a realized Christian (who lives in Christianity without credentials) to say the same thing, that Christianity and Shambhala are not two. That’s actually what rimé means: without bias. It doesn’t mean there aren’t important distinctions between, say a particular Kagyu and a Nyingma school.

    The Shambhala Vision as presented by Chögyam Trungpa challenged him, and us, to be able to drop our “robes”. Both during and after his lifetime I think many of his students were and are not quite up to that. In particular it seems that now many feel they cannot understand, practice, and teach Shambhala Vision without the buddhist references that are so important to their own practice. No blame! We do what we can do.

    However, to go further and say that in principle Shambhala is just a variation on Buddhism, as Shambhala Buddhism does, is to seriously distort the Shambhala Vision that was the closest to CTR’s heart. It also avoids the challenge it presents of offering a way of individual and societal being that acknowledges the sacred in the heart of the secular, while not biasing toward any specific religious ism. Shambhala Vision aims to create an enlightened society, or state, not a new religion. As Ashoka mentions in another thread, this is very aligned with the 21st century’s global need for universal acknowledgment of certain basic principles and rights at the heart of human society. There should not be religious tests to be a first-class citizen, or even prime minister or king or sakyong, of such a society. That’s why I care about Shambhala Vision.

  17. Martin Fritter on June 16th, 2009 7:05 pm

    Again, I withdraw. These discussions are utterly fruitless.

  18. richard assaly on June 16th, 2009 7:18 pm

    mark, very well said!

  19. Tsondru Garma on June 16th, 2009 7:20 pm

    William: Excuse me? What is the problem with Boulder??? We have, (at least until now, with the new changes about to begin) kept programs going for EVERYONE in both camps. Lots of good practice and study programs for everyone.

    You have raised a good question, though…Why are some people on RFS so upset about the changes? Perhaps similar to your angry response that the Sakyong is being dissed. Having something that you cherish to your core being overcome by forces out of one’s control.

    Or perhaps even worse than that… a fear of the world losing something really great and precious that had been given by an unsurpassable spiritual genius, one of a kind and one in a million. Devotion can hurt.

    I truly believe that it is important for people to have these discussions. I’ve appreciated SO much, the high caliber of reasoning, obvious practice and expression that have appeared so much in these threads. Yes, I check RFS more than once a day, that is how important I feel about it deep down inside.

  20. Jim Wilton on June 16th, 2009 9:24 pm

    I agree. Very thoughtful comment, Mark.

  21. Chris on June 16th, 2009 11:12 pm

    The debate re” Shambhala and Buddhism or Shambhala Buddhism is grabbing the wrong end of the stick and diverts, in my opinion, what has been happening over the course of the last really 17 years.

    I believe that CTR’s mandala has been moving in a Confucianistic direction where the emphasis is more and more on social harmony, and conformity to change by the subjects, change being whatever the king/emperor/leader says is the new change. In fact, that is a major tenet of Confucianism “conformity to change”.

    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. Feng-shui becomes very important, and in fact a feng-shui master may determine the whole course of the physical mandala.It becomes that important. People are rewarded for contributing to the social harmony primarly through loyalty. Loyaly supercedes using one’s own intelligence and deferring to the greater social order that is hierarchical in nature, with no room for debate, not real debate only a formalized appearance of debate like the recent Congresses.”Codes of Conduct” take the place of taking spiritual risks,isn’t there now a “code of coduct” at SMC? The path takes on a more “educational track” like moving through a collegial , graduated, meritorious and programmatic road. People still practice but to become “content” and part of the “social order” . Outcasts and real non-conformists or free-thinkers are not encouraged, as they are in Vajrayana and Dzogchen. Only those who conform to change. So I feel that this debate is being framed incorrectly. Buddhism is not the uderpinnings of the new Shambhala Buddhism, Confucianism is.

    Its probably going to attract a lot of Tawainese and Chinese. They are known for giving lots of money, particualrly if the mandala looks Tibetan.

  22. Davee on June 17th, 2009 2:36 am

    Chris: (re: Confucianism) sounds like you’re also describing the changes that Gampopa incorporated into the sangha after Milarepa. I think the structures and hierarchy he added probably were a major contributor to why the Kagyu lineage survived and prospered. Even then only a third of his twelve subsequent sub-lineages survived. If Gampopa had not systematized the transmission, maybe they would have done better though? I doubt it.

  23. Andrew Speraw on June 17th, 2009 3:41 am

    It’s not so much what we say, but the way we say it. Obviously I haven’t learned very much given some of the reactions to my third ever post on “radiofreeshambhala.org.”

    This just seems like two sides arguing, fighting to prove their point. How can we disagree, yet knowing that both polarities are ultimately the same? The secular world challenges us to do this all the time. I cite Barrack Obama as an example of someone who has learned to overcome polarities, always so skillful at finding the common ground of basic goodness between many diverse groups.

    On this website, it’s about time we look at what the Buddhist teachings are ultimately pointing towards. From that point of view, contentment is actually the absence of these public arguments that are fueling sangha strife, rather than unifying supposed sangha, the dharmas practitioner base. What can I bring to the situation? What kind of offering can I make? Criticism can only go so far so there must be some other avenue that one can take…

    And when I spellcheck Obama in yahoo mail, why is ATM the closest spelling recommendation that program can make?

  24. Chris on June 17th, 2009 11:12 am

    “On this website, it’s about time we look at what the Buddhist teachings are ultimately pointing towards”

    The Buddha’s teachings were pointing to a radical , break-through in view that cut through the accepted “givens” of his time . His teachings were not about conforming. Quite the contrary. He was iconoclastic for his times and his teachings were very much about questioning the social and cultural hierarchical “givens” of the time. Just as CTR was radical in his teachings.The Buddha’s teachings in their pure form, without cultural overlay, are radical. Its about not accepting the familial, societal, cultural view that we have been conditioned to, and each person has to discover this for themselves.

    Most people will not be attracted to radical Buddhism they will opt instead for a social “buddhism” that provides them with security of belonging, conceptual references points. Shambhala is now perfect for that proclivity.

    For many on this site, that is the main difference, CTR was always pointing to the necessity of a radical path to becoming free.
    More and More, CTR and his teachings seem to be devolving into what may more resemble ancestor worship than being a living tradition. I have less and less trouble with what the Sakyong is doing, it may be perfect for the “insecurity” of the times, just don’t call it CTR’s teachings. I think that is the main rub for people. This site may provide clarity for those who enter the current Shambhala mandal based on CTR’s teachings and find it to be uneasily incongruent with what they thought they were getting into. That way they don’t have to waste time involved in something that seems to be one thing, but is really something else. Why this is important is that the group energy of the Shambhala mandala has always been very seductive and powerful. People often come to the dharma suffering and very confused and the secuity of the group can start out as a support and turn into an obstacle hard to extricate oneself from to continue on one’s path. This site may be helpful in clarifying what the flavor of CTR’s teachings were about as experienced by his students, before we are all dead. Then all the provocative challenging voices , still haunted by him will be silenced. Not to worry.

  25. Barbara Stewart on June 17th, 2009 12:36 pm

    To William McAllison — I want to second what Martin said. There is no question that group practice was far better attended during the Vidyadhara’s life time. Every weekend, for many years, the shrine room in Boulder was packed. NYC had full shrine rooms, too. Sitting nyinthuns — not just one session but several — was a major weekend activity for many sangha members.. Feasts in NY regularly drew 30 to 40 people, easily. People living at the practice centers practiced four hours a day, every day, together.
    This is simply accurate. There is no need to get defensive or angry about it. The times have changed. One of the reasons the Sakyong has given for shortening various practices, including ngondro, is that people don’t have time and perhaps the inclination to practice today like they did in the 70’s and 80’s.
    On another topic, when the first year of the new curriculum was presented in NY, it seemed to be jamming big topics into tiny spaces and combining Buddhist ideas with Shambhala ones and with dignities, in ways that I, for one, did not understand, did not see the relation of the one to the other. For example, the six paramitas were to be covered in a single class, and were supposed to be done in the context of a dignity (I forget which one). The four noble truths, the same.
    One person asked a question: What about the people who come here wanting to study Buddhadharma? (And in NY, there are many…) Eric Spiegal, an acharya, replied: They can go and study with Ponlop Rinpoche.
    It is true, I think, that having Shambhala studies and Buddhist studies separate tracks was unwieldy — like trying to balance on two logs in a running river. And yes, the curriculum isn’t set in stone. I am going to try and keep an open mind about it and see how it shakes out.

  26. Suzanne Duarte on June 17th, 2009 3:22 pm

    Thank you, Judith Smith (hi Judith!), for bringing up the Rimé tradition, which was so dear to the Vidyadhara’s heart, and for providing the link to wikipedia on Rimé – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimé As you said, it is very interesting.

    Here are a few quotes I found to be relevant to our discussion here (passages are *asterisked* for emphasis):

    “A person who believes the Rimé way almost certainly follows one lineage as his or her main practice. *He or she would not dissociate from the School in which he or she was raised*…. Kongtrul [&] Khentse never failed to acknowledge their affiliation to their own Schools…. [Rimé] is basically an appreciation of their differences and an acknowledgement of the importance of having this variety for the benefit of practitioners with different needs. Therefore the Rimé teachers always take great care that the teachings and practices of the different Schools and lineages and their unique styles do not become confused with one another. *To retain the original style and methods of each teaching lineage preserves the power of that lineage experience.* Kongtrul and Khentse made great efforts to retain the original flavor of each teaching, while making them available to many….

    “*Tibetan Buddhism has a long history of vigorous debate and argumentation between schools and within one’s training.* This can lead a practitioner to believe that one’s school has the best approach or highest philosophic view and that other lineages have a lower or flawed understanding. *The Rimé approach cautions against developing that viewpoint, while at the same time appreciating that the debate and discussion is important and that arguing which views are higher and lower is still valid discourse.*”

    Since VCTR was soaked in the Rimé outlook, I can’t help thinking that outlook, which valued diversity, is inseparable from his Shambhala vision. My own cherished images of early Shambhala societies are of travelers from Taoist, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, and other spiritual traditions converging along the Silk Route, where they would drink tea, discuss and debate sacred wisdom teachings. Might not the internet now be our Silk Route?

  27. Suzanne Duarte on June 17th, 2009 3:38 pm

    Chris, I really appreciate your comments! Excellent points, and I got a good laugh with your suggestion of the Confucian frame. Thanks! I’d also like to second your point about the Buddha being Iconoclastic and “questioning the social and cultural hierarchical “givens” of the time.” If the Buddha had not withdrawn from his culture, there would be no Buddhadharma!

  28. Barbara Blouin on June 17th, 2009 3:50 pm

    Barbara,

    Thank you for ALL your comments. In particular, the one you wrote today (6/17) reads, in part: “when the first year of the new curriculum was presented in NY, it seemed to be jamming big topics into tiny spaces and combining Buddhist ideas with Shambhala ones and with dignities, in ways that I, for one, did not understand, did not see the relation of the one to the other. For example, the six paramitas were to be covered in a single class, and were supposed to be done in the context of a dignity (I forget which one). The four noble truths, the same.”

    When I interviewed Adam Lobel, I wasn’t able to get this kind of perspective. One actually has to be there, “on the ground,” to see what is going on … how the new curriculum is being taught. And I am sure that is different from center to center, and from teacher to teacher. I had an uneasy feeling about cramming so much profound Buddhist teaching into a single class, like the paramita class you described. It appears that what I have felt uneasy about may be true. This does a disservice to BOTH the Buddhist teachings as we know them, AND the Shambhala teachings. I fear that what people may be getting could be described as “Shambhala Buddhism lite.”

    Is there anyone else “out there” who has actually attended new curriculum classes ? Could you, whoever you are, tell us about your experience?

  29. Davee on June 17th, 2009 4:00 pm

    Less sitting? Could be. The perception may also be influenced by being spread out more. In the beginning I hear, many moved to be close to Rinpoche. e.g. recent metrics are now showing slow growth overall mandala wide, which might not otherwise be apparent in Boulder/Halifax.

    re: Rime

    Surmang had a history I hear of mixing Kagyu and Nyingma before Rime, but probably Rime influenced that. I wrote the second wikipedia paragraph just quoted, so take that with grains of salt. It may be interesting that I wrote it in the midst of a bitter fight that was occurring on that article between a few Geluk and NKT leaning wikipedia editors.

    re: Change generally…

    I was researching Khenpo Gangshar this week. It’s a pity there is so little material written about him. Accounts seem to say that he was Trungpa Rinpoche’s primary instructor from the age of 13 until leaving Tibet, mostly because Rinpoche could not stay long at Shechen Monastery (a Nyingma monastery, by the way) and had to be instructed within the Surmang seminary while holding administrative responsibilities.

    I like studying the history, in part to avoid reifying any one presentation. It’s not like the Vidyadhara just popped out of the ground and started spouting gospel. Then it’s interesting to me to study how did those lineages evolve during his lifetime and just before him. How orthodox is the lineage and how much change is generally accommodated?

    Khenpo Gangshar seems to be acknowledged for radical changes, though we only hear a few details. Notably, he opened the seminary at Surmang to laypeople including women. He changed the instruction emphasis toward maitri and lojong. He also asked hermits with life long vows of seclusion to reinterpret those as “inner seclusion” and come down to help with teaching the laypeople. These were fairly dramatic changes, and according to Lady Diana they caused controversy and he received a lot of criticism from other khenpos and monks and neighboring monasteries.

    Anyway this is a fairly minor observation, but I find it interesting nonetheless that in the last 150 years in the Tibetan Buddhist stream of teachers we’ll find quite a bit of change in the presentation of things, especially in the face of a changing situation. That also includes the first Mipham teaching in the 19th century quite a bit of Shambhala Terma and related politics and governmental structure.

    So is it so surprising that things would be continuing to change now that Tibetan Buddhism is no longer in Tibet? In other words, is just one generation of brilliant and insightful teaching enough to make all the changes necessary for the seed to plant in the West? I’m not saying we should avoid talking about the specifics of changes and applying discernment, just that I would think we should expect another 150 years of churn in the presentations and emphasis before there’s even the possibility of things settling down, more likely. Call me pessimistic. I just wouldn’t be surprised if we’ll need three or four generations of brilliant and insightful teaching to make that seed germinate properly

  30. Barbara Stewart on June 17th, 2009 4:29 pm

    Barbara,

    I think that they may have taught a version of the new curriculum this past year in Boston. And I thought it was taught in Halifax, though I may be wrong. It’s going to be taught in NY this fall. There was a meeting in NY to present it. Year 1 only — that’s all that’s been completed. It was made clear that it is a work in progress. The idea was, that you’d do a Shambhala level, and then take a series of weekly classes relating to that level that combine Buddhism and Shambhala teachings. My feeling, as I said, was that a lot of crucial Buddhist ideas, foundations, were being crammed into too few classes. Also, on a practical level, I honestly don’t think you are going to find many New Yorkers with the time and money to do this program, what with the weekends and weekly commitments. But we’ll see, it is going to happen here.

  31. Martin Fritter on June 17th, 2009 7:28 pm

    Well, I said I was giving up on this, but I can’t resist.

    The basic structure of CTR’s presentation of Buddhism was very clear and very well articulated – the Nine Yanas. How students should train, and the practices that were involved and how those practices should be done, was very carefully laid out, at least through Mahamudra.

    This was not exactly Kaguy dharma, at least not as it was being taught by other Kagyu lamas, then and now. It was a carefully re-worked synoptic view of the traditions from a rime perspective. CTR was many things, among them a reformer of Tibetan Buddhism. His command of English was considerable and this made his translations and choice of terminology very important.

    The only place in the world you can get these teachings is from the Vajradhatu/Shambhala lineage stream. You cannot get them from Ponlop, Dizgar Kongrtul, Dzongzar Khyentze or Kandro. (Apologies for spelling errors!)

    The Shambhala teachings were similarly clearly articulated, although in less exhaustive detail. When they were presented, it was made very clear that they were not the same thing as nine yana Buddhism — many of the hard core Buddhist practitioners were upset by this. These teachings did not “feel” Buddhist, although there were obvious commonalities. They seemed, somehow, more primordial, more originary. Older. “The Golden Dot”, for example, does not seem Buddhist at all – see N. Norbu “Drung, Deu and Bon” for more examples of this kind of visionary writing.

    There were many sub-streams and currents of practice and transmission in Rinpoche’s work: Maitri rooms and the Maitri Program, Theater Group, Kalapa Ikebana, Dharma Art, the Kasung and Kusung worlds, the Explorers of The Richness of the Phenomenal World. No one could have participated in all of them and no one was expected to.

    In Rinpoche’s will he said the “no one should try to systematize (his) teachings like Ouspensky did with Gurdjief.” (Quoting from memory.)

    I think trying to create one, unified curriculum is a shame. The multiplicity, richness and seeming contradictions get smoothed over and the strangeness gets lost. At a minimum, we could have a parallax view. Indeed what C.C. Chang in his discussion of Hwa Yen called the chiliocosm may have been more what CTR had in mind.

  32. Davee on June 17th, 2009 8:08 pm

    (sorry for commenting so much, i had some free time and this drew me in)

    there’s a mention of Ouspensky’s System and Rinpoche’s view in this interview with James George from 2003:
    http://www.chronicleproject.com/stories_15.html

    but i read that as more about conceptualizing the teachings without longing for experiential understanding. not as a warning against creating a curriculum.

    to me one question is, do students get enough to work with in Shambhala Training alone? are there enough distinctions and varied ways of presenting things that the meaning is clear? asking people to study the Buddhadharma as well, without asking anyone to take refuge or identify as Buddhist, might make sense solely from the perspective that it has orders of magnitude more ways of discussing related distinctions. that’s not saying that teaching them together means they’re the same thing. but they do have many distinctions in common and Buddhadharma has more to draw from. Why not clearly denote which is which but also offer distinctions in a more progressive way?

    for me personally, entering the sacred path curriculum before having a more developed sense of what was meant by egolessness and the philosophic basis was nearly a disaster. i thought i was being asked to believe in leprechauns. if i had studied more of the philosophic basis before that, it would have been more clear. Perhaps someday we can present the philosophic basis with terminology and language more in accord with the Shambhala Terma, but I’m not sure that really exists yet in a very rich form. Perhaps the Sakyong will have time to write more commentaries about the Shambhala Terma and start to fill all that in. I think that would be very helpful. Until then, we’re asking students a lot to follow our current Shambhala Training sequence and then have little else to work from, in my opinion. (Or in other words, it may be a complete path, but not necessarily a very workable one yet for many people without further expansion. e.g. my experience or e.g. how does one follow the scorpion seal practice without tsalung and could there someday be a non-buddhist tsalung practice)

  33. Mark Szpakowski on June 17th, 2009 10:23 pm

    Davee, I don’t think the issue that concerns some here is the fact of changes, even radical changes, but comes out of care for evaluating these – quality control, so to speak. Some changes are great, some are not, and likewise sometimes lack of change is great, or can be terrible. What matters is the “continuity” there, which is what tantra means. That continuity doesn’t mean that everything is the same, or stays the same, but that you can recognize the essence there no matter its shape and form and smell and taste. There can be zillions of upayas. CTR went through and presented many changes (his body morphed almost every year!), but that continuity – that stretched way before his lifetime, recognizably so – was and is tangible. It’s worth holding our own feet to that fire, and considering that others are no less up to that. It’s still very much alive. And if that happens through new forms: well, that’s what celebration is.

    Re the connection with Shambhala Buddhism, in a way there’s no problem per se – except for the perception that some significant part of CTR’s transmission is not coming through SB, while at the same time SB is claiming that what it’s transmitting is exactly and in essence the same. Let the two be distinct! Everyone would be happier!

    Maybe this holding on comes down to lands and buildings and money, on both sides :-(

  34. Suzanne Duarte on June 18th, 2009 6:22 am

    Martin and Mark, thank you for articulating these distinctions, with which I totally agree. (Hi Martin, I’m glad you came back. It’s good to see you here.)

    I had to laugh when Mark said CTR’s body morphed every year. That’s true, but that may be putting it mildly. I sometimes saw his nirmanakaya form change within seconds. Shape shifting was part of his teaching. There was no mistaking his feelings about what was going on around him.

    I also want to second what Mark said about “the perception that some significant part of CTR’s transmission is not coming through SB, while at the same time SB is claiming that what it’s transmitting is exactly and in essence the same.” Yes. We beg to differ.

    Mark, would you like to elaborate on this?: “Maybe this holding on comes down to lands and buildings and money, on both sides.”

  35. Marguerite Stanciu on June 18th, 2009 11:20 am

    On a point of training. Historically, students of the Vajradhatu Mandala have been the most thoroughly trained in the western world. We could take pride in that. My concern is that through fast tracking and consolidation that students will no longer be well trained, processed, shinjanged. I see this in evidence already when engaging in conversations with newer students.

    I think the problem gets back to god/bad old spiritual materialism which is rife within the current mandala. Witness, the corporate structure of SMC.

    The whole thing seems to now be based on packaging, marketing dharma in a safe, feel-good, comfortable format.

    Instead of coming at this from the point of view of abundance, it is from the view of fear and poverty and having to protect one’s territory. Instead of openness, there is closedness.

    What ever happened to slowing down and relating to the gap?

    We never needed to have conversations about authenticity in the time of CTR or subsequently with the older students.

    Sometimes I think people forget that without the Vidyadhara there would be no Sakyong or anything else.

  36. Barbara Stewart on June 18th, 2009 12:59 pm

    Barbara,

    Why don’t you ask Carolyn Mandeleker for a copy of the new curriculum? I’m suprised that didn’t come up in your interview — it’s there on paper, spelled out. Year one only.

    Barbara

  37. Worst Horse on June 18th, 2009 2:21 pm

    If all you do is ST, you’ll be wondering about the drumming and the thangkas. If all you do is Kagyu, or is it Nyingma, you’ll wonder about the crazy Sugetsu arrangements, the japanese stuff, the ink. Do enough of either, and look down on the other. Do Kinhin and wish you were sitting, Sit and wish it was time for tea. Get your pin and think, “Is this it?”

    If you’re French, Meek won’t mean diddly. If you’re German, love the Kasung or freak. Dying, little of this will matter. If your someone who really bugs you is bugging you, you’ll forget, then remember, to practice tonglen.
    Dream about the Dorje Dradul and then lose your job.

    On retreat, you’ll want more vegetables, and jump at the sound of deer in the snow. At an Assembly, wish there was more time for practice and then drink too much sake and make an ass of yourself, or not and wish you had. Buy dharma books when there’s thirty years of transcripts on your shelf. Love the new Pixar film and they haven’t even saved all of the video of the Vidyadhara.

    Been to one Seminary and think you know anything. Been to five and really go there. Chalk up your flirting and drinking to Vajrayana and then freak out when your cat gets sick.

    I love it!

    I spent a long time alone sitting in a chair at the base of the stairs to the Main Shrine Hall of the Boulder Center a couple years ago and I stared at the Vajradhatu seal until it hit me:

    1. The Proclamation of the Truth is Fearless
    2. The Great Eastern Sun Arises
    3. Your Heart is Turned Upside Down
    4. It Is Tied Into Knots
    5. It Is Eaten By A Garuda
    6. You Take Refuge In Buddha, Dharma, Sangha

    Alternatively, I suppose, co-emergence:

    1. You Take Refuge in Buddha, Dharma, Sangha
    2. A Garuda Vomits Up Your Heart
    3. Upside Down
    4. In Knots
    5. The Great Eastern Sun Arises
    6. The Proclamation of The Truth Is Fearless.

  38. Mark Hazell on June 18th, 2009 2:29 pm

    Hello,

    I want to echo previous comments thanking Barbara for diving into the heart of things and learning so much about the “new curriculum”. At the same time, I have to say that I almost always cry when I read this site because I can feel the deep wound behind many of the posts, the overwhelming anger expressed about the direction the Sakyong is taking in his presentation of the dharma.

    Recognizing these deep feelings I have been reluctant to respond to any of the postings, not knowing if anything I could write would do anything more than pour oil on the fire. In the end I decided that I wanted to say a couple of things – these have probably already been said by others far more articulate than me, and if so please forgive the redundancy.

    The primary task the Druk Sakyong set for Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche was/is to hold and propagate the Druk Sakyong’s mind terma, the Shambhala path which culminates with the Scorpion Seal retreat (you’ll recall his Shambhala title was the “Ashe Prince”). The way I see it, everything the Sakyong has done over the last two decades has been steered by that mandate. He made it clear from the beginning that he is not his father and that we shouldn’t expect him to teach or behave as his father did, and then, faced with the enormity of his task, spent much of the next twenty years studying with Khyentse and Penor Rinpoches and many other teachers whose names I don’t know, deepening his understanding of dzogchen which is, in essence, what the Shambhala teachings are – any doubts about this can be satisfied by reading “The Way of Maha Ati” which was co-authored by Chogyam Trungpa and Rigdzen Shikpo (found in Volume One of the Collected Works).

    As a result of his study and practice, and also of his observing our community, he has gradually modified the path – it’s true, he has changed things, not because he is dismissive of the Kagyu path which he isn’t — he continues to confer the Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara abhisekas and often refers to the Kagyu and Nyingma wisdom traditions that are part of our heritage and available to those who wish to engage with them — but because the mandate his father gave him is to prepare people to do the advanced Shambhala practices (Reggie Ray makes a similar point in his interview with the Chronicles). As Barbara points out in her piece, 99% of early Shambhalians were already tantrikas – they already had some understanding of what was being demanded of them in terms of samaya commitment. People newly arriving at Level I don’t have that same understanding, and most of them don’t even after completing Level V or even the Sacred Path levels, and my guess is that is why the curriculum is evolving the way it is, to provide the background, the view that can make Stroke and Werma meaningful, make those practices genuine gateways to Sacred Outlook (or samaya).

    So why I have I bothered to write all this, given that others have in all likelihood made the same points and knowing that these words won’t heal the wounds that have led to the creation of this site? I guess there are two reasons. The first is that I have found the Sakyong’s teachings very illuminating and feel that in many ways my understanding of the Vidyadhara’s teachings has deepened from them.

    The second has to do with taking responsibility for one’s path. We who were fortunate enough to study with the Vidyadhara received pointing out instructions many, many times and it is now up to us to follow the admonition of Thrangu Rinpoche:

    “As we practice and come to understand his profound oral instructions, may exceptional experience and realization arise in our beings. All the blessings without exception of the mind of the supreme vidyadhara having entered our beings, may we easily attain the supreme and ordinary siddhis. Having attained them, may we instruct and teach fortunate students, and may this spread throughout the entire expanse of Jambudvipa, completely fulfilling the wishes of this lord.”

    We have been given a tremendous treasury of oral instruction which we can and must pass on. Even if we are not authorized as acharyas by the Sakyong, we can organize and take part in study groups and share what we have learned, we can go to practice intensives, we can be meditation instructors … there are no end of opportunities to share what we have been given. But, and this is a big but, if we are not marked by “the bravery, confidence, intelligence, exertion, gentleness, and so forth of the excellent tradition of Shambhala” it is unlikely that we will be heard.

    Please accept my apologies if my words have been upsetting – as I said at the beginning, there are many who are far more articulate than I am,

    Mark

  39. Martin Fritter on June 18th, 2009 2:50 pm

    There is an 87 page PDF on “The Shambhala Vajrayana Path” over at http://www.shambhala.org/members/ps/tantrika.php. You’ll need to be a member (of the web site) to get there and then you’ll need to request a password (from Jill Scott) via email to open the document. There’s a lot there and a lot of hard work obviously went into it. I haven’t read it in closely, but it’s obviously not hack work.

    I just checked out the Vajrayogini “practice by time” section, and it’s not as watered down as I’d expected. Even practicing by time involves a pretty serious commitment.

    In essence they want people to do the Vajrayana/Shambhala Rigden practices before studying Mahamudra and doing the Kagyu Ngondro and VY.

    This doesn’t seem ridiculous to me.

    Now, this document was produced before the Scorpion Seal came to the fore, so I’m clear if it’s still policy.

    (I have noticed that SI does an awful lot of revision.)

  40. Davee on June 18th, 2009 4:04 pm

    Great discussion.

    Mark, if we’d like to talk about essence – which I think is still intact – perhaps we could talk about the related question of what our core identity is as a larger community. Do we have or need a core identity? I think we do need some sense of what is our central or binding factor as a community. To lack that leads nowhere. How could we lead without some sense – albeit with a sense of humor perhaps – of who “we” are and what we’re doing. But then if we have a central identity, is it Buddhist or something else?

    What if the central identity was more political or social as in the notion of Kingdom. Then as citizens I could see the possibility of multiple spiritual streams at parity. There could be a Surmang flavor of Buddhism, but that would have some sense of equality with a Kagyu Buddhism or a Nyingma stream, and even a Shambhala Christianity, all held within the Kingdom. Then the central vision and values would be about the society that we join or hold and then diversity of paths occurs necessarily within that. That seems more in accord with western notions of identity, that a larger nation and society accommodates multiple religions.

    What if the central identity was Vajrayana Buddhist? I think diversity is still possible, but it’s different. Then the core is a certain flavor or lineage of Buddhism, and secular programs or identities are always in relation to or at least have some context to that core religious identity. This might be more akin to the Middle East than Western notions of identity, where Islam is the larger binding factor and then within that multiple nations and societies occur, and other religions are accommodated but always within the larger context of Islam. Sounds more like Tibet as well. I get the sense that this new label for “us” as “Shambhala Buddhists” for some sounds like the Imam’s of Islam conquering the West and suddenly declaring that we’re a Muslim society, and though Christians and Buddhists are accommodated we all have to wear head scarfs now.

    So is our central identity something else then? I do sort of see it as Vajrayana myself, and the secular aspect of Shambhala Kingdom in relation to that – more analogous to Iran than to Canada. But then I’ve confessed already that I see the Shambhala Training path and the notion of Shambhala society as pretty religious anyway – independent of a Buddhist relationship or phylogeny. Shambhala Training has ritual, beliefs, practices, etc. Looks like a religion to me and I think Clifford Geertz would agree. So was the vision of enlightened society that we aspire to ever really all that secular in the Western notion of secular? Maybe all along it was more like Iran with a Supreme Leader and some emasculated kind of democracy. Is that partly what comes up around the concept of “Shambhala Buddhism” or our political structure? (among other things, sure)

  41. madeline schreiber on June 18th, 2009 4:04 pm

    May all beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness.
    May they be free from suffering and the root of suffering.
    May they not be separated from the great happiness, devoid of suffering.
    May they dwell in great equanimity, free from passion, aggression, and ignorance.
    May all beings enjoy profound, brilliant glory.

    I have not seen this version anyplace but here. Is this really being published this way? If so, I do have reservations about this. This is a verse. Speaking as one who writes poems I can say emphatically that if someone lifted a line off one of my poems and appended it to another of my poems (not to mention taking a line from somewhere else) it would make me very angry. I feel that this detracts from both The Four Immeasurables and the Shambhala Dedication Of Merit. I don’t feel that one can make good poetry or liturgical verses doing that.
    Palms Together,
    Madeline

  42. Barbara Blouin on June 18th, 2009 4:35 pm

    Madeline,

    I just typed this and hit the wrong key, and the whole thing disappeared. I’ll try again. The 5-line chant you referred to (it’s in the article) came from a meeting I attended in (I think) February, organized and led by Carolyn Mandelker, for meditation instructors in Halifax. The meeting’s purpose was to provide information to MIs on the new curriculum. There were several handouts. One of them, called “Lion: The Windhorse of Delight,” included this chant, a mashup of the Four Immeasurables and the final line of a Shambhala chant we all know, is part of a morning practice. I am guessing that it is (was?) intended for students doing the Lion part of the curriculum, to do at home.

    That is about all I can tell you. I too find it pretty disturbing. You put it very well, so there’s no need to repeat what you wrote.

  43. Davee on June 18th, 2009 7:09 pm

    Thinking about theocracy vis-a-vis Shambhala and Iran’s organizational structures some more: If a hypothetical group separates from Shambhala International and calls themselves “Essential Chögyam Trungpa”, yet organizes itself as a democracy or committee or some sort of non-theocracy, could it really be called “Essential” Chögyam Trungpa?

    Related note: using “Essential” in that way implies everyone else is non-essential. It would be like NKT calling themselves “Essential Gelugpa”.

  44. Alan Anderson on June 18th, 2009 7:29 pm

    From the Dorje Dradul’s 1984 Shambhala Day address at Kalapa Assembly, “…be careful and be aware that I will become more Shambhalian. That is not particularly a threat, but a celebration…I’m afraid I’m becoming more Shambhalian—whether you like it or not.”

    And from another talk at the same Kalapa Assembly (his last), “I am going on my one year’s retreat, concentrating on Werma Sadhana and Shambhala vision a lot. I’m afraid I might come up with more! So you might have to learn a great deal after I come back.”

    Sounds like a great recipe for making his students uncomfortable in the future! In other words, the well-established pattern of pulling-the-rug-out-from-under-you was about to happen to us again—the same as Khenpo Gangshar did; same as the Buddha did in the 2nd and 3rd Turnings. We all know what happened: there are still Trungpa’s Nyingma students; there are still Trungpa’s Kagyu-only Buddhist students; there are still Trungpa’s Shambhala-only students–(and this might be just the short list!) There will always be Trungpa’s students who are uncomfortable when he was departing from his past teachings.

    The $100,000 question is how much does the current Shambhala-Buddhist approach reflect where the Dorje Dradul would be going after his 1984 retreat? Who can really say with complete confidence that this current manifestation is not the Druk Sakyong’s vision of the future?

    What I am quite confident about is that the quotes above portended a great change in the direction toward Shambhala; they were certainly not an expression of maintaining the status quo. To not see that the Sakyong’s vision could very likely be one possibly brilliant “fit” to the Vidyadhara’s ‘warning’ above is sad, I think.

  45. Martin Fritter on June 18th, 2009 9:14 pm

    Ironically, that was the retreat where Vajrayogini came to stay and wouldn’t leave. He would set a place for her at dinner and describe in great detail what she was wearing and so on.

    An interesting point: those of us who have issues with the merging of Shambhala and Buddhism are usually cast as defending the integrity or autonomy of “Buddhist” side, but I think the Shambhala teachings are also (potentially) compromised by the merger.

  46. Fans Schuring on June 19th, 2009 4:24 am

    I’ve read a lot on RFS since long. Contributed little for lack of time.
    But sorry to generalize again. But many of the contributors in my view are very much becoming part a one-issue-party very quicly: ‘Shambhala path should be for everybody. So Shambhala-Buddhism can’t be right!’
    This is repeated over and over. Different topics, same contents. Lots of intellect, lots of wasted energy.

    In this particular case it doesn’t seem to me that many care about the curriculum either way, better or worse. It is Shambhala-Buddhism, isn’t it? So why look at it further, apart from finding the faults on that issue in it. Und thus dismiss it.

    Well, Shambhala is for everybody, as is Buddhism, but people practicing other religions only need the view and daily feeling or intention of warriorship. Or their religion isn’t fulfilling. But then, why keep at it. If it is fulfilling, they already have a practice, they have rituals, they have social context. So isn’t it just fine that they can go this path up to vajrayana seminary. Why on earth would a practicing catholic need the werma feast for instance. Their church ritual is just like a feast, the wine, the bread and all. I did that for 20 years. Or what does a Muslim need any extra practice for when he or she do their thing five times a day already. Often more than most of us do?
    So what if Edward Michaelek isn’t all that happy and/or some people may have a difficult feeling of loyalty toward him? That is just something to find out for oneself which is personal.
    More personal than can be helped by just writing and reading. You miss the silences, miss the thoughtful moments, miss the expressions and feelings, and so on. And that goes for the whole issue. It’s very personal.
    At some point one has to make up ones mind. Simple.
    Do I want to go further with Shambhala-buddhism and the Sakyong and all it’s “changing while becoming”. Do I feel that it is in keeping with all the vows I took with the Vidyadhara? Or not. (And do somthing else, start my own thing or whatever. Although we can’t all be Reggie Rays or such of course.) Or stay in between for a longer time, and maybe waste more endless words that sometimes are complemented, sometimes criticised or maybe just unnoticed. In any case the reactions are also just words.
    Very simple.

  47. Fans Schuring on June 19th, 2009 4:29 am

    So?

  48. Kelly Mitchell on June 19th, 2009 9:23 am

    Someone said about the chant – “I too find it pretty disturbing.”

    It makes people uncomfortable. Did the DD make you comfortable? Did he indicate this path had ANYTHING to do with being comfortable?

    Good. Be uncomfortable.
    Might make you realize what matters.

    I find the new justifications for torture, mass starvation, AIDS epidemics, and bullshit wars on terror pretty disturbing. Moving lines around in poems is not.

  49. John Tischer on June 19th, 2009 1:59 pm

    The Buddhist (and Shambhala) teaching are tools, not doctrines. The appropriate tool for someone beginning the path is not the same for someone later on, as their experience develops. Arguing which “tool” is better is ridiculous, the same as arguing which path is better.

    I do feel that SMR is working to implement the vision of his father in the sense that he is allowing other “traditions” to find space within the Shambhala mandala to show themselves….for example, tensegrity was
    presented at RMSC, with SMR in attendance as part of the program.
    I thought that was great.

    At the same time, The development of the Shambhala path has been a continuous experiment, constantly changing, from the time it began (@ 1978). People felt threatened and dropped out when we began to wear suits and ties, so the overall dynamics have not really changed that much
    since the start of it all.

    My understanding is that the Vidyadhara saw this as a thousand year project. So far we’ve got about thirty years under our belt….and we won’t be around in the future to complain about the direction of Shambhala.
    People should practice the path they are attracted to…the teachers they connect with. Hasn’t that always been the case? Isn’t that part of the meaning of being “un-biased”?

    I don’t particularly like the organizational style of Shambhala as it is currently. So what? Even some Acharyas had negative reactions to older
    Trungpa students going to other teachers…also some are questioning, themselves, the direction that Shambhala (.org) is taking. So what?

    A new curriculum, a new expedient, a new stepping stone, a new temporary measure. It’s not a quiz show and it doesn’t end. I feel it’s
    not possible for anyone to figure out how to create Enlightened Society.
    It can’t be based on concept or logic. Isn’t it based in practice? Won’t
    it arise from practice? But to say that the only determining factor for
    that arising is one particular practice, one particular path, is also just
    another meaningless concept, to my mind. If people think things are different now from the Vidyadhara’s time….whoah….just wait.

  50. Alan Anderson on June 19th, 2009 2:37 pm

    Hello.
    Martin’s mention of compromised teachings is possible. But isn’t it equally possible that the result could be enhanced teachings? For those of us who find the union of Shambhala-Buddhism eminently workable, the inseparability of the Sakyongs is inspiring and magical. This is not based on ignorance; it’s completely valid by way of my own hearing, contemplating and meditating, and by way of many students I work with. it may not work for everyone, but nothing does.

    This is not to say that there aren’t helpful and valid concerns that have been aired here, but when it’s a foregone conclusion that this current SI manifestation of the Druk Sakyong’s teachings is about to fail, or is compromised or is not according to his wishes—that’s projection. Not a single person on these pages could say without hesitation that they know exactly what the Vidyadhara would have done if he lived longer. No one can say that “Shambhala Buddhism” couldn’t have arisen from his mind.

    Nevertheless, subjective interpretations are so easily paraded as unequivocal truth when we discuss these matters with eachother.
    Two examples:

    1) A few people are concerned about the inadequacy of holding a single class on the 4 Noble Truths, or 5 Skandhas, or 6 Paramitas in the new curriculum. Of course, it’s inadequate…anyone who has ever taught would know that such an offering is not meant to be a ‘lid’, but rather, a ‘flower’. Yet some people see this as proof of the curriculum’s fault. (Wasn’t it Gregory Bateson who spoke of “misplaced concreteness”?) This will present this at various center, but I guarantee that they will lead to 4-6 Week classes in due time.

    2) Ms Blouin made the assertion at the beginning of the article, “By creating what is now called “Shambhala Buddhism,” the Sakyong has undermined that independent basis.” Really! Is that “independent basis” an immutable truth not subject to change based on causes and conditions? There are many quotes by CTR that are contrary to that statement. (See the Shambhala Buddhism Sourcebook of his compiled quotes.)

    I’m not going to go much further with this, but it is so easy to see that the more we harden our position—the more “sure” we are—the less likely it is that we will ever hear eachother.

  51. Martin Fritter on June 19th, 2009 3:41 pm

    Alan,

    Trungpa, Rinpoche left a lot of things in an incomplete state. The troubles around the Regent left a big mess. There was tension between the Shambhala lineage and the Buddhist one even when he was alive, tensions that he liked to exacerbate. Why have a banner of an Arhat in the Shambhala meditation hall if it’s not supposed to be Buddhist — and initially, Shambhala training was supposed to have its own facilities, separate from the Dharmadhatus.

    Efforts to unify them after his death may have been inevitable, if only in order to create something comprehensible to new people. Not all of these efforts have been awful. The Shambhala Vajrayana piece that I referred to seems reasonable assuming one sees the need for such a thing.

    I would have preferred a different approach, preserving the teaching and practices more exactly, but under one umbrella. People who wanted to could have explored the nine yanas transmission and done traditional seminaries and so on. Or the Shambhala approach. Or they could have mixed them themselves.

    However, it should be obvious that there are a lot of people from the CTR days — such as myself — who don’t recognize what’s happening now as having much to do with how they were trained by their teacher. Many feel disenfranchised as we approach old age.

    Issues of dharmic secession were fraught, even in Tibet and China (see Hui Neng). It would be surprising if they weren’t fraught here, in the early generation of Buddhism in the West. Sometimes I think we should have more sectarianism rather than less.

    Pedantically, the concept of misplaced concreteness is from Whitehead’s “Science and the Modern World.” I’m sure Bateson would have been well aware of Whitehead’s work. It’s a kind of logical fallacy, where the abstraction is taken for the reality.

  52. Alan Anderson on June 20th, 2009 6:21 pm

    Martin, Thanks for the Whitehead attribution.

    Re: “what’s happening now [not] having much to do with how they were trained by their teacher.” Granted, on an outer level, things are not the same, but on an inner level, when I practice shamatha or Werma (my current main practice) it feels no different to me. It feels that I am experiencing the same heart of devotion, love and sadness—with some ziji on the side. I feel that I’m meeting my teacher and he’s wearing a different outfit, but it is unmistakenly him. Isn’t it the mind of the Dorje Dradul that we are meant to emulate. Does it matter whether he’s dressed as a cowboy, admiral, general or king? Pardon me if I’m oversimplifying, but it’s true: change the curriculum, change the face of the deity…it seems like Trungpa Rinpoche. Like gangbusters.

    P.S. I’ve been his student since the late 70’s, for what that’s worth.

  53. Edward on June 21st, 2009 1:12 am

    Martin Fritter writes:

    There was tension between the Shambhala lineage and the Buddhist one even when he was alive, tensions that he liked to exacerbate.

    Yes!

    Efforts to unify them after his death may have been inevitable, if only in order to create something comprehensible to new people.

    Mr. Fritter, I like your comments, but I disagree with you here, not in terms of the “inevitability” but in terms of the rationalization you propose.

    As a new person myself (having taken Level 1 about 3 years ago and gotten up to Level 4 last year), I find the merging of Shambhala and Buddhism confusing. Like large numbers of people, I had read the classic text “Sacred Path of the Warrior”, a wonderful book about warrior training, something the author says has existed in one form or another throughout the globe– for instance, in native cultures– going far back in history.

    Then when I go to my local Shambhala center, I find that this whole thing is in the process of being replaced by something else. It’s like a bait and switch, because what’s offered at the centers turns out not to be what’s presented in the book, and this becomes more clear over time. (Yes, the terminology and so on is similar– they obviously share the same roots– but the whole orientation is headed in a different direction now, one where being a warrior is sort of “owned” by Buddhism and its adherents.)

    Plus, there are many, many people I would invite to Shambhala Training if it had not become part of the religion of Buddhism. I live in a Western Country, and many people here have Christian roots, or are past their “experimental 20s”, or have families, or are not looking for a new religion now for whatever reason. Think about truck drivers, or policemen, or grocery clerks. All of these potential “new people” may now be discouraged from doing Shambhala training because it’s now presented as a religion. At least at my local center, new people are told “we offer two forms of Buddhism: Tibetan Buddhism and Shambhala Buddhism.” Someone who is just looking for a way to become more courageous in their ordinary life might not be ready to become a “Buddhist”.

    How many people do you honestly know who are ready to become Buddhist at this point in their lives? How many might enjoy doing a Level I weekend, as VCTR designed it? For me, the numbers in the second category *far* outweigh the numbers in the first.

    So the merging is not necessarily clarifying or beneficial to new people, in the opinion of this new person.

    If anything, I’d say more the opposite: it’s a way to keep out new people– at least, new people who are not fans of Buddhism. Let’s circle the wagons and put a sign out front to keep the undesirables away.

    But then, the whole process of being brave is not easy, so all the friction and disagreement and disappointment is good, maybe.

  54. Edward on June 21st, 2009 1:24 am

    Maybe I should ask a question:

    Do the Buddhists who post here, or read here, feel that they have a monopoly on bravery, or basic goodness, and that people of other religious persuasions are not deserving of the Shambhala teachings?

    Please, be honest. You can be polite if you like, but please try to be ruthlessly honest as well. If your answer feels politically incorrect, perhaps you could post anonymously.

    Thank you for your candor!

    You’ve been worked over by non-Buddhist jerks for years, now is your chance to say what you really think of them! Please, don’t hold back.

  55. Davee on June 21st, 2009 1:34 am

    Hi Edward, the merger doesn’t require people to become Buddhist to take Level 1, nor any of the levels or classes actually. But you’re saying having an explicitly Buddhist organization makes that less clear? Or i’m curious what you mean by having it “owned” by Buddhism. That sounds related to my question earlier for what is the “core” of the community.

  56. Edward on June 21st, 2009 1:42 am

    Hi Davee,

    Thanks for your question.

    When “Shambhala” was replaced by, or renamed “Shambhala Buddhism”, that sounds like Buddhism was replacing or taking over something.

    If something called Poland was replaced by something called the Soviet Union, that’s obviously a case of a take-over or replacement.

    Perhaps Shambhala Buddhism is a much more subtle and complex thing to understand.

    But on a day-to-day practical level, if it was called “Shambhala Islam” and Muslim metaphors were used in teaching Level I, do you think that would affect our ability to get people to sign up for Level I?

    At my local center, Buddhist metaphors are freely and frequently used by some of the directors in teaching the levels. My point is that this may not appeal to everyone, for instance people who already subscribe to some other tradition.

  57. Davee on June 21st, 2009 2:20 am

    Renaming does impact things sure. Also though, there are plenty of countries in Africa that have changed their names not from some kind of conquest but to convey more clearly their heritage and identity.

    I see a real difference though between the overall organizations name, like “Catholic Church”, and the names of programs offered there. Some of those like “St. Agnes 10k Run for Charity” don’t imply that one has to be Catholic at all to participate. Whereas others might communicate that they require one to be Catholic, sure. So how we talk about things and communicate does need to be clear what is really for Buddhists and what is for everyone, independent of the overall identity of the organization. But making the overall organization sound not-Buddhist all together seems a drastic solution to providing some secular programs in the midst of our much larger Buddhist offerings. But my opinion probably goes back to my thinking that our Buddhist identity is more core than our societal or community identity.

  58. Suzanne Duarte on June 21st, 2009 9:41 am

    This conversation between Edward and Davee brings up interesting questions. Re: Edwards’ question, “Do the Buddhists who post here, or read here, feel that they have a monopoly on bravery, or basic goodness, and that people of other religious persuasions are not deserving of the Shambhala teachings?” My answer is absolutely not!

    Re: Davee’s comment: ” But making the overall organization sound not-Buddhist all together seems a drastic solution to providing some secular programs in the midst of our much larger Buddhist offerings. But my opinion probably goes back to my thinking that our Buddhist identity is more core than our societal or community identity.”

    Hmmm. I got the impression during the 80’s that the Vidyadhara’s vision for Shambhala Training was to have it be an independent, stand-alone entity, not a subsidiary ‘owned’ by Buddhism. As I’ve said elsewhere on this site, he told me directly, “We need more Shambhalians. They don’t have to become Buddhists.” Imagine a world in which there are many more Shambhalians than Buddhists!

    The Shambhala teachings address what is universal in humans that can make human society much more meaningful, healthy, decent, uplifted – enlightened instead of degraded and degrading. VCTR/DD, I believe, wanted Shambhala Training to offer this gift for the benefit of the entire world. If we could all realize that at the core we are human Earthlings with the capacity to free ourselves from fixations, and if all humans were trained to meditate (which puts a leash on our reptilian brains), the whole world would be Shambhala and we’d have a lot more to celebrate. Imagine the whole human species becoming profound, brilliant, just, powerful and all-victorious over the cowardly, deceptive, self-seeking, predatory reptilian elements of ourselves that lie, cheat, kill and go to war for greed! That is the Shambhala vision I got from the Dorje Dradul. It is an expansive, ambitious vision.

    Narrowing that vision to Shambhala Buddhism may distinguish this Buddhist lineage from others, but it also seems to mean Buddhist Shambhala in contrast to Universal Shambhala. So I sympathize with Edward and others who feel cheated.

    Cheerful Midsummer’s Day, Earthlings!

  59. Frans Schuring on June 21st, 2009 10:51 am

    To Edward:

    No, I don’t.
    But I wrote some things before here, that border on the question. Where I meant to say, why I was of the opinion that people who would be fulfilled by their religion wouldn’t need to look so hard for other programs, practices and so on, like those offered in Shambhala. Because their religion or their warrior way of life could or would have it already for them.
    But not deserving Shambhala teachings, why not?

    I was catholic by family, was on a Jesuit school from 12 to 19. It didn’t work at all for me. I was looking at the Tibetan book of the dead which rang a bell, and quickly after studied some Buddhism in regular university and found Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings and sanga. Took all kinds of Buddhist vows with him. In that period he came up with Shambhala. But by the time, I started on that, it didn’t seem all that different from Buddhism, except terminology. At least not in his way of teaching Buddhism with cutting through spiritual materialism and soft spot and things like that. In fact, for me personally, I’m more a Buddhist Shambalian, to be correct.
    I know that for example the Jesuits have the concept of basic goodness, bravery and so on. In their terminology, that is. And that goes for other warrior traditions and religions I know of. But I personally couldn’t get a handle on it from them, I got that here.
    And the way I’ve come to understand these matters nobody has a monopoly on bravery or basic goodness, or else don’t get much of what is meant by them in the first place.

    On the contrary, what Trungpa R. taught and felt he had observed in east and west, as he says, was that many religious people or people who are only religious by culture or family had kept the rituals, but lost the magic. I agreed with that from my own experience.
    On the other hand, he himself was a Buddhist and serious about it and felt for him it hadn’t lost its magic at all. This is what he was able to pass on to his Buddhist students and a lot extra by also coming up with Shambhala warriorship. Too bad maybe that most of his students were Buddhist by then. And without him they hadn’t the outreach and skill that he had so much to extend the essence of the teachings far beyond one view or one culture only.
    That might be our problem still. But we can’t overplay our hand either, so have to accept it for now I say.
    Today I read what T.R. said about other religions and other societies in the past. One of which I like to repeat, he said, “we should also built monasteries for Catholics and others on our properties, to help them find the magic in their own religions and cultures back.”
    But to even keep our own acts together, so far being Shambhala and Buddhism, to which we are committed by vows, without being guest to other monasteries and cultures and what have you in his extreme vast visions, is still quite challenging.

    And: Yes, I hate the ism part of Buddhism, it never covers anything properly. It’s about people’s lives, my life.

  60. Edward on June 21st, 2009 10:52 am

    (Mr. Schuring, thanks for your story. I posted the below b4 seeing your new post.)

    I wonder if there is also a kind of belief that converting to Buddhism is equally easy for all people to do?

    Some of us are kind of rootless, middle-class, Westernized people, who spent most of our formative years being shuffled from one public school to another. We live in plastic buildings that are only a few years old. We don’t know who made our sneakers, or even what country they were made in, and when they wear out we buy new ones.

    We might have little contact with our extended families, and we know little about our family history, whether that history traces back to Africa or Wales. We’ve changed vocation four times, and we’re flying to LA next week for a job interview.

    Perhaps for us, changing religion is almost as easy as changing our underwear.

    But if someone lived in a ghetto with a Christian family, or a tight ethnic neighborhood in rural Spain, or on a res., or for that matter, if he or she was a congressman or a President Obama or was a community rabbi… in short, if a person had a less isolated and cocoonized life, one that was more a part of the fabric of his or her surroundings, then it might be harder for that person to even consider taking a weekend seminar about a different religion.

    If Shambhala becomes replaced by Shambhala Buddhism, I think one side-effect will be the preservation of a white, middle-class demographic, because white, middle-class people tend to be the most rootless people with the fewest ties.

  61. Mark Szpakowski on June 21st, 2009 12:03 pm

    Just a few quick comments (too much here!)

    Re Martin’s “An interesting point: those of us who have issues with the merging of Shambhala and Buddhism are usually cast as defending the integrity or autonomy of “Buddhist” side, but I think the Shambhala teachings are also (potentially) compromised by the merger.” Hmm, welcome to the party, Martin! This has been a central theme for discussion since the year 2000 proclamation of Shambhala Buddhism: the most essential view of Shambhala vision, that of a secular/sacred society (not religion), has been deprecated in favor of a new religious institution.

    It might be like a Kierkegaard joke: in the attempt to get both-and, you get neither-nor.

    Davee: “But my opinion probably goes back to my thinking that our Buddhist identity is more core than our societal or community identity.” That’s exactly it: Buddhist identity is core to the buddhadharma side of CTR’s teachings (with buddhist refuge vow being formal acknowledgement of that). However, CTR went beyond that, and created a Shambhala container whose core lay in the drala of the world and basic goodness of its inhabitants – which is not tied to buddhism or to any one religion, for that matter. In that view Shambhala is a society, state, kingdom – not a religion.

    To repeat the directly applicable comment (in this case talking about the Werma Sadhana):

    From one way of thinking, the sadhana has been influenced by the traditional buddhist style, but on the other hand it is quite different. It is a self-contained practice. It is not particularly borrowed from buddhism, but it is simply self-existent in the Shambhala style.

    - Dorje Dradul of Mukpo, Comments on the Werma Sadhana, March, 1984

    It’s a simple as that.

    The Shambhala path as described by CTR goes all the way through Scorpion Seal retreat: it does not stop at Level 5, or Warrior Assembly, or wherever Shambhala Buddhism now chooses to start insisting that participants be buddhist. In that vision you, whether buddhist or not, can be a full-fledged citizen of such a society by practicing the Shambhala path. Illuminating that path from various religions, such as Vajrayana Buddhist mahamudra and dozgchen practices, is useful and fun for practitioners of those disciplines, but it’s not essential, and people of other traditions can use their own to provide illumination as well.

    The issue might arise because when you’re on the path to fruition, it’s important, and you might not be able to see the fruition without the path. CTR was coming from fruition, and so, while appreciating and presenting every detail of the buddhist path, was not attached to it – and he called on his buddhist students, as well as others, to be and see likewise. Shambhala vision can be fully presented without attachment to buddhism: buddhist lingo (or catholic or indigenous or …) not required!

    That’s our challenge, should we choose to accept it.

  62. Jake on June 21st, 2009 12:13 pm

    I think one thing to keep in mind is how the Vidyadhara’s language is being changed.

    Trungpa Rinpoche provided a lot of powerful material in the way he used language. Changing that language is risky, even dangerous.

    It’s not the same as the way lingo evolves in the humanities or sciences. The rigor with which he wielded language was amazing. I hope this gets picked up, and that we can look at this a little.

  63. Suzanne Duarte on June 21st, 2009 12:30 pm

    Edward, this is an astute observation: “If Shambhala becomes replaced by Shambhala Buddhism, I think one side-effect will be the preservation of a white, middle-class demographic, because white, middle-class people tend to be the most rootless people with the fewest ties.”

    That reminds me of what I’ve heard that CTR told Thrangu Rinpoche – I hope I’ve got this right – that the Shambhala teachings and practice arose to address the disconnection that Americans have with the Earth. In other words, the Shambhala teachings and practices can help rootless people reconnect with their bodies and the natural world, and discover their basic goodness. Just about anybody raised in or assimilated into American mainstream culture will benefit from the Shambhala teachings, whatever their ethnic origin.

    But perhaps white, middle-class Americans are most attracted to, or in need of, Buddhadharma because it offers belonging and identity within a sangha, and other ethnic groups may not need that as much. I sense that some adherents of Shambhala Buddhism find the sense of belonging to be very important. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, unless that need to belong overshadows critical thinking – which is a danger in any group.

  64. Davee on June 21st, 2009 3:49 pm

    well ok if one feels Shambhala is primarily a society, state, kingdom – not a religion – then it would make complete sense to view the new name of Shambhala Buddhism to be a kind of coup or being conquered by a religious revolution.

    I think I still see the most “core” aspect of “us” as the Vajrayana though, the Surmang lineage from Tibet, and at the same time secular Shambhala Vision is possible both as an acknowledgement of that wisdom being beyond any one path presentation and also the possibility of having non-Buddhist meditation training and education offerings more accessible to others. If that includes the Werma Sadhana seems to then be a related but also separate question. But I don’t see that Shambhala Vision then overwhelming our Buddhist roots and taking over the overall organization, a coup or revolution by the Shambhala people of sorts.

    I guess for awhile, the Shambhala Training organization grew as a separate thing that was at the same time not quite separate. Perhaps it considered spinning off as a new and separate lineage? But historically, was it always part of the larger organization though? Related question: do some of you feel like CTR changed the core of “us” to that political vision in his later years? I’d guess it was Buddhadharma at the core before 1978. Was there a sense of that core shifting just after 1978, or after that, and then again after his death? (e.g. Was there a further shift in the 90’s in your opinion?)

  65. ashoka on June 22nd, 2009 1:20 am

    Experience meditation alone.
    Trust is the blade that does not break.
    So lucky to be born a warrior.

  66. Diane Metzger on June 22nd, 2009 12:32 pm

    Just a brief correction to Alan Anderson’s June 18 post, since a little misinformation seems to have slipped through: “And from another talk at the same [1984] Kalapa Assembly **(his last)**, ‘I am going on my one year’s retreat, concentrating on Werma Sadhana and Shambhala vision a lot. I’m afraid I might come up with more! So you might have to learn a great deal after I come back.’ ” [quote from the Dorje Dradul].

    The 1984 Kalapa Assembly was not his last. The Dorje Dradul taught a Kalapa Assembly at Rocky Mountain Dharma Center (now Shambhala Mountain Center) in 1985–the first tent culture Assembly, an important shift in Shambhala culture–and a final one, I believe, in 1986.

  67. Martin Fritter on June 22nd, 2009 2:51 pm

    Shambhala Training was definitely started as a separate entity than Vajradhatu – the “church” It was part of Nalanda Foundation, which included Naropa and Maitri and which was incorporated as a 501 c(3) corporation. Naropa was separated from Nalanda in 1987 at the behest of the accreditating organization. They wanted to assure that it would be “more secular” and have greater financial independence.

    Anyway, when Shambhala Training was started the was not supposed to take place in any of the Vajradhatu facilities – Dharmadhatus, KD, RMDC and so on. Rinpoche declared his intention to start it quite early, possibly as early as 1977, although it took quite awhile to get the curriculum organized. There was a meeting at the old Court on Mapleton on 5th, where it was all announced. I don’t remember the exact date unfortunately. I believe it was before the first Kalapa Assembly.

    I was working in finance in the VDH administration at the time and there was a lot of resistance to STP (as we called it). For one thing, we were chronically broke so we couldn’t figure out how to finance the thing. Rinpoche, whose teaching activities had always been the primary source of revenue for VDH, was cutting back drastically. We felt that STP would cannibalize program revenues. We were told to definitely not regard as a feeder for the Buddhist scene.

    For another, some in the Buddhist hierarchy (so to speak) was unhappy with it. Essentially there was to be developed a parallel bureaucratic structure. So people who had worked very hard on getting the Buddhist situation established now had to contend with another, seemingly competing organization. The competition was not just for resources, btw, but for face time with CTR.

    Then there was the move to Halifax thing.

    Incidentally, one of the main sources of resistance to STP was the Regent who, IMHO, saw his preeminence threatened. I hasten to point out that he was very solicitous and supportive of the soon-to-be Sawang. We took turns trying to come up with STP talks. The Regent’s were by far the best.

    As i understand it, Shambhala continued to operate as a separate entity until fairly recently.

    There’s a lot more I could say, but I’ll stop for now. Anybody who wants to get a good sense of the milieu from which this arose should look at DJM’s “Dragon Thunder” or John Perks’ “The Mahasiddha and His Idiot Servant.”.

  68. madeline schreiber on June 22nd, 2009 6:00 pm

    Author: Madeline responding to Davee

    D.: well ok if one feels Shambhala is primarily a society, state, kingdom – not a religion – then it would make complete sense to view the new name of Shambhala Buddhism to be a kind of coup or being conquered by a religious revolution.

    M.: well ok, I do feel that Shambhala is primarily a society, a state, a kingdom, but I don’t feel that the name Shambhala Buddhism indicates a coup or being conquered by a religion. Actually, I don’t object to the title Shambhala Buddhism. This may be the best way to describe the form of buddhism, with its concern for secular life, which the Vidyadhara introduced us into. I’m not talking about the content of today’s Shambhala Buddhism, just the name.
    The Vidyadhara’s transmission to us is unique, never given before as such, made to fit the western civilization of the 20th century. If we refer to the kind of buddhism which he taught us as Shambhala Buddhism this does not bother me. The name is dignified. The content is another story.
    To call our path -a work in progress- is not good enough for me. The traditional buddhadharma is not a work in progress, so I feel that we could live up to that example. His unique power gave us special transmissions which could reach and benefit the secular lives of people, and he left it up to us to figure out how to deliver. I would not demean our legacy by saying that what we hold is a work in progress.
    Our Shambhala and Dharma path has been powerfully established. The word Shambhala modifies the word Buddhism. If someone were to ask me, “What kind of Buddhism do you practice?”, I would not have a problem saying I practice Shambhala Buddhism. But if I were asked about the content of Shambhala Buddhism, I would have to say it is a work in progress. I would not like to be put in that position.

    D.: I think I still see the most “core” aspect of “us” as the Vajrayana though, the Surmang lineage from Tibet,
    M.: I don’t see it this way. I see the Vidyadhara’s transmission as far above and beyond the traditions of Surmang and Tibet.
    Not only did he include many influences from Japan, Great Britain and others, but his is transmission of crazy wisdom for anyone who can receive it, goes beyond all isms.

    D.: I guess for awhile, the Shambhala Training organization grew as a separate thing
    that was at the same time not quite separate. Perhaps it considered spinning off as a new and separate lineage?
    M.: I did not see any split off going quite this far. All the administrators and teachers were devoted Vajradhatu buddhists. I did not hear about anyone wanting to entirely split away with a Shambhala Training lineage. Even though Shambhala is a secular path it was still the same group of buddhist students who had to implement it. Maybe a more severe split happened in places farther away from the capital and I did not know about it.

    D.: But historically, was it always part of the larger organization though?
    M. Yes, as far as I know.

    D.: Related question: do some of you feel like CTR changed the core of “us” to that political vision in his later years?
    I’d guess it was Buddhadharma at the core before 1978. Was there a sense of that core shifting just after 1978,
    or after that, and then again after his death? (e.g. Was there a further shift in the 90’s in your opinion?)
    M.: Yes, I felt the shift from the religious to the secular after 1978. By that time he (with us) had achieved the astounding accomplishment of getting his crowd of completely raw and mostly young students to do basic sitting practice, kagyu ngondro, receive the abhisheka of Vajrayogini, and perform her sadhana , with all its special parts, with impeccability! I am positive that this was an awesome sight for the highest Tibetan lamas such as Karmapa XVI and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche to witness when they visited us. He (with us) set the standard of what western students are capable of very high for the Tibetan teachers yet to come west, and are still now coming west in greater numbers. I deeply hope that this high standard for how western students practice the dharma will hold now and in the future.

    M.: Thanks Davee for causing this contemplation to arise for me.

    Madeline
    Nova Scotia

  69. Edward on June 22nd, 2009 6:34 pm

    ok, now I’m confused.

    Madeline Schreiber writes:
    Even though Shambhala is a secular path it was still the same group of buddhist students who had to implement it.

    Madeline, are you saying that CTR only wanted Buddhists to implement Shambhala vision? Like, forever, in any capacity?
    Or are you saying that the people he initially appointed to get Shambhala going were Buddhists?

    Mr. Friter writes:
    Anyway, when Shambhala Training was started [it] was not supposed to take place in any of the Vajradhatu facilities

    Was this at CTR’s request, or at the request of an outside political body, such as the accrediting body you mentioned?

  70. madeline schreiber on June 22nd, 2009 6:45 pm

    Dear Edward,
    Sorry for confusion.
    The people he initially appointed were all buddhists.
    Madeline

  71. Martin Fritter on June 22nd, 2009 7:04 pm

    Dear Edward,

    Sorry for _being_ confusing. The issue of accreditation concerned Naropa. It was the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Without being accredited, Naropa students couldn’t get various kinds of financial aid and their academic credits wouldn’t have been transferable.

    It was Rinpoche who whated Shambhala Training to take place outside the VDH centers. Which of course cost a lot of money.

  72. Edward on June 22nd, 2009 8:20 pm

    Thanks Martin & Madeline.

    It was Rinpoche who wanted Shambhala Training to take place outside the VDH centers. Which of course cost a lot of money.

    My old teacher used to make requests like this, and it drove people crazy.

    However, the most seemingly-irrational things he did are turning out to be the things that I learn from the most…

    Anyway, wow, that clarifies a lot.

  73. Natalie Dawson on June 23rd, 2009 10:29 am

    Because I’ve taught some of the current curriculum classes here in Halifax I thought I’d add a few comments. As has been noted by Adam Lobel and others, the current curriculum is still a work in progress. After the first year it was taught here it was realized that the course of study to be completed in one year was too much for most people, so some of the changes made have been because of that. Last year I co-taught the “Garuda” module, and I’ve also taught a couple of the classes that are offered here as additional ones after the Tiger-Lion-Garuda-Dragon (TLGD) modules and before someone goes on to the Sacred Path weekends. These additional classes have been taken from the Shambhala School of Buddhist Studies curriculum and go much more deeply into buddhist material. I taught one on Lojong and one on Lineage & Devotion. My understanding is that the TLGD modules are meant to be an introductory overview of the three yanas of buddhism, along with the Shambhala Training weekends that get more into the Shambhala teachings and language and connect them with the buddhist yanas. So yes, one class on the paramitas isn’t all that much, and if someone were to only take these modules and go no further, they would only be getting an overview.

    I went to Seminary in 1980 and had lived in Berkeley, California for my four-year buddhist path up to that point. My recollection is that at that time there wasn’t any set curriculum of classes that one had to complete before Seminary, and I didn’t actually study very much till I went to Seminary. There were a few introductory classes and some study of transcripts beforehand, but there was no particular testing of one’s knowledge of buddhism as a pre-Seminary thing like there is now, for instance. Maybe it was different in Boulder. In any case, I feel that students are much better prepared when they go to Seminary, and have been for some time, than I was at that time.

    I also have been giving initial meditation instruction at our Open House for many years and have taught four- and five-week classes on “Turning the Mind into an Ally” and the “Learn to Meditate” Saturday program offered in Halifax that’s also based on that book. I’ve found that beginning students really appreciate this material and approach and find it very helpful. It may be true that these days fewer people are willing to devote as much time to practice and programs in the beginning as we were in the 70s, but I feel many do connect strongly and are inspired to continue on. Speaking personally, I don’t go to feasts very much anymore but still do have a very regular practice, so I think it’s difficult to know how much or little anyone is practicing unless you talk with them about it.

  74. Jake on June 23rd, 2009 1:12 pm

    Maybe it’s inappropriate, or has already been covered, but I don’t think so, and I don’t think it has.

    I think the Vidyadhara’s language is being changed in problematic ways. I think this is a serious issue, and not a matter of labels or lingo or the fact that things evolve.

    I have some mixed feelings about the Sakyong and how things are changing. I want to focus, however, on the language issue, and not the Sakyong. I know this thread is about the new curriculum, so I’m slightly off topic, but I don’t really care.

    The Vidyadhara’s language is a precious gift. It seems to me like there’s always more to learned from his books, and one reason for this is the way his choice of words allows for meaningful connections. Think about the word “cocoon,” the word “dignity,” the word “aggression,” the word “situation,” and the way these words were used. Trungpa Rinpoche began infusing our language with blessings, with the energy of buddhadharma. This is a profound influence on our minds and potentially our society.

    Does this relate to the new curriculum? Probably. I don’t know. It certainly relates to how things are changing as re:teachings at Shambhala centers. Perky does not equal contentment. This is extremely obvious. In the Sakyong’s refuge vow sadhana, we hear about the “cocoon of misconceptions.” This is, I think, a misinterpretation and a conflation. Cocoon is not JUST about misconceptions.

    I think we need to protect and care for the Dorje Dradul’s language. It is recorded, so, in a sense, it is safe. At the same time, I’m worried that its power is getting diluted.

  75. Barbara Blouin on June 23rd, 2009 1:47 pm

    Jake,

    Thank you for speaking about language. You have focused on one of the core reasons why I (and you and others) think the new curriculum is harmful to the teachings and legacy of Chögyam Trungpa. I think you are absolutely right. I have been working for several months re-editing the already edited hinayana and mahayana seminary transcripts, from 1973 until the final seminary in 1986. (Our work involves looking for mistakes in both transcribing and editing , in preparation for issuing all of the hinayana and mahayana talks on a set of DVDs, once this major work is completed …) The longer I work with these brilliant teachings, the more I see that Chögyam Trungpa ALWAYS chose his words with the greatest care. His speech was never random or vague. It was always completely precise and powerful. For the architects of the new curriculum, who are carrying out Sakyong Mipham’s instructions to the best their abilities, I would like to ask: Do you completely understand how vital it is to respect Trungpa Rinpoche’s language, and not tamper with it?

  76. Davee on June 23rd, 2009 1:52 pm

    Jake, I’m also concerned about terminology and meaning. It is so easy to get sloppy with our understanding, and really important to know precisely what the teacher said and what was meant.

    I’m less concerned about terms migrating to new meanings and usage, though there are definitely some. More often the Sakyong seems to be introducing new terms than modifying previous ones. But there are changes for sure. e.g. the Sakyong uses Mundane Happiness versus True Happiness, whereas the Dorje Dradul used Happiness versus Joy the former more referring to pleasure and worldly dharma. But out of the 3000 terms used in some unique way in our lineage, it’s a small surmountable number that have migrated much over the years and within our grasp to understand. Some terms changed in usage between the 70’s and 80’s I’ve found as well, if you compare the Seminary transcripts.

    Contentment relates to Meek though, not Perky, not as a complete summary of that dignity for sure, but that’s definitely a contemplation for it. All these terms though seem to be open contemplations to me for one to use to find the experience of Meek. They’re Trangdon (finger pointing), and it’s up to us to find the Ngedon (true meaning).

    I’m not sure I would characterize any of the changes as “tampering” though, perhaps we could discuss specific example if anyone feels that has happened. A previous article on this site framed the Happiness usage that way. I found that usage however to be “finger pointing” to exactly the same distinction between the mundane and going-beyond if one were to look with precision at it. I’m sure some disagreed with me.

  77. Jim Wilton on June 23rd, 2009 5:06 pm

    I agree with everything Natalie said. In Boston, we have also been working for some time with the new curriculum. It is certainly a work in progress, but a lot of effort has gone into it. We have many new students. Our Wednesday night open house program has 25 to 50 people every week. Our Sunday Nyinthuns have 15 to 20.

    Maybe this is not impressive to anyone — but it is easy to be critical. It is a lot harder to engage and to work with new students.

  78. Jake on June 23rd, 2009 9:59 pm

    Yeah, I think I meant Meek, not Perky. Good call. Pretty appropriate in a post about language problems….

    Love that attention!

    I think any and all devotees of the Vidyadhara need keep an eye or eyes on the language issue. I love the idea of bringing in new people (especially expanding beyond white middle class folks). I don’t think the Sakyong’s approach to the language has been good, though.

    We should be celebrating Rinpoche’s words! Are we doing this enough?! Maybe in some centers we are. In others, probably not.

    I can’t overemphasize the beauty and strength and brilliance of Rinpoche’s language. It not only communicates multiple levels of meaning, based on the understanding of an enlightened being, but through using relatively common words, it infiltrates our language, our culture, our minds. Infiltrates isn’t the right word, maybe infuse is better.

    The initial article wasn’t about this per se, so I’ll shuffle offstage. I just wanted to bring this up. Let’s take good care of those precious words!

    ki ki so so ashe!

  79. Barbara Stewart on June 23rd, 2009 10:11 pm

    To Jim Wilton,

    Well, how has the new curriculum been working out? You say three things: that it’s a work in progress, that a lot of effort’s gone into it and that you’re getting new students there. All well and good — but primary question on the table is: how has the actual teaching, the content of the new classes gone? The organization of the material? The melding of Buddhism and Shambhala? The rapid overview of complex topics, like the paramitas and mahamudra and dzogche, in single classes? What’s worked? What hasn’t? And why and how?
    Please and thank you.

  80. Edward on June 24th, 2009 1:38 am

    I think language is powerful. It is powerful when CTR uses it, and in a way it is powerful when anyone uses it.

    The phrase “cocoon of misconceptions” is interesting. It is pregnant with meaning, and it contains messages, both for new people off the street and for people familiar with CTR’s teachings.

    The decision to replace “cocoon” with this phrase has a lot of connotations– that is, if we consider that it was done intentionally rather than it just fell out of the sky randomly onto someone’s word-processor.

    There is sometimes a holographic nature to things. If you take one tiny piece of something, and look at it carefully, really examine it, one can often get a glimpse of the entire thing as well. Replacing “cocoon” with “cocoon of misconceptions” is like a piece of a hologram, perhaps.

    What are misconceptions? Hard to say. Wrong conceptions? Wrong beliefs? Unauthorized ideas? Bad thoughts? The term implies its polar opposite as well, which might be good thoughts, approved ideas, correct conceptions, accurate concepts, right ways of thinking, beneficial concepts.

    Since we’ve left this part of your vow vague, pay very close attention in the future for subtle clues we will be giving out, as to which of your thoughts are good and which bad.

    Sorry for the digression. Barbara Stewart, your questions seem appropriate.

    On second thought… I guess for me, replacing “cocoon” with “cocoon of misconceptions” tells me more about the new curriculum than hundreds of hours of interviews could do. There could be dozens of endorsements from people saying how great it is, books written about it, speeches given, but I wonder if that would really satisfy people’s concern. What is the concern?

  81. Marguerite Stanciu on June 24th, 2009 10:04 am

    Hello

    I can’t help but say that it seems the height of arrogance for anyone to tamper with the teachings of Chogyam Trungpa as if they need to be adapted or improved.

    I’m wondering why no one is talking about core issues at hand here, like problems of leadership and spiritual materialism. It seems so obvious to me and yet poeple do not seem to want to pick up on the thread of this.

    And whatever happened to the issue of current Sakyong’s attempt to dismantle transmissions which began as early as 1991 when I believe he began going around telling people that they didn’t have to move to Nova Scotia, a place that he never related to except for the inside of the residence he was staying at? Why is it that on the Halifax Shambhala website that it states that the Halifax Center is one of many rather than that is it the Center of Shambhala.

    I think people have forgotten or become numb to the root problems or perhaps this is not the venue to discuss them?

    I take some risk here in raising these issues and I am not intending any disrespect of those who are students of the current Sakyong. I would hope for some civil discussion on these topics and at the very least an acknowledgement that there is a history here that seems to have been forgotten and I think it is up to the senior students to keep the integrity of the situation intact.

    Marguerite

  82. Davee on June 24th, 2009 12:36 pm

    Marguerite, your question is obviously inflammatory. Do you really want to discuss things with the possibility that your mind could be changed?

    Reifying the Vidhyadhara is probably just as dangerous as ignoring his heartfelt advice.

  83. Jake on June 24th, 2009 12:44 pm

    Another slightly off topic comment. I think it relates somewhat.

    So, if there are enough(?) of us who have problems with the direction that Shambhala training is headed in, what are we going to do about it training-wise? It’s one thing to disagree about terminology and theory, which is very important, but another to talk about practices and training.

    Why don’t people set up their own Shambhala community? Is that so unthinkable? Is it dangerous? Would people get sued? Is there a skillful way to do it that doesn’t needlessly cause division? Maybe the terma could not be handed down in the same way- would that kill the whole thing? Could we still pass along orally the practices and teachings of Shambhala, or would this break some sort of samaya or bond? Are we not allowed to?

  84. Davee on June 24th, 2009 12:59 pm

    The Satdharma community in Ojai, California has a separate stream of Shambhala Training already, called Shambhala Education. So there is some precedent there. Though I think they do meet the definition of “division”, many more people on this list can probably talk more to that than I. I’m not sure if there has been any legal issues or not.
    http://www.satdharma.org/Shambhala.php

    An interesting question for me would be how people felt during the division of the sangha back when the Ojai folks split off. Were people who feel riled up now about the direction of the sangha as riled up then too? And if an Essential Chögyam Trungpa splits off would it be for similar reasons in a way to how the Ojai community felt?

    ps. Jake, the term “misconceptions” is already rich in our tradition. It generally is not used in my experience with regard to mundane misconception (e.g. valid relative truth versus invalid relative truth, or conventionally correct versus incorrect) but is used more often when discussing the difference between relative truth altogether (perhaps more accurately translated as “obscurative truth”) and valid cognition that analyzes for ultimacy / emptiness. So it’s probably not something someone can “tell” you anyway, only discovered directly.

  85. Martin Fritter on June 24th, 2009 1:37 pm

    A year or so ago there was an effort to reconcile the Oaji community with SI. I believe SMR was on board, but DJM put the kaibosh on it. Her enmity toward the Regent seems implacable. (To say that they didn’t get along is an understatement. During the second Kalapa Assembly, at the Chet Huntley Lodge in Montana, they had a big semi-public fight where she started throwing stuff at him. She later made a public apology.)

    I, for one, have never fully understood the intensity of the Regent’s students and have questions about Patrick. Nevertheless, I welcomed the prospect of reconcillation and was unhappy when it failed.

    I might note that a lot of the students who were fairly well established in Vajrayana practice and had a personal connection with CTR never quite clicked with the Regent, and visa-versa.

    Diana Mukpo controls CTR’s literary estate which includes, I believe, all the liturgical translations. I believe Reggie has had problems with, for example, using the Kagyu Ngondro. Perks received threats of suits for some of the things he quoted in his book.

    It would be interesting to know if Oaji has had similar problems.

    Barbra, maybe SFS should so some interviews with the Satdharma people.

  86. Frans Schuring on June 24th, 2009 3:48 pm

    SORRY TO SAY, BUT YOU CANNOT PRESERVE ANY OF THE REALIZATION OF THE VIDYADHARA.
    YOU HAVE THE TERMAS, THE TRANSCRIPT, TAPES, VIDEOS, AND SO ON. THAT IS IT, NOTHING MORE. AND THEN THERE IS WHAT THAT DID/DOES TO YOU.
    ANYBODY WHO TAKES THAT IN, CONTEMPLATES IT, PRACTICES IT, WORKS WITH IT, BRINGS HIS OWN BIAS AND BACKGROUND TO BEAR ON IT. THAT BIAS IS INESCAPABLE AND THAT FACT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE, UNTILL SOME REALIZATION OCCURS AND YOU’LD HAVE A MORE AUTHENTIC WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.
    FOR EXAMPLE IF I FEEL THAT CONTEMPLATING THE MEANING OF CONTENTMENT MAY HELP TO GET TO THE DIGNITY OF THE TIGER THAT’S WHAT I FEEL. OR IF I FIND EXAMPLES FOR THE CRADDLE OF LOVING KINDNESS TO EXPLAIN WHAT I THINK IT MEANS, IT’S MY GOOD RIGHT AS MEDITATION INSTRUCTOR OR TEACHER OR AS FRIEND OF SOMEBODY TO USE THAT.
    OR IF I FEEL THAT BUDDHISM ENHANCES THE SHAMBHALA TEACHINGS AND VICE VERSA, SO BE IT. I DON’T HAVE TO ACT AS IF I OWN ANY OF IT TO BE A PROPER RECIPIENT AND PROPER SPOKESMAN, EVEN IF OTHER DON’T LIKE IT MY WAY. THAT’S THEIR PROBLEM.
    AND IF I WANT BUDDHISM AND SHAMBHALA TO REMAIN SEPARATE, SO BE IT.
    EVERYBODY DOES THESE THINGS IN HIS OR HER WAY NO MATTER WHAT TO BEGIN WITH. WHY LOOK SO MUCH FOR AGREEMENT ABOUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND WAY OF WORKING WITH WHAT THE TEACHER AND TEACHINGS DID TO YOU AND HOW YOU WANT TO EMBODY THAT? EVEN IF THE AGREEMENT WOULD HELP, WHICH I DOUBT.

    SO JUST DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH IT, IS WHAT I SAY, YOU CAN’T HELP YOURSLEF ANYWAY EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO, SO TAKE HOW IT GOT TO YOU, HOW YOU UNDERSTOOD IT AND STOP BEING SO PICKY ABOUT WHO DOES WHAT RIGHT OR WRONG, FALSIFIES THINGS OR NOT, REMAIN PURE OR NOT. DO YOU OWN THING, JOIN OTHERS, START FRESH WITH ONLY SHAMBHALA, OR ONLY BUDDHISM, WHATEVER, IT ALL REMAINS IN THE REALM OF CHOICES AND OF WHAT ONE FEELS THAT IS WORKABLE. OR NOT.
    SWOLLOW THE GOLDEN FISH OF FEARLESSNESS, THAT’S WHAT I REMEMBER I SHOULD BE DOING. good luck

  87. William McAllison on June 24th, 2009 5:18 pm

    Martin, Just a note, the Satdharma thing happened the year of the consecration of the stupa, so more than a year or two ago. But you are correct it was LDM who put a stop to it, based on a claim that VCTR had no intention for the Regent to have an heir, in effect Patrick would have the status of an Acharya in Shambhala. He would not accept the demotion. The relationship with Satdharma is still pretty good, Patrick was at SMC this month for a day, But I too was dissapointed that it didn’t go through, and yes SMR was on board, It was LDM wielding her control of the books etc that put a stop to it.
    Reggie is a WHOLE different story.
    WM

  88. Martin Fritter on June 24th, 2009 6:55 pm

    It is generally regarded as, if not obnoxious, at least poor nettiquete to shout – as in put everything in caps. On one level, I am sympathetic to Frans’ being a histrionic troll I am part of the “go for it” generation. We were so predisposed, many of us, and were encouraged by our teacher.

    But that’s what the Regent did — he was really preeminent in that regard. As far as I am concerned, his was a spectacular failure. Which doesn’t mean that I don’t regard him as a legitimate lineage holder. It’s just that I’m not sure what that means in the broader stream of transmission.

    He was, of course, not the only causality.

    Styalistically, SMR offers a much more gemutlich approach. If you consider that many of his students are the children of my generation, who got to grow up with all-or-nothing parents, it’s easier to understand why their approach to dharma is so anodyne. Actually, you can see some of SMR’s choices in that light too.

    Reggie deserves a lot of respect when viewed in this context — although I am not a student of his and won’t become one. But he’s not stupid and understands the risks.

    I wonder if any of his students are reading this and would care to identify themselves and comment.

  89. John Castlebury on June 24th, 2009 7:33 pm

    XIV
    O how Me strives to
    Avert cosmic rip-off
    Yet it is that very
    Strife and aversion
    That does rip Me off

    Rips off enjoyment
    So no contentment
    No sense of enough
    No deep relaxation
    In psycho-quagmire

    Where Me never is
    Enough nor ever has
    Enough nor is ever
    Good enough like
    Flesh-eating germs

    But goodness stays
    Freshly good where
    No word for “trauma”
    Or “lemon” has ever
    Even been heard of

    [from “White Cloud”, White Clouds, Samurai Press, 2009]

  90. John Tischer on June 24th, 2009 8:45 pm

    Thank you, Martin, for using the word gemutlich.

  91. rita ashworth on June 25th, 2009 1:17 pm

    re the discussion of who is a lineage holder on the Chronicle Project from comments on CTRs will

    ‘DR: Who would appoint the next dharma heir? Would Vajra Regent select?

    V: I think so.

    DR: Next Dorje Loppon? Also the Regent?

    V: Yes. ‘

    so there we have it …..who knows perhaps Mr Sweeny may make many subsequent lineage holders as in the Zen Tradition or perhaps he wont but he certainly has the legitimacy to do such a thing. But any way perhaps thats not the real problem maybe the problem is getting these teachings out to people as quickly as possible now that the world is in such an horrendous state. Myself I am with anyone who has the panache or the seductive qualities that CTR talks about to get these teachings around the globe – in some respects getting fed up with the analysing about what is correct way to proceed and doing things by the ‘book’ if there is such a ‘book’ – maybe time to create new book about how to proceed -perhaps endless validation is not so much called for……just some thoughts

    Best

    Rita Ashworth

  92. Edward on June 26th, 2009 2:25 am

    Mr. Castlebury, do you suppose there is fresh goodness in the word “gemutlich”? I think there must be.

    Sorry, it’s late and I need a drink. Hard to convey humor through words.

    Unless you’re Mr. Perks, what a great book he wrote! It’s nice to (virtually) meet one other human being who has heard of that book, let alone read it. It’s weird, I’ve got three books in that genre and they’re all written by Brits.

    What were we talking about?

    The insubstantial nature of the new curriculum? The need to save basic goodness? The time-honored tradition of starting new lineages?

    So if Shambhala does get taken over by Buddhism, under the aegis of CTR’s “lineage”… does that mean Mr. Sweeney becomes SMR’s boss?

  93. Barbara Stewart on June 26th, 2009 12:55 pm

    I bet most of us have read John Perks’s book. It was fun…

    I liked Martin’s use of anodyne, as well, and John’s juxtaposition of trauma and lemon.

  94. rita ashworth on June 27th, 2009 6:23 am

    I think we should have some shambhala anarchists!

    Changing the verses to Vajradhara knows what just wont work anymore.

    As Pema says when things are falling apart what do you do and things are falling apart. perhaps a return to the ’soviets’ the centres. I dunno I getting a feeling of the semi revolution before the main revolution with SI -its full of Alexander Kerenskys and we need more Lenins I think – well the revolution was semi-good before Josef stepped in.

    Hope everyone is ok – got to go

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    stockport uk

  95. Tashi Armstrong on June 27th, 2009 9:14 pm

    I just listened to a talk given by the Regent in 1988 in San Francisco on Mahamudra. It is on the VROT website. I think we might begin reevaluating that particular ’spectacular failure.’ Is pounding sesame seeds? Slapping students with your sandal, cleaning fish guts on the banks of a river, pimping for a whore considered a ’spectacular failure?’

    Appearance and reality.

    I experienced the Regent as no different at all from the Vidyadhara –another spectacular failure! But in terms of what Tulku Urgyen calls ‘recognition’ this was all that these wonderful gentlemen were about. Does what happened negate that? Does conditional existence negate that in any way?

    If you would like a little reminder of our lineage — listen to that talk.
    All my love,

    Tashi

  96. Suzanne Duarte on June 28th, 2009 7:24 am

    Tashi, the Regent failed to carry on the Mahamudra lineage of the Vidyadhara. He died of AIDS a few years after VCTR. That cannot be denied. Was it his fault that he got AIDS? Yes, it was.

    Here is what I heard from the kasung driver of the limo that he was riding around in in the Castro district of San Francisco: he picked up a male prostitute off the street, and some time later ordered the driver to stop the car and threw the guy out of the car. Was that when he picked up AIDS? Possibly. Is homo-whoring in the Castro district at the height of the AIDS epidemic something a lineage holder would do if he was in his right mind?

    After VCTR forced him to be tested for the HIV virus, VCTR told him to stop his sexual activities. VROT didn’t stop. He continued to have sexual liaisons with sangha people, knowing he carried the deadly virus. Did he cause the death of a sangha child, Kier, who also died of AIDS? Quite possibly. VROT was a sex addict. He got carried away with himself. There were jokes about it among the other Vajradhatu directors before the scandal broke.

    Then, when the scandal unfolded, VROT split the sangha by moving to Ojai and taking his followers with him. There he told a friend who was close to his family, “I made a mistake.”

    Quite a spectacular mistake, if you ask me. Not quite in the same category as Tilopa. I thought iineage holders were supposed to care for the welfare of beings – beyond their own self-interest. But the main ‘mistake’ is that VROT failed to carry on Trungpa Rinpoche’s Buddhist lineage, and we are still suffering the repercussions of that. I think that qualifies as a spectacular failure.

    Lest we forget. . . .

  97. Martin Fritter on June 28th, 2009 9:57 am

    I wish Suzanne hadn’t used the h-word. What he was doing was not something anybody, lineage-holder or not, would do “in his right mind,” but many, many people behaved that way at that time.

    The failure of the Regent — and I admit to a bit of trolling myself — was a failure to come to terms with his mistakes after they became obvious. As far as I know, he never admitted to any wrongdoing. As far as I know, he kept his sexuality closeted, at least as a public figure.

    The spectacular part was because he was so incredibly gifted and because he really was a lineage holder. IMHO. More later.

  98. Edward on June 28th, 2009 11:28 am

    Buddhists often speak about the insubstantial nature of things.

    I’m not sure I should mention this, but has anyone heard of Peter Duesberg, the Nobel Prize-winning retrovirus researcher, and his controversial comments on the virus-AIDS hypothesis?

    Ok, now for a quick change of subject, before I get hung from a tree.

    As far as sexuality goes, my old teacher admitted publicly that he had sex with some of his female students. It’s a dangerous practice, I think, one that stirs up a lot of kleshas. I’m not sure there’s any way to do it and end up as a sparkly clean teacher that is beloved by everyone, though there probably are better and worse ways to do it.

    My teacher once criticized another teacher for being sexually active in private, but publicly pretending to be celibate– which of course is a powerful credential for many people, especially folks with a Christian background. Then later, that teacher was beset by scandal when the truth came out. It’s hard enough for people to tolerate a teacher with functioning genitals, but lying about it is really too much I think.

    I’m a big fan of privacy, for myself and for everyone, but I wonder if it’s best in the long run when a teacher hides something basic about his sexuality.

  99. John Castlebury on June 28th, 2009 12:30 pm

    So if I disengages, meaning if I lets go of narcissism and engages other, other meaning all that is other than one’s own stream-of-consciousness, meaning if I gives up always having to be at the constant centre of one’s own attention, switching the focus around so that other is at the centre of I’s attention instead, then shall dawn the grand utopia we idealists dream of?

  100. Suzanne Duarte on June 28th, 2009 1:13 pm

    I agree with Martin that one of the Regents’ mistakes was his “failure to come to terms with his mistakes after they became obvious.” And I also agree that, as far as I know, he never admitted to any wrongdoing – at least to the sangha (maybe he did to his family?), and that he kept his bi-sexual nature closeted, “at least as a public figure.”

    It would have been quite healing, I think, if VROT had come clean with the sangha. What if he had had the courage and integrity to come to the Dorje Dzong (Boulder) shrine room, with the whole community gathered, had admitted what he had done wrong, and had apologized to us and to the Vidyadhara for his lapses and self-indulgence? (He was quite self-indulgent.) Wow. It would have made an enormous difference. We loved him and wanted to love and forgive him – most of us anyway. We wouldn’t have torn him apart if he’d been honest. It would have revealed where he was off and where we all were off. It would have revealed reality, and would have forced us to deal with reality. It would have left the mandala much, much cleaner.

    Yes, he was incredibly gifted, a wonderful teacher. But I think it is ridiculous to lionize him, as some of his adherents have tried to do. He died an ordinary, fallible human being, just like the rest of us will and do. Why didn’t he do the ‘right thing’ and come clean before us all? Was it to preserve the charisma and authority of being a Western lineage holder? Or something far more mundane?

    I heard that his dying wish was that his mother not find out that he had sex with men and died of AIDS. This tidbit came from an inside source. It reveals a tortured soul who deserves compassion. But, let’s face it, the Regent left a stain and a rift in our sangha that has so far resisted removal.

  101. Christine Baranay on June 28th, 2009 3:51 pm

    This has been a very lively discussion. One which I participated in during the first 5 email comments and have refrained from commented for the last 95.

    However, the latest comment by Suzanne concerning — “the Regent left a stain and a rift in our sangha that has so far resisted removal” brings me to my often silently asked question — which sangha is XYZ talking about?

    This has not been my experience in the past 3 1/2 years of involvement with Shambhala. I have even met a few (not many, granted) who followed the Regent to Ojai, who were part of that community who are in my mind very involved with MY sangha — (perhaps it’s yours too?) :)

    Perhaps they have had to go through their own pain and so forth with regards to what seems to have been the tragedy of the Regent; yet, none of them have ever voiced that the problems of the Regent have left a stain. They speak loving of him and their experience in Ojai.

    How is it that a stain can be left on that which is unstainable?

    In my young and naive view of the dharma me thinks it is unstainable, as is the Buddha and the Dharma.

    Otherwise, why in the WORLD would I take and seek refuge in something that is stainable. I would be better served joining a knitting club where I didn’t take refuge but spent my days pondering others.

    Personally, as I have voiced before, I find it incredibly unfortunate that devoted students of ANY teacher are marginalized by either themselves OR others.

    And I wonder to myself — how can this be? Oh — wait — ego.

    Easy answer – hard to practice BECAUSE ego is a clever devil and will somehow dress
    her/himself up as something else entirely — how about samaya — ever tried to argue that one?

    IMPOSSIBLE …

    Anyway — MY sangha is without stains. :) or so I long to believe and practice. (please understand the MY is meant as a point — there is no MY)

    Just as a caveat — I am often “guilty” of being self righteous with regard to my local sangha, how it is run, blah blah blah but at the end of the day — after a bit of soul searching opps mind searching I come to the conclusion that IF I were to sit more and IF I were to follow the teaching of those who have given us so much — I would not be so eager to judge.

    Warmly,
    Christine

  102. Edward on June 28th, 2009 9:14 pm

    I don’t see any particular problem with saying that someone who created a rift “created a rift”.

    Christine Baranay writes:
    In my young and naive view of the dharma me thinks it is unstainable, as is the Buddha and the Dharma.

    I assume you mean “community” is unstainable. Yes, this is a good point, in a sense. No one else limits our practice, except us.

    On the other hand, it’s interesting to ask if we even need teachers, contemporary or historical, if the community is already perfect just as it is. Do we even need practice?

    Sometimes teachers spend a lot of their brief time correcting illusions that the people who come to them have. Maybe we don’t actually need that though?

    For instance the Buddha was a critic of some of the stuff going on with his contemporaries. I guess some spiritual aspirants were really big on ascetical practices in India back then, like standing for 5 years with one arm in the air, which the Buddha did not particularly recommend.

    Jamgon Kongtrul the Great was another teacher who I think commented on the errors he saw people making in Tibet at that time. An obsession with credentials and so on.

    But there’s kind of a hippy ideal that hey man, just do your thing, just get your groove on, let’s all just you know, do our thing. Don’t be so judgmental, it’s such a buzz-kill. Plus, judging people the way you’re doing is really egoic, and I think you should stop judging others, because it’s, like, wrong. Why are you pondering others so much, anyway, it’s really bugging me.
    :)

    . . .

    I think the fun part is seeing all the stains and imperfections, giving oneself permission to feel supremely upset and resentful about all sorts of stuff, and then practicing in the midst of that good juicy stuff.

    What did Marpa say when his son got killed, and his students asked him why he was crying, wasn’t it all just an illusion? Marpa said something like “yes, but this is a super illusion.”

    My old teacher insisted that we LIVE with other students in households, and I can tell you there’s no way to introvert oneself so much that the community stopps being irritating, or intellectualize oneself into thinking that it’s all great. The best one could hope for was being inspired by others’ practice, or being inspired by one’s own suffering and irritation enough to practice. Sometimes open conflict could be an immense inspiration to practice, actually, because one felt cornered by the situation. Really beautiful things happened sometimes.

    If everything is spotless and unstained, does that feeling of being cornered still arise?

    I have to ask, what ever happened to the mishap lineage? Where did it go? Let’s celebrate our mishaps, can we?

    I was reading a book recently about class in America. The author said that the lower class & upper class each have a kind of contentment, and a sense of dignity & honesty, but the middle-class is extremely anxious, obsessed with looking good, and obsessed with cleanliness– trim lawns, wrinkle-free shirts, and euphemisms for every mishap. I find that very interesting. And sad.

  103. brad on June 28th, 2009 10:25 pm

    Homo-whoring?

  104. Christine Baranay on June 28th, 2009 10:27 pm

    It always amazes me how email and message boards can miss by a mile the actual spirit of what someone was at least trying to say. And conversely how boards can twist and turn ones intent by picking only a sentence or two.

    Admittedly, I was guilty when responding the Suzanne’s email about the Regent — I certainly picked her post apart, choosing only 1 sentence I objected to.

    And since I do not know Suzanne, nor Edward or anyone for that matter personally on this board — it’s easy for me to say — hmmm not so good.

    OR — with some posters — oh very good. In other words, easy for me to lump into a category. When in truth — none of us are lumpable because — duh — nothing is permanent. Nothing even a lousy mood.

    And somehow I can’t believe that a rift can last either unless it has current fuel. Sure — the rifts may last for a very very long time but I wonder how long could a rift last without fuel.

    Something to ponder, I think.

    As for the dangers of a message board — if Edward was referring to me with the paragraph about the hippy ideal – he couldn’t be further from the mark. The last thing I do is subscribe to the New Age thing of — it’s all good. If I thought that, I wouldn’t study as much as I do — why would I need to?

    Hopefully someday I’ll get the chance to meet many of you in some sangha or another. We’d probably find we share much more than we disagree.

    Until then – ciao.

    Warmly,
    Christine

  105. John Castlebury on June 29th, 2009 7:34 am

    I is a defense against the emptiness of belieflessness with its peculiar brand of sad-joy that’s not sadness based on unrealistic expectations of transient sadness or transient self but is a sad-joy of wise equanimity, seeing all mind-arisings as transient and insubstantial and not credible as objects of even fleeting belief – Just because a passion is powerful, does that make it extra-credible? Just because such a passion is rare, does its rarity make it more real or that it sweeps us off our feet?

    [“Investigative Sadness”, Aspiration Highway, Samurai Press, 2007]

  106. rita ashworth on June 29th, 2009 11:42 am

    Re the Regent – I think it was the times the events happened within -things, life as we know it now, is much more open and free. Thinking retrospectively the Regent may have been really freaked about making an
    apology -now I think people would be more accommodating about his lifestyle to a degree. But I still believe there should be some ethics around relationships embodied within a code of conduct in SI.

    As to the curriculm ‘a work in progress’ is not a vision for an
    enlightened society -it needs to be tighter quicker thats my advice for SI
    -plus the select few designing the curriculm should always be informed by the views of the centres – another conference called for?! Dunno me
    personally I want a path that is basic, inexpensive and easy to give out to
    your man/woman in the street…….the medium of the teachings have to be
    crystal clear for people. I think thats what the majority of people want from
    my reading of the alternative and meditation scene in the UK.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK

  107. Edward on June 29th, 2009 11:44 am

    Hi Christine,

    I was not trying to criticize you personally, per se, though I was inspired by your post.

    I think there’s a recurring discussion on this website about “criticism”, with some people saying that to criticize anything or judge anything is wrong and a waste of time, a way of being entertained and avoiding personal practice. Which is best done in complete isolation, of course.

    There’s a lot of truth to that, but I don’t think it’s 100% true.

    The funny part is that there’s some irony in criticizing people who criticize.

    On a different note, I’d like to thank Suzanne for using the term “homo-whoring”. :)

    Would it have been better to conjure a phrase with more syllables, like “homosexual-prostitute-using”?

    I personally don’t mind if a teacher is into pleasure or unconventional activities, or is bisexual, but for him to feel ashamed of having “homo” interests could lead to problems, like an inability to admit to other things.

    I have an audiotape of CTR talking where he says “Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have to be ashamed of who we are.” Then he repeats this over and over and over with different exaggerated pronunciations. CTR claims that we are so ashaaaaaaaaaaaaamed of ourselves. Are we?

    Homo-whoring. Thank you, Suzanne.

    This reminds me of a story, and since we’ve abandoned all hope of staying on topic in this thread, I think I’ll share it.

    A good friend of mine is a black guy from Jamaica. He always felt ashamed of being black, and wished he was white, but this was a deeply subconscious thing that he wasn’t aware of and would never admit to. He went to a fancy school and got a PhD, and made all kinds of decisions in his life to try to “compensate” for his skin color.

    One day, after he’d been a student of my old teacher for many years, and had developed a close relationship with him (with a large degree of mutual trust & love, etc.), my teacher asked him, “Fred [let's call him Fred], what do you call a black man with a PhD?”

    Taken by surprise, my good friend said “I don’t know, what DO you call a black man with a PhD?”

    My teacher said “A nigger!” and then he laughed really really hard.

    Now, that might sound terribly mean and inconsiderate, but my friend claims he became much more comfortable in his own skin after this incident, and he’s very convincing when he says this. He said the word “nigger” was not used pejoratively, or with malice, but as a reflection of his own self-image, which he was always trying to run away from.

  108. brad on June 29th, 2009 1:10 pm

    How many other niggers were outside the room?

    Here in the Castro, or if I were in the mood to transmit dharma perhaps I would say the swamp of disease in which I live, the vast overwhelming majority of us homo whores actually offer sexual delight without an exchange of capital. Even then, when we were disseminating (ha! get it?) the incurable disease we had concocted, as we cheerfully continue to do now, with the greatest sense of equanimity, we didn’t have street walkers.

    But we’ll still promise you the stars, even in their absence!

    That said I’d like to clarify for you, Ms. Duarte, I don’t care one way or the other how you characterize the passed Regent, rest in peace (or reconstitute in peace, however you may believe *that* turned out; perhaps his driver has some insight.) And to clarify for Ed, even though I’m already white I don’t want to be a straight white woman. If only because the company sucks.

    Ha, I’m funny!

  109. Edward on June 29th, 2009 4:05 pm

    I’m sorry for taking this thread off-topic so many times. I think there were some good questions asked about new curricula here, that I don’t think were answered.

    brad, I’m not sure what you just said, but if you’re a homosexual, welcome. do you have any comments on the new curriculum, or on revising CTR’s core teachings, to make them more “workable” for the 21st century?

    Do people see problems with CTR’s core teachings, feel they’re outdated, or that they need to be changed for marketing purposes? I don’t, but I’m curious to hear how others feel.

  110. Noel on June 29th, 2009 4:47 pm

    Re: Shambhala Buddhism and the Vidyadhara. The Vajra Assemblies are an interesting source for this contemplation- many examples of overlapping terminology, etc. He even “links up” the 4 dignities and 4 karmas.

  111. brad on June 30th, 2009 11:48 am

    I think if folks have issues w/the SMR they should deal with it.

    I think SI should be able to respond to the current international financial meltdown with a bit more flexibility. And in that same key they should immediately address the class/income issues they’ve created by pricing poor people out of access to the VCTR’s terma.

    Who knows if VCTR envisioned a gated spiritual community or not (seperate from Gampo that is.) There’s no way to perpetuate activity without money and it’s an easy way to express hunger for realization by gathering money and handing it over but SI’s inconsideration for the peasantry is a bit ugly.

    I’ve never been terribly impressed by SI’s general indifference to the disabled either but that merely makes SI just like the rest of the world.

    Generally, in terms of approachability of all parties involved I think everybody could stand to grow a sense of humor. Y’know, irony. Remember that endlessly repeated rejoinder? And if you came with a sense of irony already installed please, by all means, flaunt it.

  112. rita ashworth on June 30th, 2009 2:25 pm

    Yo Brad I agree with you about the cost of the whole thing -rough estimate about the cost up to Vajrayana seminary (shambhala seminary) is about £3000 to £4000 about roughly $6000 to $7000 approx – quite alot if your a member of the proletariat – and what gets me now as well is there is still no voting process in the whole thing as CTR wanted ……so I have split from the org myself and I am investigating other stuff-ways of instigating shambhala ideals in my own life with the help of older students -plus I dont feel SMR is my main man even tho he is a lineage holder – so thats that. However I would encourage those still in the org. to pester for voting powers -thats how you keep people to account. Plus I also feel people are not really enfranchised just to go out and teach the basic stuff quickly enough……long process of studying and training to be a teacher even a
    member -things need to be done much quicker to just get the basic ideas out there.

    Just thinking about the membership of supposedly 8,000 that is about what Billy Graham would get on his day off in an auditorium ….ho-hum.

    If you stay with the whole thing Brad I would definately hassle as many people as you can with your queries because I feel the whole thing is tipping into a plug hole myself with American indifference – we have a saying in the uk ‘never mind the b-ll-cks her comes the sex pistols” SI
    defiantely need to play some punk.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport uk

  113. John Castlebury on June 30th, 2009 2:51 pm

    Subject: Suggestion box
    From: John Castlebury (jcastlebury@hotmail.com)
    Sent: June 22, 2009 1:04:24 PM
    To: weblog@radiofreeshambhala.org

    Dear Mark,

    Thank you for offering RFS as a medium for us all to compare notes. If it didn’t exist someone would have to invent it, isn’t it? Which brings me to the subject of merit…

    When I have sent comments, at the moment of pushing the [submit comment] button, it always occurs to me how unique if it instead was labeled as the [dedicate the merit] button, because that’s what I find myself doing at that moment of sending, dedicating the merit…

    Thanks, John

    [as of June 30, no reply from Mr Szpakowski]

  114. Chris on July 2nd, 2009 9:58 pm

    I have been thinking alot lately about dana , and its connection to fundraising probably because I have spent many years in Buddhist groups and organizations that start out with the best intentions regarding these issues and then quickly devolve into fundraising as the main practice and confusion about dana and merit and giving in the spirit of the first paramita , generosity, which too quickly devolves into a kind of meritocracy withinthe social parameters of the group’s hierarchy.
    Apologies for the Capitals, I couldn’t change this after it came out this way.

    It has been very DAMPENING AND disheartening to see this happen in so many groups. Dana, which means no one should be turned away because the dharma cannot be sold and bought, and people should give only what they can joyfully and freely afford, is distorted into “suggested donations” as dana.

    I CAME ACROSS THIS PARTICLE QUITE BY ACCIDENT AND IT SEEMS TO SO CLEARLY SUM UP AND CLARIFY, ONCE AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF DANA THAT i THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SHARE IT AND FOR US TO CONTEMPLATE, AND MAYBE START A DIALOGUE AMONGST US, ABOUT THE TRUE MEANING OF DANA AS IT WAS INTENDED IN THE SPIRIT OF GENEROSITY. Someone has to start this dialogue somehow, somewhere , because I think things have gotten so derailed regarding “dana” along our spiritual paths. This was prompted for me by someone who said he was tired of paying so much for a retreat for a dharma program and so sick of fund-raising at these events, that he wasn’t going to go and also because Keith Dowman was so adamant about including dana, i.e. ” no one should be turned away for lack of funds” in his programs, that I realized we have gone very far astray from dana as it was originally meant in its true form.

    How sad. So I offer the following particle in the hopes that we can really contemplate this as a return to the true nature of “dana” and what it means. Particularly those who are administering retreat programs, etc, might contemplate this and ask themselves “how far have we distorted the meaning of “dana” as it was intended.
    Chris Chandler

    What’s the relationship between “dana” and “fundraising”?

    They are entirely unrelated — or at least they should be. Alas, in recent years the notion of dana seems to have been co-opted by many Buddhist organizations in the West as just another fundraising gimmick, designed to appeal to our better nature. How many times have we read fundraising letters from Buddhist organizations that open with the familiar preamble: “Dana, or generosity, is the ancient tradition that has kept the Buddha’s teachings alive for over 2,500 years…”? How many times have we seen long “wish lists” in these letters detailing exactly what material goods are needed? And how many times have we heard meditation centers ask for “suggested donations” to pay for their teachings? To my mind, these valiant efforts at drumming up material support for Buddhist causes only dampen the true spirit of dana, that weightless, heartfelt, and spontaneous upwelling of generous action that lies at the very root of the Buddha’s teachings.
    Giving of any kind is unquestionably good. The Buddha encourages us to give generously whenever anyone asks for help [Dhp 224]. And even the smallest of gifts, when offered with a generous heart, has tremendous value: “Even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, ‘May whatever animals live here feed on this,’ that would be a source of merit” [AN 3.57]. But the actual rewards of giving depend strongly on the climate in which the giving occurs. The giver and the recipient — the donor and the organization — share an equal responsibility in fostering a climate that makes the most of generosity. If both are serious about putting the Buddha’s teachings into practice, they would do well to consider the following points:
    First, the benefits of giving multiply in accordance with the purity of the giver’s motives. A gift we give half-heartedly yields modest rewards for all concerned, whereas a gift given with genuine open-handedness, “not seeking [our] own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward],” is of far greater value [AN 7.49]. If we give with an expectation of receiving something from the recipient in return — membership benefits, a certificate of appreciation, a book, a meditation course, etc. — we shortchange ourselves, and dilute the power of our generosity. Buddhist organizations should therefore be cautious about rewarding gifts with these sorts of perquisites.
    Second, the Buddha does not encourage us to ask for gifts. In fact, he says quite the opposite: he encourages us to make do with what little we already have [AN 4.28]. This theme of contentment-with-little echoes throughout the Buddha’s teachings. To my mind, a fundraiser’s long “wish list” of needed items conveys a sense of dissatisfaction, and thus seems at odds with this message. Donors most enjoy giving when they know that their gift — no matter how humble it may be — is truly appreciated by the recipient. If I have only a small gift to give, I wonder if it will be appreciated — or even noticed — by an organization with ambitious fundraising goals or a long and expensive list of needs. An organization can promote the Buddha’s teachings most effectively, and inspire the greatest confidence among its supporters, by keeping its needs modest and its requests rare.
    Third, the purity of the recipient also matters [SN 3.24]. When we give to virtuous people — those who, at the very least, abide by the five precepts — we not only acknowledge their intention to develop virtue (sila), but we also reinforce our own resolve. Giving to virtuous people is thus a powerful kammic force whose benefits extend far beyond the moment of giving itself. Generosity and virtue are deeply intertwined; when we learn to exercise our generous impulses skillfully, and give where the gift reaps the greatest fruit, we make the most of them both. Whether we are giver or recipient, we stand to benefit most from generosity when we take virtue seriously.
    Finally, an appeal to fledgling Buddhist groups and organizations: please be very, very patient, and resist the temptation to make your organization grow. The success of a Buddhist organization should never be measured in conventional commercial terms: number of members, number of downloads, number of courses taught, amount of money raised, etc. Its success can only be measured by how well it embodies the Buddha’s teachings. If it does good work that is rooted firmly in the principles of virtue, people who recognize virtue when they see it will inevitably take notice and be inspired to lend a hand with unbounded generosity. Any organization that can do this much passes on to others, in the most direct way possible, the priceless tradition of generosity, which is the heart and soul of Dhamma — the greatest gift of all [Dhp 354].
    See also:

    “The Economy of Gifts,” by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
    “Freedom to Give,” by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
    “Generosity” in the Path to Freedom pages.

  115. Chris on July 3rd, 2009 1:17 am

    On a similar note , I encourage people to read Dzongzar Khentse Rinpoche’s remarks on how Tibetan Buddhism is doing in the West. His reflections are quite outrageous, brave and honest., and how prescient Trungpa Rinpoche was in trying to discourage what has developed ,more that 30 years ago. Something is happening and it feels like the tide is turning re: the whole “cash cow lama business”
    Here is the link :
    http://gomde-dk-sangha.blogspot.com/2009/06/east-west-west-east-by-dzongsar.html

  116. Michael Sullivan on July 3rd, 2009 9:54 am

    Re: dana / fundraising

    When Robin Kornman and I first invited Wangdor Rinpoche to teach in Milwaukee around 1998, we were a bit taken aback by his ground rules: No door fee at all, and anyone who shows up get the teachings.

    How could that work? We were told to get a bunch of envelopes and to write “Rinpoche” on some, “translator” on some, and “expenses” on some. Everybody who walked in the door was given 3 envelopes, along with a piece of paper explaining that the teachings were freely given, but that there was an opportunity for dana at the end of the teaching. The envelopes were to be given directly to Rinpoche, the translator Lama Lena, and the sponsors, so there would be a connection – but the size of the gift was private and based on the circumstances of the attendees.

    To our surprise, we not only made our expenses, but we were able to give extra money to the facility and to Rinpoche and Lena.

    I don’t know about that technique for running a center, but it worked well for 6 subsequent visits, most recently 2 weeks ago.

  117. rita ashworth on July 3rd, 2009 1:14 pm

    Personally re the above comments on fundraising – I dont think this is main beef with SI -thing is the whole thing is becoming academised what with shambhala training academies and the like -its definatley turning into a ‘church’ style atmosphere- perhaps hymns next – a book of shambhala hymns – think that whole thing is anathema to the spirit of Trungpa Rinpoche which was anarchic, artistic and wildly political -so you all have your new pins from studying from your new curricula -is that radical enough……need more radicalism -the times call for it.

    I thought this site people was where people were to think bigger -well how could people get the teachings out to people in a better way-hire a hall just give meditation off the bat/train meditation instructors without all the provisios as with barefoot doctors in China……curricula -smash it start again with new inventive ways of doing things.

    People nowadays highly independent, noisy, unwilling to follow the crowd -cater to that feeling in the atmosphere- I am tired of going through Buddhist hoops to get back to just experiencing the now and also payiing thru the nose for it …….we, the greater sangha have to find new ways to get to people.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport uk

  118. brad on July 3rd, 2009 2:24 pm

    As consolation here’s a ditty from when I first started haunting a Shambhala center (taking a break from the mosh pit (for real)):

    4th or 5th time, as I recall, free meditation instructions. Everyone was so tidy and polite and earnest I was a little turned off, given all I had up to then read about Trungpa Rinpoche (whom I was convinced was my missing Spiritual Daddy.) Sitting was featureless, difficult, but that was fine I figured. It was the company that troubled me.

    When we were done and people were chatting I asked the instructor: “So, where are the Asian dudes? Or is it all just divorced Jewish people?”

    Boy did she wanna take my free cupcake away. ha

    Brad

  119. Jim Wilton on July 3rd, 2009 5:28 pm

    Generosity and fundraising is a big subject and probably deserves its own thread.

    I had an opportunity to see Wangdor R. in Easthampton, MA last weekend. He was quite wonderful with the best translator I have ever seen. And he did use the three envelope approach. He also offered people the opportunity to sponsor monks and others needing support in his community (cost — $240 / year). The solicitation to give was very low tech. If you wanted to give he thumbed through a sheaf of papers, selected one and handed you a page with a name and address and a short description of the person (some of them handwritten) and maybe a photograph. The instructions were just to mail a check to the person — no 501(c)(3) organization, no overhead, no tax deduction. Very wonderful.

    However, I don’t think you can generalize. Wangdor R. has no organization, no centers, etc. Certainly other teachers have done it differently. CTR, for example, said that everyone should pay “dues”. And he would conduct fund raisers.

    Complaints by practitioners about the cost of programs often seem to me to be very narrowly focused on what the complaining practitioner thinks they can afford, the fact that someone else is putting upon them — and it sometimes seems an excuse not to go to a program (”It’s their fault for charging too much.”). Somehow the complaint would seem more generous if the concern were about others having access.

    Boston Shambhala Center has a “pay what you can” policy — which is just what it says. However, there is a set program price and most people pay that. Lodro Rinzler started the program when he was director in Boston. I was initially very skeptical, but I have since been persuaded that it works. Other centers such as Karme Choling also have discounts (which you have to ask for) or opportunities to attend programs through staffing or other ways of giving.

    I think the best policy is a “pay more than you can policy”, if you are inspired. Giving is an amazing thing. The most mind-blowing teaching on giving that I have ever read was in a book by Tulku Urgyen R. He was asked why he started his monastery at Nagi Gompa. In replying, he didn’t say anything about spreading the dharma, providing students with a place to practice, or anything else that you might expect. Instead, he said, (paraphrasing) “I started Nagi Gompa because whenever three monastics are gathered together it creates an opportunity for people to give that creates tremendous merit.” Then he said, “And it doesn’t matter if the monks misuse or abscond with the gifts — that is their business. Just the giving is important.”

  120. rita ashworth on July 4th, 2009 6:42 am

    “Some of the kids who are as old as a good number of VCTR’s first students were when the shit first hit the fan, and with whom I spend a considerable amount of time, see it feel it and don’t particularly like it but they’re kids and despite trying they don’t often come up with adequate answers/solutions to their malaise. Echoes, dittos. Dot.”

    Re your above comment Brad, I feel an article coming up -perhaps you could interview these ‘kids’ and really explain to the general population the zeitgeist of the moment perhaps what you find out may be more relevant to the way that people want to take the teachings forward than the above discussions the acharyas are having – worth a few words and investigation I think.

    Re older students I myself have not felt a generation gap in my whole life people are just people. In Manchester at least tho I now doubt London the art of conversation is not dead in fact people gossip alot up here – I have two hundred year old women stepping into my lift occassionally and they are still engaged with life, conversation as we know it.

    Re sitting in CTRS lap myself I think it is the other way round CTR is sitting in our lap – it is slightly crazy, like an infection that has entered your
    system. I think I remember Allen Lyon saying at my seminary or some talk
    in London that devotion was something like catching a cold. You could also say that CTR was an ET figure – something alien in an ego fueled world that people were alternately amused and frightened by.

    Aka fundraising and the like I am not complaining about finances – I am complaining about reaching people that want to hear these teachings and have to have an argy-bargy about money all the time…….there has to be ways just found to do things off the bat maybe without thinking the finances through. Auspicious coincidence comes through here I think – did not Sumedho just get his monastery when he met someone in a park in London, also in my own locality people were just given a centre out of the blue. Also here comes the question of the media -people just gossiping about these teachings maybe on cable tv in the states and Canada.

    I dont know whether SI has reached its sell by date -but just look at the org
    -large land centres it has to maintain in faraway places that the proles cant get to easily-centres in towns that need peoples dues not that I am against dues but centres that rely on these means of raising money are not entering into the wider community-they are not hitting the wider community. What does the locality outside of your doors require – that is the way the focus should be.

    Re the Sakyong………think I drifted, shifted out of his way primarily because of Robin Kornman’s comment of him and others being CTRs lineage holders. What did he mean – its a very deep comment? So yes I would say stop faffing about curricula and find out what your good ol neighbour -that Xtian ideal- wants, needs. O yes and gossip more not less.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK

  121. brad on July 4th, 2009 4:21 pm

    Rita: kids at large, not Shambhala kids, at college we attend. I’m the old sometimes loudmouthed weirdo interloper in art history class and etc…

    They’ll do it. Media mindstream very very very strong these days but they’ll figure. Can’t any longer really make anything happen on newspapers and tv news. They gotta do what Ginsberg called their “celestial homework.” The next revolution takes place in the kitchen, waiting for the subway, didn’t mean to fall asleep on the sofa, the arsenal stacked high on the bedside table, what’s now revolution potency reading books, that antique activity…

    Several different ways to know poetry is a sadhana (whatever the hell a sadhana is)

    SI kids, same more or less I’d guess, GesarM makes movies, the Spanish lama makes movies, (I make (bad) movies, ha) DzongsarKR leads them. Not a worry you should need, kagyu’s gonna be jussssfine. e-mail me, let’s talk longer, i’d like to.

  122. rita ashworth on July 6th, 2009 8:18 am

    Brad thanks for comment back. I will probably email you longer when I think about what you have said a little more.

    But briefly I am organising an event for Bill Karelis in Manchester at this time and that has taken up most of my free time -but I would like to share some brief experiences that I havehad in the organising of the event.
    I have been going round the northern quarter of Manchester which isalternative area of the city and I have been amazed by what young people are doing there -there are several cafes that have been opened by them in basements and they are doing well -mostly they are connected with the music scene because Manchester has a major place in popular music aka Morrisey and the like but they are also into alternative stuff re health,yoga and meditation. So organising this visit has been a revelation in the sense of getting to know what is happening in the city. Perhaps just
    one thought you could get an event going with young people in your college-meditation and the arts……maybe a discussion group on that.

    How does above relate to the curricula thing -well I think curricula should be constructed which empowers people to do their own thing in the world.
    As my philosophy teacher said I know I will have taught you what I can teach you when they make me redundant when I can teach you no more.
    Andthat spark of education comes when the students start attacking you and your org or you personally……you have created some fire in them. So the Shambhala curricula has to be that fire not the creation of simple
    conformity and learning stuff just because the Sakyong/Acharyas say this has to be the case -you need to dismantle everything allow the people in your class room to do that if you are all to find true wisdom and knowledge.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK

  123. Jim Wilton on July 6th, 2009 4:10 pm

    Rita, this is a difficult point. The trouble is that while everyone has tatagathagarba or basic goodness, those of us on the path recognize that we have a lot of habits that prevent us from seeing clearly. So we have to trust in a teacher and we have to choose our teachers carefully — generally based on an intuitive sense of connection and trust as well as examining the teacher’s lineage and credentials.

    Once we choose, it is best to be very careful about questioning the teacher.

    This is not to say that your kids in Manchester don’t seem great. However, they aren’t on a path yet (or at least not a path that is associated with a lineage).

    So, I don’t agree that the Shambhala curriculum should encourage students to “do their own thing”. The curriculum — like all Buddhist teachings — should encourage students neither to accept nor to reject the teachings, but to understand them.

  124. brad on July 7th, 2009 2:44 am

    Rita, we have as much art as we can handle, school is fast, wild, mundane, like school is, chiseling out the freedom thru intense sometimes crushing discipline. I agree w/you, some of the kids are seaching, tunneling, plowing hard thru it, looking looking.

    There are meditation groups. Bible study groups too. (That’s the rub…)

    John, I think what Rita might have meant was that practice cracks you open into yourself, and outward everywhere in every direction, but you remain yourself. I recall VCTR’s comment about Gary Snyder that he presented himself as a “finished Zen product”, and how absurd that is, how it’s just another ensemble of personality. I think Rita meant there’s an empowerment that occurs, a focus and you move into yourself to act. I do agree with you we have to choose the people that lead us but I also disagree with you. Dharma leads; distrust in the speaker might make us wobble, individually, but.

    Treasures are treasured, but honestly who cares if nobody teaches varjayogini the same way? It’s going to take a hundred years before Rinpoche’s teahcings are even half absorbed into the canon of public talk much less understood by many of the intensely conservative Tibetan representatives that presently operate.

    Unaccomplished. Finally human. Let people be human.

  125. Edward on July 7th, 2009 11:08 am

    As a would-be citizen of Shambhala, I have to say it’s tacky and small-minded to say studying the Bible is inherently bad. There are foolish people who study the Bible, but perhaps not everyone who studies Buddhism is perfect either? Is Buddhism even one thing, or is a complex animal with countless interpretations?

    I think this thread was originally about Mipham Rinpoche’s plans to further change how the Shambhala Teachings are presented to the world, in course curricula and so on. Wasn’t it?

    Some of CTR’s students asked some good questions in this thread, about whether Mipham Rinpoche’s students feel any desire to preserve CTR’s language, what he specifically meant by the term “cocoon” and so on.

    I think, based on the responses, that the answer is that they would like to preserve the facade of CTR’s “legacy”, but that their main goal is to feel that they are good students of Mipham Rinpoche. Which means that it’s literally impossible for them to conceive of questioning his actions.

    If CTR suggested that people give Mipham Rinpoche “advice” or play an “advisory role” when they feel he’s going off course, that doesn’t apply to Mipham Rinpoche’s own students, because they’re not looking to CTR as their primary guru. They look to CTR as someone who “empowered” Mipham Rinpoche, but Mipham Rinpoche is the one who gives them guidance.

    Any discussion about preserving CTR’s teachings will seem to take place out in the open, using plain English and so on, but it won’t actually happen because of the filtering mechanisms that people use when they have a “guru”. Everything gets filtered through what is allowable to think or say. Occasionally someone will be provoked into anger, but generally your questions will simply go unanswered.

    Or someone will pretend to have a discussion, but will refuse to acknowledge that CTR could have meant something different by “cocoon” than SMR, and refuse to acknowledge that the difference is actually important. Intensely friendly but fake discussion.

    That’s my take on this discussion about new curriculum. If others disagree, please enlighten me.

    Personally, I find a lot of inspiration in CTR’s published teachings, and I’m grateful to the people who work to preserve those teachings. Thank you.

  126. Edward on July 7th, 2009 11:18 am

    And really, that’s what’s similar about Bible study and Buddhist guru-devotion.

    Similar traps one can fall into… n’est-ce pas?

  127. rita ashworth on July 7th, 2009 12:29 pm

    Yes the philosophy of education is a big construct in itself.

    Re the interaction between vajrayana student and teacher -its always up to the student whether he/she jumps to the gurus command – not saying I would not do that in fact in my ‘dreams’ I have done it and perhaps sometimes in poems or maybe some actions in my life also too.

    Maybe I am trying to recreate those situations with older students outside of the present mandala -why? Because I find the present non-questioning of what is going on boring. When Trungpa was alive I could maybe clue into that ‘command’ more -do you know that when Trungpa died alot of us at the London Shambhala Centre had dreams about the event before it happened -my dream I was trying to get on a plane to Halifax and I had such deja vu feelings about the place when I did eventually visit.

    Anyway I digress -returning to the curricula I dont think we should walk tepidly round the guru and act like some blank ’slave’……and if something does happen with the guru we may go into a totally different direction than the several thousand orgs that we are involved in……..in the west for example we have St Francis of Assisi going from becoming a warrior to a monk in the east we have Milarepa going from being a black magician to being a hermit.

    We should reflect on everything that happens/occurs with the teacher otherwise we are going to sleep. What are all the conventional debates about in Tibetan monasteries for example? Therefore a curricula that is constructed should empower the student to come into his/her own fundamental clarity which is inevitably that of the gurus aswell. How could you put that into the conventional curricula that SI is evolving or even into western education? I think that was the fire that I was talking about.

    Perhaps SI should have debates with philosophy of education lecturers in the west -that would make interesting reading. Do these curricula evolving people really know what they are doing anyhow – you need some critics questioning them also……anyway think that is enough.

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK

  128. Davee on July 7th, 2009 12:39 pm

    I really don’t think “cocoon” is being redefined; and i seriously doubt i hold that view out of devotion, just discernment. Are there other terms that you think are not respected properly? I’d like to hear more specifics.

  129. Howard Harawitz on July 7th, 2009 1:08 pm

    All of this discourse seems, er, discursive to me. I always felt that the essence of Chogyam Trungpa’s presentation of “the teachings” was in who he was. For me, his presence and genuine desire to give himself to us had much more impact than the verbal content of his talks. I usually left his talks feeling that “something” had been communicated but would have been hard pressed to say exactly what it was. Some of that comes through in videos and even in old audio recordings. No matter who his successor was I would have been disappointed. The way I see it there really is no blame here.

  130. rita ashworth on July 7th, 2009 1:49 pm

    howard

    yes it is discursive -but when the verbal content and the presence of guru are there its crystal clear…..how would you develop a curricula with that flavour…..the people devising the curricula would have to be very sharp -Are they very sharp?- I dont know -thats why you have to have critics surrounding them….thats education too. So I will write no more tonight -thats me for tonight

    best

    rita ashworth
    stockport uk

  131. Edward on July 7th, 2009 2:06 pm

    I really like what Mr. Harawitz said about CTR’s presence. I think I know just what you mean.

    At this point I think the bottom line question is whether CTR’s death is a workable situation or not. He seemed to feel everything was workable, even his own “boss”’s death. But whether we see things that way is another question.

    Do we still want to work on creating enlightened society, and if so, how do we go about it?

    When I encounter people who do have this desire, I feel some of the same feeling that I feel when I listen to CTR’s audio recordings.

  132. Martin Fritter on July 7th, 2009 2:25 pm

    This was posted on sadakha-talk recently. Very germane to the topic:.

    I clicked on the referenced hyperlink — a confusing chart showing the latest version of the path.
    _________________________________________________________

    According to Acharya Lobel, speaking at the Teacher’s Academy at Karme Choling last week, here’s the new path structure:

    A student doesn’t have to be a Buddhist until Vajrayana seminary. After Vajrayana Seminary, the path goes through all of the Scorpion Seal– Shambhala ngondro, Rigden abhisheka, the four open retreats, and the four solitary retreats. After that, you meet with the Sakyong one- on- one and decide individually if Werma will be your only life practice, or if you’re going on to the Kagyu or Nyingma practices, starting with their ngondro, and then Vajrayogini, Chakrasamvara, Vajrakilaya, etc.

    So, no one is going to Rigden Abhisheka who isn’t a Buddhist.

    Of course, as people point out, everything is impermanent, but that’s what it is right now.

    Here’s the basic path, up to Vajrayana Seminary:

    http://www.shambhala.org/members/ps/wos/documents/New_Path_chart-may09-2.pdf

  133. Barbara Blouin on July 7th, 2009 2:55 pm

    Martin,

    What you have passed on from sadhaka talk is much too important to let it go as a comment in a very long thread. Are you willing and/or able to let RFS know the author of this comment (you can write to me at bblouin@eastlink.ca if you find this venue too public). I don’t know your e-mail address.

    Interestingly, Adam Lobel sent me the link, showing the structure of the Sakyong’s path, months ago, but someone else in the hierarchy forbade me to use it!

    Barbara

  134. Christine Baranay on July 7th, 2009 6:06 pm

    Dear Martin,

    I wonder if you could clarify which part(s) of the chart you found confusing (the chart you provided a link for).

    I didn’t find it confusing – so I wonder if you could expand on your comment. I’m interested in what you don’t like about the way it’s laid out.

    Not the content, as I believe your disagreements and those of others have been made clear in this thread. Just the schematic itself.

    Thanks –

    Christine

  135. Martin Fritter on July 7th, 2009 6:32 pm

    Sure Christine,

    There are five ovals, two on the left and three on the right. They are in four different colors. Why different colors? Two have asterisks at the start of their titles. Why? They overlap. Why? Should one assume that these programs or events are optional?

    Why is there a double-ended arrow connecting WOSI and “Front Door and Community Programs?”

    So there’s a lot of cognitive noise and dead-end graphical cues.

    There are four pages, but only one has any content.

    Plus, these things should be dated and authorial attribution given. .

    You might enjoy the work of the great Edward Tufte – http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/index

  136. damchö on July 7th, 2009 7:12 pm

    I’d like to pose as a question something I’ve only mentioned before in passing. I did so once with a senior teacher in Shambhala, but the 1 or 2 sentence response I received really wasn’t clear to me. Anyone’s view is welcome.

    The question is: why are Kagyu and Nyingma lineage holders disappearing from centre shrines? And isn’t this a non-trivial, indeed serious matter?

    I ask this because my introduction to Tibetan Buddhism came through the writings of Trungpa Rinpoche, who emphasized the absolutely crucial importance of lineage everywhere. One day I entered the main shrineroom of a land centre to see above the shrine only a father and son. No Karmapa, no Dilgo Khyentse. No Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche or Suzuki Roshi. Am I the only one quite confused by this?

    I ask this question also in light of a transcribed talk of the Sakyong’s from a few years ago, while on his Scorpion Seal retreat:

    “It is time to reflect on the vast inheritance we have and realize that none of it must be left behind. We are unique because we are mixing the Nyingma and the Kagyü traditions, as well as the terma of the Druk Sakyong, as well as the practices of Gesar of Ling, and finally the Kalachakra tantra. These five lineages have prominent roles in what we call Shambhala Buddhism. We must contemplate how to gather together our legacy and bring it forward.

    It is vital that we practice all of the great lineages that we have inherited and hold. We must practice the siddhi-accomplishing lineage of the Kagyü, wherein lie unique meditation practices and the deity of Chakrasamvara, the teaching on Buddha nature, and the tantra of Hevajra, all thoroughly understood. We must practice the Great Perfection, the highest among all views, the original tantra brought to Tibet by Padmasambhava and propagated under the benevolent dharma king Trisong Detsen. We must thoroughly accomplish Vajrakilaya, the sister tantra to the primordial Ashe. We must understand the essence of the eighteen tantras by studying the Guyagharba Tantra, finally receiving the quintessential instructions on the nature of mind and awareness.”

    Thank you for your thoughts.

  137. Andrew Safer on July 7th, 2009 7:21 pm

    What I find amazing is that, in this new scheme, what is supposedly the pinnacle of the Shambhala teachings (Scorpion Seal) is only accessible to Buddhists (now, there’s a switcheroo!)…and only to Buddhists who have received abhisheka from this Sakyong.

  138. Christine Baranay on July 7th, 2009 7:43 pm

    Thanks Martin. While I thought that the schematic was clear – I can see from your answers that indeed there are things which are not explained.

    With the link you provided I was only able to get the schematic not the other three pages you mention. Your expression “cognitive noise” is quite the interesting phrase — I just might “borrow” it :)

    I agree that authorship should be given.

    Thank you for the link to Edward Tufte – I’ll spend some time going over it.

    Best,
    Christine

  139. Edward on July 7th, 2009 11:29 pm

    There are five ovals, two on the left and three on the right. They are in four different colors. Why different colors? Two have asterisks at the start of their titles. Why? They overlap. Why? Should one assume that these programs or events are optional?

    This description reminds me of the whole whatever-it-is, as a whole. Let’s dissolve the kingdom of Shambhala, get rid of it, and replace it with a brand-new form of Buddhism, BUT let’s keep a job with the title of “sakyong”.

    How can there be a Sakyong if there is no Shambhala, and what is this job anyway in this new world, what’s the new job description? Is there a book or a website somewhere that helps explain this?

    Maybe there’s a diagram?

    This question has been bothering me since forever, but I’ve felt too shy to ask it; it’s like it’s too obvious to ask. I feel like I’m the only one who’s not in on some joke.

  140. Tsondru Garma on July 8th, 2009 12:26 pm

    Edward,

    I appreciate your attempt to describe the overall liminal effect these things have had on our psyches.

  141. rita ashworth on July 8th, 2009 1:11 pm

    re the new shambhala buddhism path -so what was two traditions running parallel to each other has now turned into a hierarchical tradition leading to Buddhism Absolute….pay your way through this lot and I am sure you will be enticed to be come a Buddhist…..who could not refuse it …myself I think its daft, exclusive, extreme and tiring -before you even get to ask for the kagyu ngondro you have to have done this four year thing with the
    Sakyong….that would surely bind people to SMR, even if you had doubts along the way and is it really necessary for these dark retreats….its seems
    like the overplaying of the hand the Sakyong holds.

    Actually now for sure I can see way people are jumping overboard into their own things if this is the best SI can evolve.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK

  142. Suzanne Duarte on July 8th, 2009 3:39 pm

    damchö asked: “The question is: why are Kagyu and Nyingma lineage holders disappearing from centre shrines? And isn’t this a non-trivial, indeed serious matter?

    “I ask this because my introduction to Tibetan Buddhism came through the writings of Trungpa Rinpoche, who emphasized the absolutely crucial importance of lineage everywhere. One day I entered the main shrineroom of a land centre to see above the shrine only a father and son. No Karmapa, no Dilgo Khyentse. No Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche or Suzuki Roshi. Am I the only one quite confused by this?”

    damchö, you aren’t the only one confused and troubled by the removal of these lineage photos. I’ve also brought this up elsewhere on RFS.

    Edward said: “Let’s dissolve the kingdom of Shambhala, get rid of it, and replace it with a brand-new form of Buddhism, BUT let’s keep a job with the title of “sakyong”.

    “How can there be a Sakyong if there is no Shambhala, and what is this job anyway in this new world, what’s the new job description? Is there a book or a website somewhere that helps explain this?

    “Maybe there’s a diagram?

    “This question has been bothering me since forever, but I’ve felt too shy to ask it; it’s like it’s too obvious to ask. I feel like I’m the only one who’s not in on some joke.”

    Edward, you aren’t the only one who isn’t in on some ‘joke.’

    Thanks to both of you for your questions. I also appreciate this question from Edward: “Do we still want to work on creating enlightened society, and if so, how do we go about it?”

  143. John Castlebury on July 8th, 2009 4:24 pm

    YANKEE DOODLE DHARMA

    When harmony is an opiate of heresy
    When desire for harmony doesn’t harmonise
    When quote harmony unquote means more harm
    Than good and one simply cannot buy it
    Then one is between a rock and a hard place
    One is a square peg facing a round hole
    Such harmony could be shotgun matrimony
    Such harmony makes good hot cereal of grits
    Such harmony is permapress: never needs irony
    Is harmony one’s prerogative: column A or B
    Is it like discretionary income:
    Our money no object
    Is harmony a line one must toe, or else
    Can harmony be squeezed from a stone
    When is harmony harmony in name only
    Harmony inside is an oak peg in hard ground
    Harmony decreed, an opaque leap of faith
    In power seized: an iron curtain
    In one breath scolded to keep one’s promise
    Next told how to do this notwithstanding
    In defiance of that same promise
    The very idea: harmony by hook or by crook
    This cronyism is anachronism and erroneous
    Unless one is in the market for a messiah
    As if one could corner the market on harmony
    Pardon me but such harmony sounds abominable
    Ought we obey a slapstick burlesque of harmony
    Are we supposed to stick a feather in our cap
    And call it macaroni

    [Dawa Choga composed this poem in the winter at the height of the TCS scandal, and offers it here not as a flashback down Memory Lane but as a meditation on harmony to help ease our current disharmony [OCD]: May it be harmonious! That was then; this is now! Let there be harmony!]

  144. damchö on July 8th, 2009 7:35 pm

    Thanks for your meditation on harmony John, and for your other poems.

    A comment: I think Buddhists may be a little prone to forget that power relations are also part of the picture. (I’m not saying your poem does this; it’s just a reflection which has come out of the process of reading and thinking about it.) Obviously, power affords certain unhealthy possibilities–just as lack of power does. It’s an old dichotomy with many variations, isn’t it? The yippies thought the hippies were lost contemplating their navels; the hippies thought the yippies needed to step back from their political / social engagements and find a bigger perspective. Etc.

    We do often become unbalanced–not working sufficiently diligently on ourselves on the one hand, or becoming passive with regard to working with external conditions on the other. We also I think find ourselves taking one or the other of these “sides” in particular situations, becoming polarized. But this isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes something is being missed and a good vigorous debate, undertaken with openness and friendliness, is helpful. *However*, power dynamics often short-circuit necessary discussion. Power has various tools at its disposal for doing this, often subtle ones. Peer pressure and intimidation, carrots and sticks, and (a highly favoured one of Shambhala) simple ignoring.

    Completely ignoring the concerns and needs of others–especially when they are presented directly and unambiguously to you–is a deeply undharmic action, isn’t it? What is “unharmonious” here is that ignoring.

    I feel this is worth saying more often than it is, especially in the Shambhala sangha. So often within Shambhala straightforward appeals are made and are met with some kind of tricky, would-be “inscrutable” comment or (more usually) silence. The sangha in this sense is, I feel, a little top-heavy with regard to the 4 dignities. So many people seem to want to demonstrate their attainment by imitating Trungpa Rinpoche’s (inimitable) style of teaching, instead of sticking to the perhaps less glamorous but usually more appropriate practice of…ordinary softhearted kindness and decency. This sangha has always had an issue with impatience there, with wanting to in a sense leap over Meek, and Pacifying.

    Just my one-and-a-half cents.

  145. Worst Horse on July 8th, 2009 9:07 pm

    “No Karmapa, no Dilgo Khyentse. No Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche or Suzuki Roshi.”

    Um, I am a student of the Sakyong. The Vidydhara is to me a Grandfather and I think he’d be pleased with that.

    I have pictures most of these folks above on and above my shrine at home. I should get a Suzuki Roshi. I started as a Zen-ster in Berkeley. Also KentingTai Situ (I got it from his very hands at Palpung Sherab Ling), the new Karmapa (Ditto: Gyuto Dharamsala), Osel Tensdzin (I never met him but I have had the fortune to watch his vajravajra dharma on video a bunch) and Pema Chodron (Who is the reason I am here today). Not to mention all the deities I have been connected to through the activities of Shambhala and the Sakyong: the Primordial Rigden, The Kagyu Lineage, Vajrasattva, Vajrayogini, Chakrasamvara, Gesar, and… THREE pictures of the Vidydhara: one as the Dorje Dradul, one as 1970’s loverman and the “official” one, and three of the Sakyong, tantrika-special, relaxed and official…

    (I was partly inspired by the video of the Sakyong visiting ther retreatants at Surmang whose shrine was plastered with photos of teachers…)

    But it would be crazy to have that at a Center.

    (I am quite aware that my shrine has become somewhat ridiculous and pretty soon I will take it all down. Because if they are not in my heart soon what will I do do when I die without warning?)

    But then again…

    A lot of the comments on this site seem pretty batty!

  146. damchö on July 8th, 2009 10:22 pm

    Hi Worst Horse,

    I think it’s wonderful you have so many teachers on your shrine. As far as I’m concerned, the more genuine masters you feel a connection to that you can fit up there, the better.

    But with regard to Shambhala centres, a decision was actually made to take down pictures of lineage holders who had always graced shrines in this sangha. This was an active choice. Why was it made?

  147. damchö on July 8th, 2009 10:25 pm

    Maybe I should explain why I find it troubling.

    One of the things lineage represents to me is a quality of protection and authenticity. Another, closely related to this, is continuity. A third is, in a sense, impersonality. And a fourth is, ultimately, non-sectarianism.

    To illustrate all of these taken together: gazing up at a shrine which contains the faces of, say, Trungpa Rinpoche, the Sakyong, the Karmapa, and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, what is being communicated to me? I would say the following:

    The Sakyong holds the lineages of his father, who received the streams of Kagyu and Nyingma teachings from particular individuals, particular lineage holders. Continuity with the historical and spiritual source of Tibetan Buddhism and the Buddha is thus asserted in a direct, straightforward way: we go back through these two specific lines of Kagyu and Nyingma, all the way. Likewise, no one figure stands above any other as some kind of ultimate source (no suggestion of a human God up there), and no one school or sect is being represented as its own separate thing. Finally, there is some kind of checks-and-balances system in place (and for example when the 16th Karmapa visited America, Trungpa Rinpoche treated him as in a sense his “boss”).

    To me the shrine now is saying something radically new. It is saying that everything goes back a mere single generation, to Trungpa Rinpoche. It is saying: we are unique, we are not really answerable to any other living human beings. In conjunction with the assertion of hereditary lineage in perpetuity it is also saying: this is about the Mukpo family. It is saying this more immediately than it is saying: this is about Buddhism, or even Shambhalian Buddhism.

    I’m not just speaking for myself, but for several people I spoke to over the course of a recent Paranirvana weekend, relatively new to Tibetan Buddhism, who saw only the father and son, heard the numerous references to the three weddings of the Sakyong and Sakyong Wangmo, and to the Mukpos in general, heard the Shambhala Anthem sung 4 or 5 times, saw all the military uniforms and the military march to the shrine, and did in fact ponder and utter that 4-letter word…the one which always produces a kind of Pavlovian chuckle and dismissal (as if Shambhala members stand alone amongst all human beings who have ever lived in being immune even to the *temptations* of spiritual materialism and corruption, arrogance, hubris, and so on).

    Really, my post was just inviting someone to explain the quite radical and provocative decision to say: no other representative of Tibetan Buddhism or Buddhism in general will grace our shrines anymore, just the Mukpo family. I’m sorry if you find this request “batty”. It is made out of genuine confusion and concern.

  148. Davee on July 8th, 2009 11:26 pm

    I heard clear explanations on the changes to the shrine, when the changes were made. but forget all the details. I’m afraid I don’t have good citations for the logic, perhaps in the resources that explain the new thangka? The change was made in concert with the Rigden thangka change and combining the two separate shrines into one, as I recall.

    As my poor memory recalls, though, the basic idea was to combine the two separate shrines and in doing that one might highlight the most common or binding principles, which would be the more lha/heaven principles: therefore crystal and more simplicity in the shrine overall. The general idea was accommodating the diversity in the sangha, perhaps by removing the specific symbolism of a particular path, and instead use the most central aspects.

    I’m just bummed we don’t have the blinking rope lights that surround some modern tibetan shrines. Bling!

  149. Edward on July 9th, 2009 12:17 am

    The Sakyong holds the lineages of his father, who received the streams of Kagyu and Nyingma teachings…

    I thought Mipham Rinpoche held only the Sakyong lineage from his father, strictly speaking, and that the Buddhist lineage was held by VROT. Because I thought that, in his great wisdom, VCTR chose to divide his power between multiple successors and positions, including that of the Druk Sakyong Wangmo.

    But perhaps this is a simplistic and inaccurate understanding on my part. Would you mind clarifying this a bit more?

    Also, was VCTR eager to have his eldest son proclaimed as a Buddhist tulku? I seem to remember reading something about this.

  150. damchö on July 9th, 2009 2:23 am

    Edward: I guess I too am unclear about the question you raise, not having really considered it. I was putting it that way out of habit I suppose, and don’t have any actual knowledge there. Maybe someone else can comment?

    Davee, thanks. What you say about bringing together the two shrines and creating an effect of greater simplicity makes sense to me, certainly given the standpoint of “Shambhalian Buddhism”. I appreciate your explanation of this.

    Still… Shambhala definitely still presents itself as part of the Buddhist, specifically the Tibetan Buddhist, tradition. And yet it has been cutting itself off more and more from that larger sangha. Making itself more, and yet more, exclusive. Given the Sakyong’s words I quoted in an earlier post, I don’t understand this. But more importantly, it strikes me as quite a risky development in various ways.

  151. Howard Harawitz on July 9th, 2009 9:32 am

    RE:
    “No Karmapa, no Dilgo Khyentse. No Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche or Suzuki Roshi.”

    See also, “No eye, no ear, no nose, no mouth…” , etc.

  152. Christine Baranay on July 9th, 2009 10:02 am

    Shrine comments:

    There is a very clear and precise explanation about the Rigden Shrine and all the questions about the other shrines found in the members section of Shambhala.org —

    In fact, many of the questions raised on this board can be found in the members section of Shambhala.org.

    Gaining access to this section is very simple. Just ask, say where you are a member and a password is sent.

    IF the rub is — you might no longer be a member OR don’t want to be — then that is another story.

    Questions are raised on this board often have answers found easily on Shambhala.org, Shambhalatimes or the member section of Shambhala.org.

    Many websites have a broad public section and a members section. This is acceptable and not viewed by the general public as odd.

    Recently Acharya Lobel wrote a wonderful article about Shambhala: Inner, Outer and Secret. This can be found on Shambhalatimes.org and is well worth reading.

    With warmth,
    Christine

  153. damchö on July 9th, 2009 12:27 pm

    Thanks Christine. I’m not an official member, so I don’t have access. I have however taken a great many programs within Shambhala, thus supporting the sangha with quite a bit of money over the years, along with voluntary work. In fact I’ve given more in program fees than basic membership dues would reach in roughly 100 years. This doesn’t seem to entitle me to receiving these kinds of explanations, but that is just the way things are set up.

    More to the point though, I’m really just writing as an ordinary concerned Buddhist, concerned person. If as you say very clear answers to my questions have been given, I feel I should be able to hear them, but so far I haven’t. The acharya I asked about this simply said (this is nearly word-for-word I believe): “well it’s just that Shambhala has over time become enough of its own thing, gone sufficiently its own way, that it was felt the shrine should now reflect this state of affairs”.

    For me however the answer still begs the question: what has happened to lineage? Is Shambhala still part of the Buddhist world, and the Tibetan Buddhist world, or not? If so, then going one’s own way, as I believe Trungpa Rinpoche spoke about often, isn’t actually possible, and is a dangerous business over the long haul.

  154. Martin Fritter on July 9th, 2009 1:14 pm

    SMR received the Shambhala Lineage from his father. As pointed out, the lineage holder for the Buddhist teachings was the Regent and we know what happened there.

    At some point after Trungpa, Rinpoche’s death and the start of the troubles with the Regent, and in fact, probably after the Regent’s death, Khyentze, Rinpoche urged us to accept the then Sawang, Osel Mukpo, as the head of Vajradhatu and the Nalanda Foundation. This would have been around the time Diana Mukpo moved to Hawaii.

    The Sawang then moved to Nepal to continue training with Khyentze and received further training from Penor, Rinpoche. It was Penor who recognized him as the incarnation of Mipham and who enthroned him as Sakyong in Halifax.

    I was out of the administration for quite awhile at this point and had given up my teaching responsibilities. My recollection of the events of these times is rather fuzzy. A detailed chronology would be very interesting.

    In retrospect, it’s amazing the organization survived all the turmoil. SMR inherited something very close to closing down and fraught with conflict. Bringing it back from the brink has been no mean feat.

  155. Jake on July 9th, 2009 9:16 pm

    Here’s how I see it right now. And btw, the Kagyu and Nyingma masters are still up in NYC…

    Shambhala training is not being ruined by “Shambhala Buddhism” or the new curriculum. It seems pretty strong. As a Shambhalian, I’m happy about that. The new curriculum, so far, aims to Shambhalianize the Buddhism. Terrible idea (like stuffed crust pizza), but less distressing to me than Buddhifying Shambhala training.

    I think there are still many good things about the centers, at least my home center.

    I think if programs are being taught incorrectly, as the given practitioner sees it, he or she should try to teach through SI, or outside of it. What’s wrong with starting your own group, if the motivation is good, and your understanding is good?

    Maybe this isn’t the best way, but I find it appealing; do it yourself, hands on, no need for major organizations at this point, just dedicated practitioners teaching what they love and practice.

  156. Nyima Wimberly on July 10th, 2009 3:28 am

    I have found immense benefit and relief in practice. This is the “foot of meditation.” Let’s all see if we can do good.
    Samantabhadra, baby!
    May all our merit be dedicated to the enlightenment of this great society.

  157. Christine Baranay on July 10th, 2009 11:05 am

    (apologies to others who know this but there is no way that I am aware of to answer privately someone’s posted comment — thus a comment perhaps only pertinent to one person goes to the whole board)

    Damcho — most centers have a recommended monthly membership which varies greatly depending on the area and size of the center; however, as far as I know there is always the possibility to become a member even if one isn’t able to afford the monthly fee — and I’ve heard of centers who will accept $5.00 as a monthly fee –

    The other 2 pieces of “membership” are — a commitment to a meditation practice and a willingness to volunteer at the center — in a greater to lesser capacity. (ROTA) –

    Therefore, frankly — membership is not impossible for probably most everyone and if someone lives too far from a center – then one can join Shambhala (International) and I’m unaware of a monthly “minimum”

    My point is — there is an enormous wealth of information available to members on the Shambhala website. Not the least of which is a search engine to find members AND their email addresses, if provided. It makes sense to me that certain areas are available to members only for a number of reasons. One of which is that the information would make zero sense to someone surfing the web.

    We can parse endlessly our opinions about lineage, photos, shrines etc but until one has read what is offered on the website and THEN disagrees with it — isn’t is just all a bunch of jaw flapping? :) :)

    Love,
    Christine

  158. John Tischer on July 10th, 2009 12:45 pm

    This site seems to exist, so far, in relationship to Shambhala.org as a
    sounding board and a forum for critique of the direction of said org.. I
    wonder if the discussion couldn’t evolve to explore ways in which those of
    us who find ourselves at odds with the current direction Shambhala is taking, to a broader discussion as to how we, as practitioners, could further our paths as well as cultivate enlightened society in our own ways, aside from declaring ourselves teachers, ( Reggie, Perks). To me, the debate about Shambhala, SMR, ect is wearing thin…which is a positive. What has helped me is discussion with senior students of VCTR about the direction my path is taking….that I’m not being disloyal to VCTR in finding another teacher, for example. Perhaps this site will evolve into something
    more than a complaint department. If not, it’s usefulness seems limited.

  159. damchö on July 10th, 2009 3:06 pm

    Thanks Christine.

    What you seem to be saying, if I understand correctly, is that no one in Shambhala is willing to explain to me why the Nyingma and Kagyu lineages are disappearing from the shrines in this sangha unless I officially pledge my allegiance to Shambhala. Is that more-or-less accurate? That my reverence for the teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche which led me to take many programs in the sangha, financially contributing in the process close to $6000 (equivalent to 120 years of dues at $50 per year), and also donating a great many hours in voluntary work, does not entitle me to an answer to this question. Please do correct me if I have misunderstood you, and I offer sincere apologies if this is the case.

    If I am being obtuse, I regret this, but given the nature of Tibetan Buddhism–the centrality of lineage and continuity and so on–I simply can’t see this change as a trivial decision. It’s quite a radical thing to do. It may also for all I know be a justifiable and wholly fine one. My instinct is that this isn’t the case, but this is why I am asking.

    The main issue for me–in this particular thread anyway–is this: does Shambhala still consider itself part of the worldwide Buddhist, and particularly Tibetan Buddhist, community? If so, which of the 4 main schools of Tibetan Buddhism does it belong to? Or is it going the way of the New Kadampa Tradition, the Aro Ter, the Diamond Way etc., each of whom has a single leader who has decided by himself to go his own way.

    Or, if Shambhala is instead saying: we are a brand-new, 5th Tibetan Buddhist school, then this raises other questions. For example, has the rest of the Tibetan Buddhist community recognized Shambhala as a 5th school, together with the 4 ancient ones (5 when Bön is counted of course)? Does the Dalai Lama now speak of: Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Gelugpa, Shambhala? I’m not aware that he does.

    Likewise, each of the ancient schools of Buddhism offers many gateways to the vajrayana. There are numerous teachers in each who can give empowerments and pointing-out instruction. In Shambhala everything goes through one man, and even people who are clearly genuine, long-term practitioners in other Tibetan traditions find themselves unwelcome in practice situations within Shambhala where this would simply not be an issue anywhere else.

    Requiring membership to get an answer to this kind of question makes no sense to me. And it’s a question many non-Shambhalian Buddhists are interested in too. People have various good reasons for not pledging their full allegiance to Shambhala. Everyone reveres this sangha in their own way; everyone contributes to the building of enlightened world in their own unique way. Is Shambhala really about treating non-members as second-class citizens?

  160. damchö on July 10th, 2009 3:11 pm

    ps–”isn’t it just all a bunch of jaw flapping?”

    I don’t think so, no. I think this website is one of the healthiest things to come along within the sangha in a long time.

  161. Christine Baranay on July 10th, 2009 3:43 pm

    Dear Damcho, Yes — I think you did misunderstand my INTENTION — perhaps not my words. My intention was to point to a place where it is easy to find answers, I thought, to your questions.

    Your concerns go way beyond my own experience and personal understanding at this point. I am practically brand new to all of this as I’ve only started sitting 3 1/2 years ago.

    In any case, I haven’t any idea from whom or where you can get answers to your questions. Getting them from the members only section won’t work as they are more mundane answers, like what to put ON the shrine. Answers that work for me but clearly would not work for you.

    I had hoped I could be of some help but I can see that you are way out of my league.

    I wish you well in your search.

    Warmly,
    Christine

  162. Chris on July 10th, 2009 5:40 pm

    Dzogzar Rinpoche, Trangu Rinpoche, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Mingyur Rinpoche, Ponlop Rinpoche , Lama Wangdor Rinpoche, these are just a few of the teachers whose students are many former CTR students that moved on and have absolutely no conflict , in fact these teachers , have clarified CTR teachings, if anything.
    No conflict, and no regret. The only thing that becomes real clear, real soon is “what took me so long”?

    However, confusion and new age psychobabble mingling with dharma is an obstacle everywhere. All these teachers have their work cut out for them, and it is going to take someone stepping out like the Dongzar R did in his response posted here, to cut through all this confusion about what is authentic lineage and genuine dharma. The confusion is really cranking up and spiritual materialism is everywhere. We were very lucky to have a mahasiddha. I think its the main work of CTR students to cut through this confusion whereever we are and “not be afraid to be a fool”.

    The time of Buddhist sheepism has run rampant..

  163. John Tischer on July 10th, 2009 9:28 pm

    Great post, Chris, and I applaud you. Maybe it’s time to stop second guessing ourselves and move on in the path. The teachers you mentioned
    are authentic. One myth the Shambhala.org is promoting is that it has the answer for the dark age. That, to me, is bullshit.

  164. brad on July 10th, 2009 10:03 pm

    I promise I’ll give everyone a break after I flap my jaw this one last time. Promise promise.

    I’ve made a career of being discursive. I like it. One can wiggle into nooks and cracks one can;t get into being straight forward.

    Edward: I am certainly guilty of being ambiguous re: Bible studies, but not dismissive. So, to clarify: kids think religious activity is weird. Whether or not they do it. Like sex. They’re kids. (A good chunk of them won’t admit it if they do it or they think they want to do it or they think (good god forbid) they think it might touch them, open their hearts, that it might be GOOD.) It’s worth mentioning because the 60′/70’s folks here blazed forward whether something was weird or not and sometimes because it was.

    That’s cogent because convincing folks now (and kids are the best folks) to engage can carry a bit of an evangelical burden. How does that work, if you’re going to be successful?

    And ultimately that’s the big question here. I deeply appreciate Chris stating “We were very lucky to have a mahasiddha.”

    Finally, someone said it.

    I didn’t even know the guy and I cry because he’s dead.

    You all were extraordinarily lucky, you know who you are, beyond odds, like no bookie would have ever ever held that bet. What is clearly undeniably the case on this forum is that some people find themselves needing to be re-converted.

    It is also cogent to state the clear case that kids think religious activity is weird, stating it here, among voices and ears hat have deep and genuine concern, because 8000 people (a membership number thrown out) is not a lot of people. It’s a piss poor tiny small ass number of people. There’s more Quakers.

    I also deeply deeply appreciate Martin Fritter’s statement: “In retrospect, it’s amazing the organization survived all the turmoil. SMR inherited something very close to closing down and fraught with conflict. Bringing it back from the brink has been no mean feat.” Thank you Martin.

    Personally I think it’s astonishing that y’all survived The Great Poetry Wars (and the concurrent and hopelessly intertwined birth of Political Correctness.) In my mind the explosions of the Regent’s monkey business was a direct and full development of that critical conversation. The full fruition of it, actually.

    Ambiguity: why?

    Practice with Jon Kabbat Zinn. Roll the full catastrophe around in your mouth like a piece of hard candy.

    Lose a leg, or both. Have pancreatic cancer. Cut your thumbs off. Be utterly and irrevocably rejected by your family. Starve. And keep practicing.

    Again, I’m happy to talk with anyone about anything, you can find me at wll.wait@gmail.com.

  165. damchö on July 11th, 2009 12:29 am

    Thanks for your kind post Christine. I send you all good wishes in return.

  166. Howard Harawitz on July 11th, 2009 6:00 am

    RE:
    “… The confusion is really cranking up and spiritual materialism is everywhere. We were very lucky to have a mahasiddha. I think its the main work of CTR students to cut through this confusion whereever we are and ‘not be afraid to be a fool’.”

    Chris, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    Cheers,

    Howard

  167. John Castlebury on July 11th, 2009 4:52 pm

    [VCTR composed this at a “Vajrayogini feast at Karma Dzong Canada, 8 April 1983” and is among Rinpoche’s unpublished poetry:]

    HOW TO EAT WILD DREAM

    In empty valley of shunyata
    There rise millions of deer of luminosity –
    If one doesn’t cut one’s umbilical cord,
    Drinking nectar might turn into poison –

    Empty valley is full with deer –
    Catch them like a fish,
    Eat them like noodles –
    The joke is on you.

  168. Elizabeth Hale-Garland on July 15th, 2009 4:42 pm

    “Are you a religious type? Do you want to be a Buddhist? Or are you a nonreligious type and want to be a Shambhalian?”

    Those are not the only two possibilities. How about a christian AND a shambhalian? Choiceless for me. :)

  169. Rob Graffis on July 16th, 2009 5:17 am

    Rinpoche (Chogyam Trungpa) created a new slogan at 1981 Seminary when teaching Atisha’s slogan, which was humbleness is the dwelling place of our forefathers.
    I also recall Atisha teaching that we can change our life styles, change into robes, make declarations, make all kinds of gestures of renunciation, and so on and so forth, but the biggest, the most hardest and most difficult change, yet the most crucial and important change to make is to change one’s mind, and it is actually the major part of the path. If the Shambhala Buddhism curriculum works, that’s great. If it doesn’t work for some people, then do regular Buddhism. If that doesn’t work, do stictly Shambhala teachings. I guess what I’m trying to say is what works is what is important. Not arguing about what or who is right or wrong. I actually do appreciate reading some of the poems here. .

  170. Eric Spiegel on July 16th, 2009 3:03 pm

    Just returning from a very powerful and profound experience at the SMC Scorpion Seal retreat I see that I have been quoted here, so here is a note of clarification:

    “One person asked a question: What about the people who come here wanting to study Buddhadharma? (And in NY, there are many…) Eric Spiegal, an acharya, replied: They can go and study with Ponlop Rinpoche.”

    Aside from my name being misspelled, I may or may not have said that but it would have been in some context (of which I can think of a couple) but it doesn’t really sound like anything I would say without a wry humor inflection. However, I do believe Nalandabodhi teaches very good dharma, and obviously I believe Shambhala does as well.

    Regards to all,
    Eric

  171. Barbara Blouin on July 16th, 2009 3:13 pm

    I am surprised that Acharya Spiegel thinks RFS should be responsible for something that was NOT in the article itself, but in one of the 150 (so far) comments.

  172. Edward on July 16th, 2009 5:09 pm

    Elizabeth Hale-Garland: Thank you.

    Mr. Graffis writes:
    If that doesn’t work, do stictly Shambhala teachings. I guess what I’m trying to say is what works is what is important.

    I agree!

    Do you know of a place that the Shambhala teachings will be offered “strictly” as you say? Without the “blending” that Mr. Lobel described in his interview?

    Essentially, I would like to be able to invite people to sit together and study VCTR’s Shambhala teachings together for a weekend, and have it be open to folks of any religion or no religion. I don’t care if the person leading the organization is Asian or white or who knows what.

    I get the impression that SI is planning to exit this market, unambiguously, so perhaps someone else can take their place. I assume there would be no legal issue about offering Shambhala training from a different organization. Hopefully it’s just a matter of time until this becomes available.

    Perhaps a portion of the profits could be used to support Shambhala Archives or the CTR Legacy Project or something like that, and a space could be rented for the weekend to keep down overhead. Or perhaps done in people’s homes initially.

    This could be a very exciting venture– very creative, with a lot of people from different backgrounds coming together to celebrate warriorship.

    (Btw, I don’t have anything against SI– they just don’t seem to want to offer the product that I want to buy.)

  173. Davee on July 16th, 2009 5:38 pm

    Ms. Blouin: why would you think that? Looks like Acharya was specifically clarifying Ms. Stewart’s earlier comment.

  174. Edward on July 16th, 2009 6:12 pm

    You know, I met a guy at the last Shambhala Level I was at who had a good discipline with his speech. He just said exactly what he meant, without any wishy washy, double-mindedness.

    I had asked him what he thought about the blending of Shambhala and Buddhism, which I was confused by. He was a student of a different Rinpoche, and in the course of our discussion he’d mentioned that he did his devotions in Tibetan rather than English.

    Anyway, he said something like “Well, Trungpa Rinpoche was owned by other Rinpoches, owned by Tibetan Buddhism, so anything he created, like his Shambhala Training, is also so owned.”

    What I loved about his response was it was so fresh, simple, pure, uncensored. Innocent in a way. And very clean. There was no changing the subject, no dodging the question, just a very pure response.

    I thanked him for his response, though I was also reeling in shock that anyone would actually say such a thing!

    Now I feel grateful to him for being speaking so plainly.

  175. Edward on July 16th, 2009 6:19 pm

    I guess that brings up another question. When Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche announces that Shambhala will be folded into Buddhist studies programs, is he doing that in consultation with other Tibetan Rinpoches who do not like Shambhala Training?

    Or would that kind of question be impossible to answer, beyond sheer speculation?

    I don’t know anything about the politics involved in Tibetan Buddhism, though I’ve heard that back in Tibet, Rinpoches used to have really strong disagreements with each other at times, sometimes resulting in untimely deaths and so on.

    P.S. I don’t ask these things in order to make vague gossipy accusations… I’m just struggling to understand why an organization would withdraw itself from a large market of customers– i.e. people who are not Buddhist. I still don’t quite get this.

    However, the comment someone made about having two separate lineages “compete” in the same center spaces makes sense. VCTR apparently wanted the Shambhala Training to take place OUT of the Buddhist centers… and maybe that’s part of the root of this whole issue…?

  176. Barbara Blouin on July 16th, 2009 6:28 pm

    Edward,

    Thank you for your post at 5:09 today (the first one). I feel the need to clarify something: Shambhala International has a recently established “visiting teacher policy.” My guess is that most sangha know little or nothing about it, though I have read it. It might be found somewhere in the members’ section (if you are a member) of the web site. This policy is relevant for your good idea of inviting others to teach the Shambhala teachings. You wrote: “I get the impression that SI is planning to exit this market, unambiguously, so perhaps someone else can take their place. I assume there would be no legal issue about offering Shambhala training from a different organization. Hopefully it’s just a matter of time until this becomes available.”

    My educated guess is that yes, you probably run afoul of the organization if you attempted what you are describing at a Shambhala Center. (Maybe this is NOT what you are saying?) In a nutshell, in order to teach at a Shambhala Center, a teacher either needs to be on a list of previously approved teachers (including the acharyas), or have to jump through a number of hoops — not easy ones, either.

    Your other option would be to offer a program somewhere else. It might be frowned upon, and I may be roasted for saying this, but as far as I know, at least currently, there is nothing to stop someone from organizing a program on their own, to be offered somewhere else, not at a Shambhala Center. Some sangha members (I’m thinking of Reggie Ray and Bill Karelis) have been teaching independently for some time. There could be more to follow their example, if they have the courage to step forward.

    Good luck! It’s no small undertaking, and maybe it is still just an idea for you, but it’s worth following.

    Barbara

  177. Edward on July 16th, 2009 6:39 pm

    Hi Barbara,

    No, no, I meant to say study the Shambhala Teachings and sit together OUTSIDE of an SI center.

    I don’t suggest this in order to offend people or be frowned at, I’m just trying to find out if a certain product (Shambhala Training, in the “strict” sense, as Mr. Graffis says) will still be offered by SI, and if not, i hope someone else offers it.

    I hope our competitiveness is secondary to our desire to share whatever dharma we value with other people. Of course I think it would be much, much better if SI continued to offer plain Shambhala Training, but rather than kvetch and moan, it’s probably better for me to just envision a different solution.

    I’m not qualified to spearhead such a thing, I’m just saying it might solve several problems simultaneously.

  178. Suzanne Duarte on July 16th, 2009 8:31 pm

    Edward,

    I’d like to respond to what you wrote on July 16th, 2009 6:12 pm:

    “I had asked him what he thought about the blending of Shambhala and Buddhism, which I was confused by. . . . Anyway, he said something like “Well, Trungpa Rinpoche was owned by other Rinpoches, owned by Tibetan Buddhism, so anything he created, like his Shambhala Training, is also so owned.””

    I don’t think “owned” is an accurate interpretation of Trungpa Rinpoche’s relationship with “Tibetan Buddhism.” CTR sought and received the blessings of the heads of the Karma Kagyu and Nyingma lineages (the 16th Karmapa and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche respectively). Those were his lineages, and he took lineage very seriously. But that doesn’t mean they “owned” him – certainly not in the materialistic sense that is understood by capitalistic Westerners. His relationship with these lineages was through selected lineage holders that he had a special personal relationship with, and it was a complex relationship that was based on the heart and not on the bank account, as word “owned” would suggest.

    When I say “complex,” I mean that CTR brought lineage holders over from Asia as much for the benefit of his students as for any other purpose. These were teaching situations, without which we would have had a much more diluted and abstract understanding of lineage. It’s difficult to describe how rich the visits were, but the training and benefit we students received in the course of the visits was priceless in spiritual terms. It was like we were re-establishing karmic connections, if that means anything to you. So hearing that CTR was “owned” just does not ring true to me. He took risks with us, broke rules that could have left him isolated, but he did it for us, his students, and he gained the trust and support of the people who mattered to him: the 16th Karmapa, Khyentse Rinpoche, Jamgon Kongtrul III, Pönlop Rinpoche, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche – who were and/or are still very important to CTR’s heart students.

    Trungpa Rinpoche was his own man. Nobody owned him. To me, the idea is ridiculous. He was fearlessly creative on a scale that is unfathomable, like a force of nature. And certainly the Shambhala teachings he presented were totally his own. They are original. They are not “owned” by Tibetan Buddhism, no matter what Sakyong Mipham does with them. That is my perspective, for the record.

    Would anybody say that the termas that Padmasambhava left in Tibet were “owned” by Indian Buddhism? It would be ridiculous to make such a claim. So it is with Trungpa Rinpoche’s Shambhala termas in North America.

    So when you say: “What I loved about his response was it was so fresh, simple, pure, uncensored. Innocent in a way. And very clean.” – I think that’s just his opinion, and I do not share it. I’m not at all convinced that his opinion was “clean.”

    Anyway, Edward, although I disagree with you on this, I do appreciate your continuing to probe for answers to your questions. Keep going.

    Warm regards,

    Suzanne

  179. Davee on July 16th, 2009 9:14 pm

    how about replacing “owned” with “samaya-ed”. not sure there is a good english word for such a concept. “bound” is too literal, yes?

    The Vidhyadhara was certainly bound to Sechen Kongtrul and Khenpo Gangshar, perhaps others. No shame in that.

    In the new curriculum, it appears the initial shambhala training weekends are untouched. i suspect this is because they are so well put together. whereas the ssbs class curriculum in my experience are not as well thought of (at least in the centers I frequented some reverted to an earlier pre-seminary format after finding them unwieldy.)

  180. Edward on July 16th, 2009 9:51 pm

    When I said the comment felt pure and fresh, I meant that it was spontaneous, uncensored, and in a way, very revealing.

    I didn’t mean I agreed with it.

    What it conjured for me was images of Trungpa Rinpoche being held hostage in Scotland, having his relics stolen from him by other Rinpoches, and so on.

    Today we can all look at VCTR’s photo on the wall and smile, but back when he was alive I have to wonder if he didn’t shake things up for some of the other Tibetan teachers.

    In a way, I would not want to be his successor, for that reason. Probably some other Tibetan teachers would just as soon see Shambhala training come to an end.

    When I asked the gentlemen referred to above to further explain what he meant, my recollection is that he said it was not appropriate for VCTR to create a training program for non-Buddhists. Even his termas were not his, but were owned by Buddhism. That’s what I recall hearing him say, though this was a while ago.

    I don’t share this story as one curious statement made by one isolated person, but because I have to wonder if he is alone in his thoughts about this stuff.

    Sometimes there are larger “energies” at work in the world, you know, where you’re looking at something small and simple floating in the ocean, but underneath the water there’s a huge iceberg. It might be a mistake to discuss Shambhala merging with Buddhism without also looking at how this stuff is perceived by other Buddhists.

  181. Suzanne Duarte on July 16th, 2009 10:25 pm

    Edward, I think you’re right that VCTR shook things up for some of the other Tibetan teachers, and I’ve heard he is not universally appreciated by ‘traditional’ Tibetan teachers, though he has positively influenced some of the younger tulkus.

    When the gentleman you quoted said “it was not appropriate for VCTR to create a training program for non-Buddhists. Even his termas were not his, but were owned by Buddhism.” – I say, Bah! Humbug! VCTR did not submit to small-minded territoriality. He took the aspiration to benefit all sentient beings literally.

    However, when you say, “It might be a mistake to discuss Shambhala merging with Buddhism without also looking at how this stuff is perceived by other Buddhists.” – do you mean those ‘other Buddhists’ who might be influencing SMR/SI?

  182. Rob Graffis on July 17th, 2009 2:24 am

    Please check this out.

    http://www.rememberingthemasters.org/2009/06/tribute-to-jamyang-khyentse-chokyi.html

  183. ashoka on July 17th, 2009 5:30 am

    “When Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche announces that Shambhala will be folded into Buddhist studies programs, is he doing that in consultation with other Tibetan Rinpoches who do not like Shambhala Training?”

    No. If anything, some people in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages are likely upset that he’s choosing to take the Shambhala sangha further out of the traditional fold. I doubt the Sakyong consults other Rinpoches for advice unless he feels a real connection with them.

  184. Suzanne Duarte on July 17th, 2009 9:00 am

    Edward, it would be a good idea if you would make your email address available so that teachers who are interested in working with you could contact you. If you don’t want to post your email address here, you could give the RFS editors permission to release your address to qualified teachers who want to connect with you privately. Either way, please post a response as to your preference.

    Suzanne

  185. Edward on July 17th, 2009 2:45 pm

    Hi Suzanne, I’d rather not publish my email address as I’m afraid of spam, but if someone wants to reach me, perhaps Mr. Szpakowski could forward a letter– he knows how to reach me I believe.

    Mr. Rob Graffis, thank you for sharing that.

  186. Tony Duff on August 9th, 2009 12:57 am

    Two comments…

    1) About the installation of the Kagyur. CTR was mis-quoted. There are several editions of the Kangyur and Tangyur. One edition, the Lhasa edition was corrupted by the senior editor inserting Gelugpa preferences. However, the Dalai Lama heard of it, threw the Geshe out, and had the whole thing re-done. It is now regarded that that Edition is BETTER than the Derge edition. Also, the popular story about the Derge Edition being the best is actually just a story. When you poke into the history amongst educated Tibetans, you find that the Tangyur part of the Derge Edition is good not necessarily the best but the other Kagyur editions are better. Its a long story.

    2) Trungpa Rinpoche was positively detested by a swath of Tibetans, including many Rinpoches. In a nutshell, he dared to teach Westerners on their own terms and dared to reject much Tibetan form in the process. Tibetans who detested him have taught in your own centres. I’ve even translated for one of them who put on a friendly face, as they always do.

    To that last point I want to sound a clear warning to all of you reading this. You cannot presume to know what Tibetans are really thinking by listening to what they say while teaching in the West. Mostly, it is a sham put on for your sake. Tibetan culture does not think like you and for the most part absolutely does not want to do so. To find out what they are really thinking, you have to become one of them. I have done that. And I have found out the hard way that this is no bed of roses. They want something from you and at the same time do not fundamentally believe that you are capable of enlightenment by following the path. When you can speak with them so well that they forget your white skin and when you sit in a room with them listening to them saying what they really think, you fully understand why Trungpa Rinpoche left behind Tibetan culture and refused, for the most part, to have Tibetans in any place of power in his new culture. As a reference see a telling story of something similar in “The Mahasiddha and his Idiot Servant”.

    A recent example was the Khyentse Foundation Translator’s conference, which was so hyped up in US Buddhist lists but was just a sham. Nearly all senior translators were excluded. Nearly the entire list of invitees were Western “yes-men” or academics invited because they would tread the Tibetan owner’s party line. Everyone who might be able to express an educated opinion was excluded. Some people at the conference who belonged to a different lineage were told that it would be better when they were gone. Friends in the West, you just do not understand how far the Tibetans will go to keep you under their thumbs.

    I’d better stop.

  187. Howard Harawitz on August 9th, 2009 1:39 pm

    Thanks for sharing your experience, Tony.

    I’m really troubled by the Tibetification of the Shambhala Sangha and the spiritual materialism and superstition that seems to go along with it.

    Regrettably, your post won’t exactly help you to make friends and influence people in many “Buddhist” circles.

    Cheers,

    Howard

  188. John Tischer on August 9th, 2009 2:03 pm

    “One (problem for future students) is that you get carried away by the
    culture of Tibetian-ness or the Sanskritness or the Buddhistness of
    india, of the East. You would like to become Tibetifiers in the future.
    That’s the biggest problem.” VCTR 1976.

    Who really knows how much influence the Tibetians have on SMR,
    and how much that translates into the way he runs Shambhala?

  189. Edward on August 9th, 2009 2:17 pm

    If I was one of SMR’s Tibetan colleages, I can imagine saying to him, after dinner when the tea cups have been cleared away:

    “So, dude, how’s the Tibetification process coming along in your kingdom? You know the Westerners really are gullible saps, so it’s in their best interest that we make decisions for them. It’s only natural that we provide them with an environment that reflects their inner poverty, by making them worship our cultural trappings and look down on themselves.

    “If we don’t make fun of them, we’d be doing them a disservice. Any street kid knows how that works. Plus, trying to work against their gullibility would be like arguing with a force of nature.”

    I almost sympathize with their viewpoint, lol.

    I think the key is that a good teacher will make fun of you from a place of freedom, rather than from a place of being bound to having to con you for their own needs, their own neediness.

    Mr. Tony Duff, thank you for your candid remarks. I hope they will not hurt your career or anything like that.

    I quoted General Patton in another thread here recently. What I didn’t say was that Patton did not always exercise discretion in his remarks, especially once the war ended and his whole reason for living had evaporated. Shortly after the war he announced in front of some powerful people that he was not going to go along with the other generals (who were having meetings in order to agree on what they were going to tell Congress) and that he was going to write a book about what *really* happened during the war. A few days later he died in a freak accident. Oops!

    It’s similar to the incident Perks wrote about, except CTR had a completely different relationship with aggression than Patton.

    As long as we remember that we’re living in a charnal ground, where the people we meet want to gnaw on each other’s bones, then I don’t see any problem with out situation. It’s a very beautiful, vivid place, where we can hopefully discover tremendous mindfulness.

  190. John Tischer on August 9th, 2009 4:35 pm

    “So, dude, how’s the Tibetification process coming along in your kingdom? You know the Westerners really are gullible saps, so it’s in their best interest that we make decisions for them. It’s only natural that we provide them with an environment that reflects their inner poverty, by making them worship our cultural trappings and look down on themselves.
    “If we don’t make fun of them, we’d be doing them a disservice. Any street kid knows how that works. Plus, trying to work against their gullibility would be like arguing with a force of nature.”

    That might be very astute….does anyone know what SMR is thinking?

  191. Edward on August 9th, 2009 7:58 pm

    I meant that to be humorous, by the way…. it’s the kind of thing I might say to SMR if I was a cynical Tibetan colleague of his, who had run across one too many gullible Westerners, and was just tired of the whole thing.

    “Brother, let’s just give these white devils what they want, so they’ll leave us alone to our tea. At least they are amusing.”

    By the way, the same racist stuff goes on in other arenas as well, such as the martial arts world, where people think that white teachers can’t possibly have anything to offer, compared with, you know, ASIANS!! And some of the Japanese teachers are quite willing to be placed on pedestals by gullible Western students. Why not, you know?

    I’m sure it’s not a bad lifestyle in a way. You give the Westerners what they want– something foreign to worship– and you get a bit of comfort in return, as a reward for all the years of work you put into your art. This dynamic is probably as old as the hills.

    You know, it’s very traditional in some art forms (actually, all Asian art forms) that the real teachings are only given to family members, your children for instance, so that the power stays in the family. The teachings that are given out to paying customers are mostly for show and to make money.

    But if a person doesn’t know the difference, who’s to say that that person is any worse off?

    It takes a lot of guts and determination to know what you want and to go out and get it. True teachings or strong practice environments or realization itself doesn’t always just land in our laps like some sort of birthright. At least that’s the impression I get from reading stories about folks like Naropa.

    Perhaps some of us are spoiled by CTR’s books, and we forget how much work it takes to actually meet someone like him halfway, and how rare that opportunity is.

  192. Tsondru Garma on August 10th, 2009 1:14 am

    Re : Lama Tony’s remarks: I appreciate them, and I’m sure there is a great deal of truth to them, but I really feel that the situation is much more complex and that his comments can’t really address the complete situation..

    CTR invited Trangu Rinpoche and HH Dilgo Khyentse and the 16th Karmapa to teach at our various centers, for example. He wanted us to learn the “Karmapa principle” by meeting ” him He trusted his dharma brother Trangu Rinpoche to teach us, he was one of the first Tibetans to do so.

    I don’t know how this topic arose in this very long thread, but it caught my eye. We have had some very inspirational teachers in Boulder, at least, who have seemed obviously willing to take us on in a very serious manner…especially the younger ones. Khandro Rinpoche, Punlop Rinpoche, Dzigar Kontrul, Dzongzar Rinpoche, etc. Mingyur Rinpoche, Chogkyi Nima, Tsognyi Rinpoche… on and on

    I’m sure the attitude that Tony mentioned exists in some areas, and Tibetan politics is certainly off the charts, but it does seem a bit slanderous to take these comments too seriously so as to discount the valid teachers who have truly blessed us with their teachings.

    What is happening currently, with HE Namka Drime Rinpoche taking a central role in our direction of teachings seems to greatly diverge from the path we had been shown. Who knows what his attitude and goals are for teaching us. The Royal family seems to have a direction of its own, in that sense…and we are being swept along with it. like it or not.

    Meaaanwhile, we really can’t dismiss the Tibetan tradition that Trunpa Rinpoche came from, He was a revolutionary to be sure, but he valued his heritage and lineage with a passion.

  193. Howard Harawitz on August 10th, 2009 9:16 am

    RE:
    “Meanwhile, we really can’t dismiss the Tibetan tradition that Trunpa Rinpoche came from, He was a revolutionary to be sure, but he valued his heritage and lineage with a passion.”

    Of course that’s true. But Trungpa Rinpoche was creating western forms with their roots in universal Buddhism. Suzuki Roshi’s photo was on all our shrines. Zen teachers were frequently invited to teach at our Dharmadhatus and seminars. We were encouraged to look at the works of certain Hindu teachers as well as Christians like Fr. Thomas Merton.

    These days, the only “Buddhists” invited seem to be Tibetans. At the same time there is a plethora of “healers” and therapists and exercise faddists flogging their wares in our shrine rooms. We can even buy the “merit” of wealth pujas by sending our credit card info over the Internet. All of this would have been unthinkable when CTR was in charge. At the time that I was looking for “answers” I could never have joined an organization like the one that Shambhala has become. While I still pay dues every month — mostly out of habit — I am considering reducing the amount or stopping all together.

    Again, I want to make it clear that there is no one to blame here. There is nobody who could have succeeded Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche that we all would have supported. The Sakyong is who he is. He has had an ongoing and lifelong affiliation with Tibet and the Tibetan hierarchy. Now, he is literally married to it. He has every right to that. While we are all free to end our formal affiliation with the Shambhala organization and Sangha, there is certainly no need to vilify the Sakyong as part of that process.

    I have no idea what the next step is organizationally but I do think it’s a waste of time and energy to keep beating up on Shambhala or trying to get it to change. However, I would like to see something more than this virtual forum where I can meet with others to talk about how we can continue to live our lives as worthy disciples of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

  194. Tsondru Garma on August 10th, 2009 11:09 am

    Howard,

    I agree with everything you just said. I think you diverged from my point into other areas, (fine!) but I still want to make my point.

    I was just feeling uneasy about Lama Tony’s vilification of Tibetan teachers in general. There is no black and white here…. I just wanted to keep that view in mind and be careful of making assumptions about “Tibetanism.” and what Tony described as the “Typical Tibetan teacher view of exploiting the Western students.”..and rather to emphasize the importance of the Kagyu/ Nyingma traditions as they were in Tibet in their wholesome forms.

    It was Trungpa Rinpoche’s genius to bring that tradition to us and transmit it in new forms. He obviously criticized much of what he saw in Tibetan Buddhism: corruption, etc… but my impression was that he also highly valued the Enlightened aspects: what he learned from his teachers and his lineage….. presenting us with “Hot fresh baked bread.” Reading or hearing his talks on the Mishap Lineage (the Trungpas), and his series on the Karmapas makes this obvious. The Tibetan teachers that HE brought to teach us were jewels.

    That’s all I’m saying. nothing more. I’m not beating up on Shambhala. (Although I totally agree with you said) Just feeling protective of the reputation of Tibet and the many brilliant and gifted Tibetan teachers that we have known. (Heaven knows that Tibet has been through the ringer for centuries with its internal political turmoils and corruptions. The wonder is that such a beautiful and profound spiritual tradition DID manage to come out of it and it is still THERE!!!! What an amazing and complex place!!

    I realize that this sort of rant is not typical for this site. I’m coming from a different place when I go to this topic. (Villanizing Tibetans in the West.) As I said, I agree with what you say about current teachers in the new Shambhala tradition.

    Tsondru

  195. Chris on August 10th, 2009 11:50 am

    I don’t think this is about villianizing Tibetans. This is about waking up. Discerning what is the cultural Tibetan overlay on the dharma and what is the pristine dharma, free of any cultural bias.

    We bought the whole package, literally and now it is time to free ourselves of the Tibetophile baggage, the chauvanism, and the aspects that will keep us down and confused. As one lama friend told me, you let yourselves be treated like “white slaves” of Asians. “Rich” white slaves.

    It is one thing to be grateful for the dharma, but no one is giving us anything, we don’t already possess . There is a tectonic shift happening
    that is very powerful in terms of dharma taking root in the west. We cant throw the baby out with the bathwater, as Dzongsar Rinpoche says, but we have to start respecting our own inner guru, and stop denying , repressing our own intelligence.

    If we don’t, then merely a superficial “westernizing” of the dharma, will take place, a kind of new age, psychobabble, faddish pop dharma will take root. We can already see that danger happening. On the other hand, we are not living in monasteries, and the monastic overlay has to be seen as well. We are not 14th century Tibetan, this is the West, we are not illiterate peasants, so the teachings can not continue to treat us as such. If lamas don’t assimilate to this culture in how they teach us, it will not work. We are not in monasteries, or in a culture that 24/7 supports monastic practices. This is the razor edge. What will be assimilated from the teachings?

    I think Dzongsar Rinpoche, Tony Duff, and other translators such as Keith Dowman are trying to wake us up from our trance-like sleep and romanticizing of all things Tibetan, confusing the wheat from the chaff.

    Its the “essentialized” dharma that must take root in the West, free from the cultural baggage of both east and west.

  196. Suzanne Duarte on August 10th, 2009 12:18 pm

    I’ve posted this quote before, but it seems relevant, again, to the current discussion:

    Awakened Heart, Brilliant Mind by H.E. 3rd Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche 10/7/85 – From a Buddhist point of view, spirituality is basic and fundamental to all people without exception. Each person has the inherent potential to attain the highest possible sanity–the complete awakened mind. What is introduced through Buddhism is the means to recognize and experience this potential, no matter who we are. It is important to recognize that true spirituality can be assimilated into and permeate a culture, but on the other hand a particular set of customs and beliefs cannot become assimilated into what is spiritual. Since Buddhism addresses what is basically and fundamentally true of the phenomenal world and our own existence, it is not confined to a set of beliefs or customs designed for a particular group or locality.
    http://kagyu-asia.com/t_heart_mind.html

    By the way, I agree with Tsondru Garma about venerating and protecting our lineage teachers, the jewels of the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, who enriched our experience of awakened mind so beautifully. There can be no doubt that devotion to lineage was an essential aspect of the Vidyadhara’s dharma teachings – and of devotion to him. This is a primary reason that removal of photos of these venerable lineage teachers felt like a slap in the face to VCTR students who had practiced at those shrines for so many years.

  197. Chris on August 10th, 2009 12:37 pm

    Yes, lineage would be part of the essentialized dharma to retain. And that is what is so very ironic about SI, and to me, so very disturbing, from the beginning: it has increasingly minimized CTR’s Kagyu-Nyingma lineage, and kept the Tibetan cultural baggage. Thrown out the wheat and kept the chaff.

  198. Tsondru Garma on August 10th, 2009 2:08 pm

    Suzanne, thank you for that quote and link. Fantastic link!! Jamgon Kongtrul the great is one of my favorites, and he is in my practice every day with many others.

    and Chris, I appreciate your view, yet I still have to hang on to my appreciation for Tibetan culture, even though I know what you all are saying about the importance of heeding the fundamental wisdom message beyond the cultural overlay. Hmm… While of course being concerned about the loss of the study and appreciation of the meaningful traditional lineage holders being replaced by the mere cultural trappings.

    (saying no more than that about how that may have come to pass!! …. not my sphere of ability.)

    I just want to be sure that although I think it is clear that even though some Tibetans themselves may likewise get the “wrong idea” from the trappings; yet somehow the wisdom has survived there. And there are particular aspects of the culture that we need to at least appreciate. (I’m not sure which ones! Just a flavor I sense from being close friends with a few Tibetans. Not like the ones Lama Tony seems to know.)

    Reading Brilliant Moon, by HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, there is such a sense of his own devotion and sacred outlook as he works in his own deep rooted medieval tradition to become Enlightened. Sometimes, the simplicity and pure faith in aspects of his cultural setting floor me. It is loaded with Sacred Outlook. I love the magic there.

    Pure, radiant and simple. and he blows us away with his presence and smile.

    enough said!!! I’m hopeless. I love Tibet.

  199. Martin Fritter on August 10th, 2009 2:25 pm

    One can love Tibet but one cannot be Tibetan. The problem is when dharma is feteshized, in which case it becomes a commodity. One dreams of a castle in the sky but lives in a hovel on the earth, as Kierkegaard said of Hegel.

  200. Tsondru Garma on August 10th, 2009 5:23 pm

    Of course I agree with that!! good point, too.

    Whatever. From the tone of some of the recent posts, I just felt a knee jerk reaction to say “don’t go overboard assuming the worst about Tibetan teachers, or not appreciating where they are coming from; even though some of them may be “guilty” as previously accused in their attitudes towards gullible Westerners. Better, perhaps, to deal with specific cases rather than accuse them in general.

    I guess there are so many issues here, it can get confusing. I’m only trying to make one small point: I want to keep some appreciation of Tibetan culture and tradition, at least in the sense that it produced (and continues to produce, in spite of all possible odds) incredible spiritual masters…. and not throw the baby out with the bath water or whatever was being talked about.

    I don’t like the current predominance of Tibetan cultural trappings in Shambhala either…. at least without actual profound and personal wisdom behind them, or to the exclusion of other cultural manifestations.

    I think I’ve gotten too carried away with this!! I thank everyone for their comments. Over and out! (for now)

  201. Gregg on August 10th, 2009 7:05 pm

    Earlier in the thread, Tony Duff said:

    Tibetan culture does not think like you and for the most part absolutely does not want to do so. To find out what they are really thinking, you have to become one of them. I have done that. And I have found out the hard way that this is no bed of roses. They want something from you and at the same time do not fundamentally believe that you are capable of enlightenment by following the path.

    Tony,

    You’ve made some pretty broad-stroked assertions, not to mention disparaging Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche in particular (the “Tibetan owner”), and essentially said for back up, “take it from me, I really know”.

    If you want to make a useful contribution, can you offer guidelines for Westerners in relating to Tibetan teachers to better recognize smiling relationships that use students, symptoms in sanghas to be wary of, and what aspects of the Western psyche this category of Tibetans feel are unsuitable vessels for the fruition of enlightenment (maybe there’s something to it– I can’t make a judgment unless there are better hints).

    What I’ve described would be beneficial to Shambhala students, and all Western students for that matter, so I would really look forward to such an article and I imagine that RFS would be open to posting it.

    Gregg

  202. Edward on August 10th, 2009 8:46 pm

    I’d like to repeat a question I asked earlier in this thread:

    if a person doesn’t know the difference [between real teaching, and a mere show of teaching], who’s to say that that person is any worse off?

    I think in the spiritual marketplace, somehow everyone gets what they need. I don’t see any particular problem here.

    If someone drops us a hint about something controversial, maybe that’s a blessing. If they explain too much, their words might lose their usefulness, perhaps.

    But to respond to your question Gregg, have you read CTR’s description of his time in Scotland? I seem to recall that CTR went on and on about the dynamic you’re asking about. I’m sure he went way, way, beyond what many people would have preferred that he say about it, both on the Tibetan side and on the gullible white side.

    Then just ask yourself if 30 or 40 years has completely changed human nature from what it was back when CTR was in the UK.

    (I almost couldn’t bring myself to type “40″. Does that happen as we get older?)

  203. Edward on August 10th, 2009 9:12 pm

    I loved the part where CTR described how eager all the Tibetans were to meet REAL LIVING Indian people!!! You know? When they were crossing the Himalayas to enter down into the subcontinent, they couldn’t contain their excitement about meeting Naropa’s countrymen, the descendants of Padmasambhava– seeing the very dirt that the Buddha walked on.

    Perhaps everyone in India are powerful wizards?! Who knows! They were leaving the primitive, barbaric mountains to enter the homeland of Nalanda University!

    Do you ever wonder why CTR went to such lengths to try to cultivate a white successor? He must have pissed off even more Tibetans with that, not to mention the headache he himself went through with the training process.

    He must have had some really, really big reasons for insisting on a white lineage holder. Even after seeing with his own eyes what a huge difficulty it was going to be.

  204. Davee on August 10th, 2009 9:14 pm

    Well isn’t the culture question arguably the same for “Shambhala Culture” as it is for “Tibetan Culture”?

    I don’t buy that we can have dharma without a cultural flavor or context, that we’re getting some kind of purified form. Perhaps it’s a matter of degrees: more pure, but still we’re getting it within new, Shambhala cultural elements from how to set a place setting to how to dress for a talk to how to arrange one’s household. I think CTR did a great job of giving us a clean transmission, but that might also necessarily come within the delivery mechanism of some kind of culture. He just created a new one.

    And then if you buy my viewpoint on that there’s then the possibility to get caught up in that new culture and fascinated in that instead of really working with it as a path – just as many get caught up in the Tibetan forms as a kind of costume to wear. One could similarly reify the Shambhala culture as some great thing. Which it is. Just not worth reifying. Or rather reifying is missing the point. The culture is a vehicle of sorts and not the ultimate endpoint.

  205. Rob Graffis on August 10th, 2009 10:09 pm

    In a talk Thrangu Rinpoche gave in 1995, he said what made Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche such a great teacher is that he knew how the western mind thinks and works better then any other Tibettan teacher he knew of, not only him, but the Dalai Lama himself.
    On a different note, to say “As one lama friend told me, you let yourselves be treated like “white slaves” of Asians. “Rich” white slaves.” as one reader noted isn’t excatly research material. Besides, as far as I know, it’s still the Pacific rim Buddhist students who are the largest financial patrons of many of the Tibetan teachers we have had the good fortune to hve sudied with and receive their blessings.
    Rob Graffis

  206. Mark Szpakowski on August 10th, 2009 11:51 pm

    Oh Davee, you’re being quite silly! Of course any culture is a culture, be it Shambhala or Tibetan or American. The courageous thing is to be willing to create new culture, new forms, in spite of and because of knowing that, which can serve as fresh wellsprings. And to do that in concert with the people/situations unfolding around you.

    Thought experiment: what would the particular Shambhala forms of the 1970’s and ’80’s have been like if John Perks had never met CTR?

    And this:

    Q: Well, what do we do with all this mound of culture? How do these thousands of years of European and American culture relate?

    CTR: Work with them. Just work and eat and drink and wear them. Wear the clothes, eat the food, drink the culture. No problem.

    Q: Well, but we’re not wearing them as costumes: these are our clothes.

    R: Which is culture. Sure.

    Q: Well, then in some sense what’s happening is that we’re being alienated from any culture. The great East is no longer such a Great East, the sun is setting there now.

    R. That’s right. You’re right. That’s it! That’s the ultimate culture – loneliness. That’s it!

  207. Ed Z on August 11th, 2009 1:20 am

    “if a person doesn’t know the difference [between real teaching, and a mere show of teaching], who’s to say that that person is any worse off?”

    This is sort of interesting. It is, at best, like regarding the dharma and relationship with the guru as analogous to Tarot cards or astrology. Isn’t there a name for techniques like this, which are based on factually incorrect premises, where the technique becomes a medium for eliciting our projections and bringing them to consciousness?

    Someone in this or the “Kalapa Council Report” thread made the point about people who simply sit on the sidelines, who don’t participate or engage with the teacher, but who still criticize. I’m afraid I am close to this category. I haven’t done many so-called advanced programs in the last N-years, but I have no intention of being critical. I don’t want to cut myself off from any source of truth, and I’m probably not so smart that I can find anything substantial to criticize anyway. Also, of course, if something is working for “them”, who am I to criticize?

    One thing that seems to be missing from these RFS threads is the notion of devotion as the continuity of the path. I don’t think the practices really make any sense without that. So I don’t see how SMR’s students or fully fledged SI participants could stick with it. I got kind of alienated at the Shambhala Center because there seemed to be so much intellectualizing and people “taking on a role”, “holding their seat”, or “adopting a view” to really take the teaching milieu seriously. This is very individual, but I have the sense of similar mandala-wide processes going on with the various organizational and teaching re-configurations and practice center re-namings I have seen in SI.

  208. Edward on August 11th, 2009 1:22 am

    Going back to this question:

    what aspects of the Western psyche this category of Tibetans feel are unsuitable vessels

    Well… for starters I’ve noticed that Asian teachers do not feel their hearts warm when Westerners want too many explanations.

    In the East, I think a student is expected to learn by watching. That’s it. You have to empty your mind of expectations so you can see clearly. You develop a light touch so you don’t intrude on situations, and then maybe one day you see what’s going on. That’s how good Asian teachers do it, I think; I don’t know what the corrupt ones do.

    If we want lots of explanations rather than wanting to watch carefully, what message are we sending the teacher?

    We are sending a message, and the teacher is getting the message. That part is working well. Really well.

    A teacher like CTR is amazing partly because he’s generous enough to give blind deaf people like myself feedback that I’m capable of learning from, no matter what the personal cost to himself. I’ve listened to some of the interchanges on recordings of his public talks, and it’s quite painful to listen to sometimes.

    In a way, I can understand why Tibetan teachers might want to keep control themselves, and keep other people under their thumb. The other side of it is, if we find ourselves under someone’s thumb, and realize we’ve been there a while, how did we get there?

  209. Edward on August 11th, 2009 1:51 am

    factually incorrect premises

    Yes, we should definitely get rid of factually incorrect premises, along with any misconceptions in our cocoon. That stuff does not belong there.

    Also, somebody should tell the Tibetans that we’ve decided not to learn astrology, or divination. I’m sure they’ll seem happy to hear the news.

  210. Ed Z on August 11th, 2009 2:21 am

    Yes, that’s great. Thank you.

  211. rita ashworth on August 11th, 2009 6:06 am

    On the question of culture I would say that CTR has made me re-examine
    my own culture which is British. For example I am checking out institutions that I would not ususally feel any affinity to such as the army-
    although I have worked for the Ministry of Defence in London and its true
    most of the stereotypes portrayed about the upper class still do exist in that department, at least in the 1990s that is.

    As to Tibetan culture I got in to the whole thing because it chimed in with what I was experiencing in a religious sense in the 1970’s but I left
    the ‘traditional’ path because of an arguement with the main teacher and came into the CTR fold in 1980. Of course I was friends with the people in London aswell but another reason that I chose CTR and perhaps not a Zen teacher were his comments in the Torch of Certainity in that the whole path had to be explained to westerners in their own terms. Perhaps rfs could put up the interview with CTR in this book – it is very illuminating. Another reason also I chose CTR was because he emphasised that everyone was able to teach the dharma if they were trained to do so – so there was no barriers to being a teacher there. In addition his really close students were westerners so that was appealing as well. Looking back at how my former teacher has developed he is still following the ‘tibetan route’ -they are still doing the Chenrezi and Tara sadhanas and also doing the liturgy in Tibetan -to me now going through the CTR route that all seems old hat-like you were watching a very old 50’s film. Thats why I cant really understand peoples re-aroused interest in Tibet and Tibetan lamas when we have been given what we require by CTR to really manifest the dharma in the west. Thats why also I think the infatuation with say Dzongar Khyentse Rinpoche is also odd -although he has stepped out of his culture somewhat -he has not made the radical move of moving his whole operation to the west. I think most Tibetan lamas are hiding out in India still maybe Dzigar Kontrol Rinpoche is an exception – I cant think of any more – otherwise even in the west they do things traditionally. I would probably think more of Dzongsar if he really came to the west if he lived in the states or the UK for about five years – then maybe I would listen to him more carefully but as a teacher now I think he is hedging his bets about doing stuff.

    I can believe some of the stuff Tony Duff says about the lamas he knew but I think it is really up to us as westerners to rattle their conceptions about things and really state what we want and not be overtly deferential – or as the old image stated not to become a Vajradhatoid in their presence-yes I think we need to be more radical in our relations with Tibetans and their culture.

    Hope to hear more comments on this thread

    best

    Rita Ashworth

  212. John Castlebury on August 11th, 2009 6:40 am

    [Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s poem together with his article entitled “Distortion” appeared in the Shambhala Sun, September, 1997.]

    Mind’s ultimate nature

    Mind’s ultimate nature, emptiness endowed with vividness,
    I was told is the real Buddha.
    Recognising this should help me
    Not to be stuck with thoughts of hierarchy.

    Mind’s ultimate nature, its emptiness aspect,
    I was told is the real Dharma.
    Recognising this should help me
    Not to be stuck with thoughts of political correctness.

    Mind’s ultimate nature, its vivid aspect,
    I was told is the real Sangha.
    Recognising this should help me
    Not to be stuck with thoughts of equal rights.

    One cannot disassociate emptiness from vividness.
    This inseparability I was told is the Guru.
    Recognising this should help me
    Not to be stuck with depending on chauvinistic lamas.

    This nature of mind has never been stained by duality,
    This stainlessness I was told is the deity.
    Recognising this should help me
    Not to be stuck with the categories of “gender” or “culture.”

    This nature of mind is spontaneously present.
    That spontaneity I was told is the dakini aspect.
    Recognising this should help me
    Not to be stuck with fear of being sued.

  213. rita ashworth on August 11th, 2009 9:29 am

    Just read the article ‘Distortion’ perhaps someone could put a link to it.
    Still believe though that Dzongar Rinpoche should make his home in
    west for a while – I think it would be really informative for both him and his
    students. Is he going to have a western regent for example? Dont
    seem to be many Tibetan lamas who are into that now – or are they?

    Think some could pass their lineage on to westerners -whats holding
    them back in this regard?

    Best

    Rita Ashworth

  214. Tsondru Garma on August 11th, 2009 12:07 pm

    Edward, August 11:

    “Well… for starters I’ve noticed that Asian teachers do not feel their hearts warm when Westerners want too many explanations.

    In the East, I think a student is expected to learn by watching. That’s it. You have to empty your mind of expectations so you can see clearly. You develop a light touch so you don’t intrude on situations, and then maybe one day you see what’s going on. That’s how good Asian teachers do it, I think; I don’t know what the corrupt ones do.”

    OK. Now this Tibetophobia is really getting more serious than I thought. For one thing, I asked a Tibetan teacher I know about asking questions. He said that teachers who don’t want students to ask questions really haven’t studied the Dharma well enough to answer questions, they would merely prefer to do abhishekas and so forth! It is important to ask questions so that the teacher can help the student clarify their understanding. And to develop a relationship with a teacher. Trungpa Rinpoche isn’t the only Tibetan teacher who has had lively Q and A sessions with his students.

    And in terms of only imitating them, well they are only human. Why would I want to imitate someone who isn’t interested in my questions? Trungpa Rinpoche did say (in the Mishap Lineage) that attendants of great teachers learn the most by gaining insight while being around the teacher…. but I think that is a different topic.

    We are doing vajrayana practices with liturgy and visualization of ancient tantric deities, and are told that devotion is the head of meditation And for heaven’s sake, we learned this from a Tibetan teacher who also wanted to present Buddhism in its basic essence beyond culture, so taught us the Shambhala teachings as well.

    But we still have the Tibetan Buddhist side of things. Hopefully, the reverence of highly revered lineage holders, and Rinpoches that Trungpa Rinpoche introduced us to whom we have seen and been inspired by will not die out..And we will be able to identify good Tibetan teachers in our time as well.

    It is tragic to see this being lost as SI pursues its narrowing of focus in external affairs, and would be especially sad to see this being lost among the people on this site. (Of course, there is ample room for diverse opinions; and I understand that some people adhere mainly to the Shambhala Path.) But……..???

    Tibet is still capable, beyond all these weird and sad manifestations of cultural differences, of producing excellent teachers.

  215. John Castlebury on August 12th, 2009 12:09 pm

    [H.E. Namkha Drimed Rabjam Rinpoche is teaching Flight of the Garuda by Shabkar at Halifax Shambhala Centre August 14-17, 9 am-5 pm.
    This translation of Song 2 [of 23] is unattributed, however Thinley Norbu Rinpoche approved. See “On Differing Views”, August 6, for Song 1.]

    SONG TWO

    Emaho!
    Fortunate noble children, listen without distraction!

    All the Victorious Ones of the three times
    Teach the eighty-four thousand sections of Dharma.
    Although the number of these teachings
    Is limitless like the boundless expanse of sky,
    They are given only for the purpose of realizing the nature of mind.
    Beyond this, the Victorious Ones don’t teach anything.

    For example, if a tree is cut down at the root,
    Its thousands of leaves and branches will all simultaneously perish.
    Similarly, cutting the root of one’s mind
    Severs all the appendages of samsara, such as grasping and fixation.

    Like a lamp which in one instant can illuminate
    A house which has lain dark and uninhabited for a thousand years,
    A moment’s realization of the luminosity of one’s mind
    Purifies the accumulated evil deeds and obscurations of countless aeons.

    The nature of the sun’s disc is radiance
    That a thousand aeons of darkness cannot obscure.
    Similarly, luminosity is the nature of one’s mind
    That aeons of confusion cannot darken.

    Just as the nature of the sky transcends the limits of color and shape
    And is never stained by black or white clouds,
    The nature of mind also transcends the limits of color and shape
    And is never veiled by the black or white phenomena of virtue and evil deeds.

    Butter is made of the essence of milk,
    But if the milk isn’t churned, the butter won’t form.
    Sentient beings are of sugatagharba essence,
    But if they don’t practice, they won’t be enlightened.

    Anyone who practices this teaching will be liberated.
    It doesn’t matter if one’s intellect is sharp or dull.
    With practice, even a herdsman will gain liberation.

    When one directly perceives the luminosity of one’s mind,
    There is no need to listen to theories about it.
    When one has brown sugar right on one’s tongue,
    One does not need to be told how it tastes.

    Even a scholar remains deluded if he hasn’t realized this teaching.
    No matter how skilled he may be in discussing the nine yanas,
    That’s like describing a faraway place he’s never seen.
    Enlightenment is farther away than the sky from the earth.

    Though one may maintain discipline for aeons
    And practice patience for a long time,
    One won’t rise above the three realms of samsara
    Unless one perfectly realizes the luminosity of one’s mind.
    Because of this, work hard at cutting the root of mind.

  216. Michael Sullivan on August 12th, 2009 1:13 pm

    Re: H.E. Namkha Drimed Rabjam Rinpoche is teaching Flight of the Garuda by Shabkar at Halifax Shambhala Centre

    from the program listing:

    *Restricted to those who have received “pointing out” instruction in either the Ripa or Shambhala lineages. For Shambhalians, this program is restricted to graduates of Shambhala Vajrayana Seminary.

    Is “Shambhala Vajrayana Seminary” somehow different from plain old Seminary?

    Wangdor Rinpoche has been teaching this text most of the summer, all over the US and now in South America, to anyone with the karma to walk in the door. There is no “door fee”, just the opportunity to donate directly to him. Pointing out instructions are part of his teaching of the text – just not in a fancy ritual way….

  217. Chris on August 12th, 2009 1:53 pm

    Dzogchen pointing out by a qualified Dzogchen master creates the “synchronistic timeless moment” to be open to the first word that strikes the vital point, i.e. the pointing out of the” view” of Dzochen which cannot be prepared for and there are no requirements other than an open mind and a qualified lineage holder of Dzogchen, such as lama Wangdor, or Tulku Urgyen’s lineage, or Namkai Norbu. This is not a gradual, cause and effect path. If it is presented that way, it is a sure sign that someone does not hold that lineage . People should find a qualified Dzogchen master if they want these teachings.

    Everyone is jumping on the Dzogchen bandwagon now, but that doesn’t mean everyone can give the pointing out or is carrying that lineage.

  218. Martin Fritter on August 12th, 2009 2:33 pm

    People may not know at Samye Ling, CTR presented Nyingma teachings. A number of people did Nyingma Ngondro. Things didn’t go so well there — you can look it up in Diana’s book. When he came to the US, he decided to start people with Hinayana and Mahayana and introduce them to Varjayana via Annutaratantra practices. He was very clear about people spending a long time in Mahamudra before doing Ati — which is what he usually called Dzogchen. He actually got quite angry about it. Most of this was during the various Vajrayogini programs he lead at RMDC and KCL.

    FWIW, I have no problem with SI restricting what teaches have access to SI facilities and who can attend what programs. I assume “Shambhala Vajrayana Seminary” is the same as the old seminary. Whoever formulated the policy may not even know there ever was such a thing, institutional memory not being the strong suit of penurious volunteer run organizations.

  219. Barbara Stewart on August 12th, 2009 3:52 pm

    To Michael Sullivan — yes, different teachers give pointing out instructions in different ways — and they also give them differently, themselves, in formal and informal settings, on the spot, scheduled far in advance, “fancy” and not, restricted and less restricted and so on.

    Was that the point of your observation about Wangdur Rinpoche — about him teaching Flight of the Garuda to all who entered and including pointing out instructions that were not, in your words, fancy and ritualistic?

  220. Michael Sullivan on August 12th, 2009 4:49 pm

    Barbara Stewart — I am sorry if the term “fancy” raises hackles. My point regarding Wangdor Rinpoche’s teaching was allowing karma (as in “action and result”, not predestination of course) to sort things out rather than a one-size-fits-all rule. I mentioned pointing out because it was part of the restriction.

    Of course Pointing Out can occur in both formal and informal contexts. I happen to believe that CTR did it a LOT, informally. With no guarantee that you “got it”.

    I also think that attending a formal Pointing Out does not guarantee that you “got it”. Even though one-size-fits-all rules seem to imply as much.

  221. John Tischer on August 12th, 2009 5:13 pm

    To concur with Michael….VCTR did pointing out once in Boston for me and 3 other people….this was after seminary in 1974….it was very informal.

  222. Rob Graffis on August 13th, 2009 5:17 am

    Michael
    I guess depending on whose ever translation they use, they can use it anyway they want to if the translator or author approves.
    So I guess who ever translated this version of the Flight Of The Guruda is allowed to determine how it is used. In any case, it is a retstricted teaching. I wonder if it was an over sight when they said only Shambhala Vajrayana Buddhists can take the course, as opposed to Vajradhatu old time sadhana practioners?
    Just curious.
    Rob

  223. Michael Sullivan on August 13th, 2009 7:48 am

    Hi Rob – since the person teaching is Tibetan, i assume they will be using the Tibetan text and thus no translation required, except the person translating their talk.

    In any case, teachers and organizations are free to restrict as they please, by whatever guidelines they set. i was just pointing out that not all masters work that way.

    As to “Shambhala Vajrayana Buddhists”, the nuances of the new Shambhala / Buddhist amalgam vocabulary are far too subtle for the likes of me to understand who is eligible. Not my problem either – I already got that teaching….

  224. John Castlebury on August 13th, 2009 8:55 am

    [VCTR, “Translation of a section of a song of Milarepa, ‘Challenge of the Logicians’, p. 381-82 (Chang)”, from the unpublished poetry, ca.1974:]

    Listen, you great teachers and scholars,
    Don’t hang on to meaningless words and empty talk,
    Imagining them to be the Truth –
    Even heretics can play around with them.

    You can waste thirty-two lives and gain nothing
    If your intelligence follows nothing but words.
    It would be much better therefore
    To conquer the demon of Ego –
    I don’t have time to waste in words, words, words!
    I don’t know logic or even how to state a proposition.

    So, okay.
    Today you win the argument.

  225. Barbara Stewart on August 13th, 2009 2:15 pm

    Michael,
    Apparently, Wangdor Rinpoche is relying on the auspicious coincidence of being there as the proper qualification — Namkha Drimed is relying on the auspicious coincidence of having received pointing out instructions through Shambhala or Ripa. Both, of course, are karmic situations. I really don’t understand why you’re calling Namkha Drimed’s method “one-size fits all,” — and implying Wangdor Rinpoche’s method is superior. It seems like kind of bad form, actually, to criticize the way a Vajrayana teacher chooses the audience for these restricted teachings. And the idea that receiving pointing out instructions doesn’t necessarily mean you “get it,” whatever getting it in this context means — how do you know? How can you possibly judge?

    Barbara

  226. Michael Sullivan on August 13th, 2009 3:55 pm

    Barbara, once again I am sorry if my choice of words offends – not my intention – but as I wrote above after responding to your earlier post:

    “In any case, teachers and organizations are free to restrict as they please, by whatever guidelines they set. i was just pointing out that not all masters work that way.”

    One size fits all = “If you attended event #1, then you are allowed to attend event #2″. Of course, the restriction sounds like some level of understanding or even attainment is required, and can be assumed — but how do you know? How can you possibly judge?

    Or can you simply trust in the self-secret aspect of the teaching? If not, then maybe Mr. Castlebury posting the text excerpt is a bit iffy — after all, someone who hasn’t received pointing out instructions through Shambhala or Ripa might read it.

  227. Martin Fritter on August 13th, 2009 6:37 pm

    The following anecdote may prove interesting. In 1975 I had a discussion with Trungpa, Rinpoche about Tibetan teachers in the West. He said that in general they were intimidated by Western culture and that their sense of intimidation lead them to be condescending.

    I asked him what he meant, and he said that there was on poetry in Tibetan that could compare with Shakespeare and no music that could compare with Mozart, and that the Tibetans, raised on their sense of cultural superiority couldn’t cope with it. Of course, although his knowledge of Western civilization was exceptional and surprising in its depth,, he was a critical admirer, viz. the whole Setting Sun business, which is a quite potent critique of late capitalist modernity.

    I’m sure everybody remembers that he didn’t want to transplant “Tibetan” Buddhism to America, but rather Varjayana Buddhism. This continues. For example, we don’t pronounce Sanskrit like the Tibetans do – “benza” for “vajra” for example.

  228. Tsondru Garma on August 13th, 2009 7:11 pm

    Well, I concede defeat in my attempts to make my point about Tibetan teachers. I’m afraid that I have underestimated the power of culture to condition people so deeply. The Vidyadhara was truly a remarkable man…to appreciate Mozart, and Western poetry (etc.).

    BUT!!! There are exceptions to this, I’m sure, among the popular Tibetan Rinpoches our sangha has been flocking to, and a few others.

    BUT MAINLY: I just don’t want people to think that there is no good true Dharma in Tibet now, because there is.

    AND as well as our concerns about the sidelining of the Kagyu lineage and practices, we should really be concerned about the demise of the External Affairs Department along with its cultivation and maintenance of good relationships with our lineage holders from Tibet (and whatever else diplomacy was so valiantly and nobly going on over the past 30 years…).

  229. Barbara Stewart on August 13th, 2009 11:02 pm

    Actually, the restriction doesn’t mean a particular level of attainment or understanding is required. It simply means you were there, at event #1, as you call it. Nobody is requiring any test of attainment here or assuming there is any at all.
    And yes, we agree that different teachers do it differently. You sound rather disapproving of the requirement for previous attendance at a pointing-out transmission and seem to prefer the accept-all-comers method. But If you’re being neutral and simply observing differences, then there’s no disagreement.

  230. Michael Sullivan on August 14th, 2009 6:30 am

    Just observing differences. If you are inside an organization for a while there is a tendency to think that their approach is the only proper way. I was certainly like that.

    But then I always remember the story of Tulku Urgyen giving pointing out to a busload of German tourists……

  231. Barbara Stewart on August 14th, 2009 11:44 am

    Actually, I remember hearing, from someone, at some point, that the Vidyadhara’s ability to give pointing out instructions in a formal way to a big group, all at once, was most unusual — and one he transmitted to the Sakyong. From what I’ve heard and seen, pointing out is usually given to only a few people at a time, at least when formally given. It seems we Shambhala people may be the unusual ones here.

  232. Edward on August 14th, 2009 11:45 am

    Martin Fritter writes:
    The following anecdote may prove interesting.

    Yes, very interesting, thank you.

    I remember reading a story in Diana Mukpo’s book about CTR going to a dressage event in Europe or somewhere for the first time. I recall that at one point during the event, he had tears in his eyes, and she turned to him and said “what’s wrong?” He answered “it’s so beautiful.”

    . . . .

    It’s interesting talking about superior and inferior, cultural appropriation and inner poverty, and all that. I came across a passage from Emerson that reminded me of some of this:

    Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say ‘I think’, ‘I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose. These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God to-day.
    - RWE

  233. Edward on August 16th, 2009 11:01 am

    I was thinking I’d like to continue my Shambhala Training along the lines the Druk Sakyong created it, and be part of a sangha of similar would-be warriors.

    However, I get the impression that this option no longer exists, because of changes made by the Druk Sakyong’s successor. For instance, I’ve heard the final stage of Shambhala Training is only given to people who swear allegiance to this individual, and swear allegiance to Buddhism. This seems to change nature of the whole thing.

    As a newcomer, I’m curious to know if this individual has ever explained or hinted at his reasons? For instance:

    1) “I don’t want to offend anymore, but it turns out I’m more advanced than my dad. He did his best, but now I have to correct his mistakes. If he had a greater vision, he never would have created Shambhala training as something separate from Buddhism.”

    2) “I don’t always understand my dad’s teachings, but I’m doing my best based on my own understanding and what my gurus taught me. I’ve never heard anyone complain about the changes I’ve made, or if they have complained, nobody told me.”

    3) “I’m under pressure from other Tibetan Rinpoches who hated my dad to eliminate Shambhala as a non-sectarian kingdom. And since I don’t feel CTR’s old dogs sticking up for my dad’s unpopular creations, I’m doing my best to deal with the situation.”

    4) “It’s wrong to contradict the Buddha’s teachings, but it’s fine to contradict the Druk Sakyong, since he’s more recent in time and not as highly venerated.”

    5) “After the Druk Sakyong’s death, basic goodness fled from non-Buddhists, and also fled from people who have not sworn allegiance to me. My dad was great, and his teachings were valid for the age in which he lived, but the world has changed.”

    Have I left out any options other than the five I mentioned above? Are there any comments?

    I should mention one more:

    6) There are no changes to Shambhala. And even if there were, they wouldn’t contradict the Druk Sakyong. And even if they did, it would be because times have changed. Anyway, don’t ask this, it’s rude.

    If a ruler makes sweeping changes and the advisers / citizens don’t know why, isn’t it their obligation to consider the ruler’s possible reasons? It seems like any other action would be a way of isolating the ruler, rather than trying to see things from his point of view.

    Also, I was taught that considering why a teacher does something can be a form of guru-contemplation.

    If you disagree and feel that speculations are unprofitable or against your religion, feel free to abstain.

    Perhaps someone can help me eliminate options that are not likely to be valid, and by a process of elimination we can arrive at an answer. That would be helpful. Btw, this is not rocket science.

    One more:

    7) “I had dreadful experiences with insane white people when I was young, and after being thrust into this sakyong job at a young age, I’ve tended to place more trust in Tibetans, and to remove from office (and discourage from joining the kingdom) people I’m not sure I can trust.”

  234. Edward on August 16th, 2009 11:46 am

    Options 1 & 5 would be good rational reasons, but for me, their validity is questionable at best. Option 4 is not a dignified option for a lineage-holder in the Shambhala tradition. I personally disagree with 6. So that leaves options 2, 3 & 7.

    There’s also option 8:

    8. “In has last years, my father tested his senior students to the limit, going beyond reasonable means to break the spell of their cocoons. He asked me to continue this, and said that my reign should be a time of disappointment and difficulty for his senior students.”

  235. Edward on August 16th, 2009 12:04 pm

    There’s also option 9, from the student’s point of view:

    9. Chaos, disagreement and confusion are all unworkable and antithetical to the Shambhala Teachings.

    When the Druk Sakyong died, chaos and disagreement were everywhere– it was awful. Thank goodness that has diminished under the current sakyong– he is giving us order and a sense of security, and frankly, a feeling that we’re better than non-Buddhists. These are things we need more than ever at this troubling time in the world.

    But these discussions on RFS are taking us in the wrong direction. Please stop.

  236. Davee on August 16th, 2009 12:25 pm

    10. The Werma Sadhana was already Buddhist.

    Swearing allegiance / loyalty was always there, instituted by the Druk Sakyong, just not talked about openly because it’s easy to confuse. But it’s probably not allegiance to the person really as much as allegiance to the Rigden principle and ultimate form of the teacher really. Similar to the Vajrayana notion: it’s not the specific person. And it’s not a new thing even in the Shambhala teachings. What is new is giving the Werma Sadhana an abhisheka and requiring Vajrayana Buddhism. Some of the reasoning for that which I’ve heard is that the Werma Sadhana includes refuge and bodhisattva and samaya vows already. If you look at the sadhana carefully, you’ll find the words refuge and samaya in the liturgy from the start and also a fairly standard bodhisattva vow repeated. So arguably it was already Vajrayana Buddhist. So after Warriors Assembly now people can receive the Gesar Sadhana instead of the Werma Sadhana.

    Perhaps the Vidhyadhara was planning the Scorpion Seal retreat, only unlocked recently, to be available to non-Buddhists. I’ve argued previously that I don’t see how that would be possible without additional terma and a non-Buddhist version of Dzogchen in Shambhala language being flushed out more. Therefore to unlock the Scorpion Seal now – as it was repeatedly requested to be unlocked – requires more abhishekas and training in trekchö and thögal among other things: which require samaya.

    (The loyalty/samaya questions are much bigger than can be properly discussed here most likely, I only mention it in passing since you asked but I doubt I’m explaining it very clearly)

  237. John Tischer on August 16th, 2009 12:36 pm

    I was speaking with a (senior teacher in Shambhala) recently and (he/she)
    said that some of the older students really want to tear down Shambhala and see SMR fail, and that that was one of the reasons for RFS. I don’t personally know any older students that feel that way. To me, this points to an “inside the box” in the way this particular teacher was thinking, as well as an “outside”, and the fact that that there seems to be little real communication between the two,

  238. Edward on August 16th, 2009 1:45 pm

    Mr. Tischer, thank you for sharing that.

    That’s an honest concern you’ve expressed, and I think some people could give legitimacy to that concern in the way they communicate here.

    I personally can’t think of anything good that would come out of SMR failing, even though I occasionally feel irritated by changes he’s made. But to be honest, he doesn’t even come close to the irritation I felt with my old teacher, whom I loved. I’m embarrassed even to talk about that.

    Anyway, I think at some point, perhaps after one has been married for a while, or lived a while, irritation ceases to be a reason to try to destroy someone. And instead becomes something interesting to be explored.

    At least we’re getting into legitimate discussion now, getting down to the nitty gritty. Thank you, Mr. Tischer.

    If I was SMR, (from the little I know of him) my early life would have taught me that many white people, including those who claim to be “spiritual”, would like nothing better than to viciously control me. I would have a hell of a time getting over that, even with lots of practice and all that good stuff.

  239. Edward on August 16th, 2009 1:55 pm

    Hi Davee,

    Yes, your number 10 is a good contribution. However, I think it’s similar to numbers 1 and 4 that I tried to formulate.

    The problem is that SMR advertises himself as a successor of the Druk Sakyong in the Shambhala lineage. That’s his number one credential, to use that term in a positive sense.

    If he really felt his father was wrong and that SMR’s authority came as a Buddhist lineage-holder, and that the Shambhala lineage was partly fraudulent, then perhaps it would be better to change how he advertises himself.

  240. Davee on August 16th, 2009 3:44 pm

    I don’t see the similarity to your 1 through 4 at all, how do you mean?

    Changing how the werma sadhana is transmitted is a change, but I’m not sure that necessarily is saying that the Druk Sakyong was “wrong.” Is that what you mean? The ngondro requirements have changed too, and I don’t think that means the Vidhyadhara was wrong about the earlier ngondro requirements.

    When those ngondro requirements changed, from ‘by count’ to ‘by time’, an Acharya asked Khenpo Rinpoche which he thought was better and he replied “by realization”. lol.

  241. Mark Szpakowski on August 16th, 2009 8:43 pm

    Davee, re

    10. The Werma Sadhana was already Buddhist.

    Here’s what the Dorje Dradul (a secular title used by Chögyam Trungpa in Shambhala context) had to say in March, 1984:

    From one way of thinking, the sadhana has been influenced by the traditional buddhist style, but on the other hand it is quite different. It is a self-contained practice. It is not particularly borrowed from buddhism, but it is simply self-existent in the Shambhala style.

    I can’t say it any more clearly than that.

    Re your comments about swearing allegiance being always there, it was there twofold: in the loyalty due to the King in Shambhala Kingdom context, and in the samaya of devotion due to a Vajra Master in Vajrayana Buddhist context. The two are analogous but distinct, even if held in the same body/mind. “King” in Vajrayana Buddhist context derives from a more primordial king meme. The term sadhana is used in Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and even Christian contexts.

    I think Davee you’re taking the point of view that shambhala needs to be derived from buddhism. There is another way of looking at it: that buddhism derives from seeing how things are, and that shambhala derives from seeing how things are. Shambhala view and practice does not need buddhist view and practice, and buddhism does not need shambhala. They can illuminate and care for each other, from their distinctive languages and practices; but shambhala is also there to illuminate and care for any other practice tradition, and is open to being illuminated by its basic truth.

    Shambhala does not come from buddhism – it comes from the world. That may be a copernican revolution. It comes from how the world is – ultimately drala in the cosmic mirror – and from what the world expresses and needs: ways of relating to such drala in all patterns and institutions.

    Shambhala (”the sacred path of the warrior”) is not a religion, but, or an attempt at, permeating the secular with sacred outlook, in a way that citizens regardless of religious practice can engage in. it could be criticized if it failed in that attempt and did become yet another religion, but it is at least that attempt. And that attempt is ever more relevant.

    Re this language about “the Scorpion Seal retreat, only unlocked recently” and “repeatedly requested to be unlocked requires more abhishekas and training in trekchö and thögal … which require samaya”: this has started proliferating lately. It is new branding language, with the key holder the message. Sorry, this was not given with a personal lock. In the experience and understanding of myself and many others, the texts and intention are much more direct, are impeccable (not the same as religious), and are primarily about other – of which buddhist is a small fraction.

  242. John Castlebury on August 16th, 2009 10:34 pm

    [VCTR, “Written following the final talk of a Shambhala Training Level F”, Oakland, CA, 29 August 1982:]

    NATURAL SANCTUARY WITHOUT SHRINE

    Dancer and singer are beautiful.
    Sun and moon are bright.
    Antelope and deer are composed.
    Tulip is so beautiful.
    Rose grows without being told.
    We as human beings develop without being told:
    Some of us tell ourselves we are good; some, that we are bad.
    Natural dignity need never be told.
    Natural goodness is.
    That is-ness never needs to be told or taught to anybody.
    Good for Shambhala vision!
    We never run out of vision.

  243. John Tischer on August 16th, 2009 11:00 pm

    I’ve been thinking of saying something about this for a while. I had tremendous doubt around my relationship with VCTR for many years.
    I always fell back on “I know he’s enlightened, so it must be my problem”.
    In the long run, that seems to have been the correct view. If someone has that kind of devotion towards SMR, I’m not one to doubt them. Everyone has
    their own basic intelligence and goodness. Even us apostates.

  244. danny goldberger on August 17th, 2009 1:51 am

    Tischer, you are cool. Say hi to tatehuari for me. Mark. . . So Samaya is a Buddhist thing. (your statement)[the two are analogous but distinct etc] then the samaya in the werma sadhana and scorpion seal texts????
    Not vajrayana samaya, but secular samaya? c’mon.
    here is a suggestion. Drawing the two into one path is not a precursor of Shambhala being brought back into the fold of Buddhism, but of bringing the Buddhists into the fold of Shambhala. . . Before the Buddhism is eventually dropped. there goes the Kagyu and so on. . .
    THINK BIGGERer er er er . . .

  245. rita ashworth on August 17th, 2009 7:18 am

    Re Danny’s comment I dont think religions need to be ‘dropped’ into
    shambhala. I think rather with the shambhala teachings CTR was trying
    to bring people of all faiths together with the re-introduction of the
    meditation process for them. I dont think he wanted ‘integration’ as say
    the former colonies of GB being ‘ruled’ by an ethos -maybe he wanted
    a more commonwealth vision -that all religions could work together to
    create an enlightened society.

    I am not much bothered about doing the new practices – I dont need more
    practices to do and I dont even think these new practices will bring about
    an enlightened society -its not cause and effect here. Rather I am much more concerned in bringing the fundamental teachings of book the Sacred Path of the Warrior to as many people as possible and I really dont know how people will use these teachings within their lives but I do tend to think now that the path will have to be less structured -who knows what will come from the Cosmic Mirror -its any ones guess? Perhaps it should be left up to time itself to decide.

    Re the Sakyong no-one wants him to ‘fail’ but we all want to succeed in all
    our different ways of interpreting Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings – I think
    here in his role as a Sakyong he could facilitate new outpourings of the
    teachings even if people did not regard him as their main teacher.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth

  246. Edward on August 17th, 2009 9:59 am

    Mr. Tischer writes:
    “I know he’s enlightened, so it must be my problem”… If someone has that kind of devotion towards SMR, I’m not one to doubt them.

    Mr. Tischer, what exactly are you saying here? It sounds compassionate and understanding, but I’m wondering what exactly you’re endorsing.

    And furthermore, what difference does it make who someone is devoted to?

    Does devotion prevent a person from being a decent human being? Is devotion something that makes us dishonest or crooked, or blind, a kind of alibi that we have to use to justify our behavior? What a weak, devitalizing thing devotion must be in that case.

    My old teacher once said you could have a perfectly realized teacher, but if you approach him or her for the wrong reasons, or with the wrong attitude, you could potentially end up more confused and deluded than you were to begin with. That’s if you’re devoted to a perfect teacher.

    A lot of the evil committed in the world is done in the name of one religious figure or another. All of it is done with the certainty that what’s being is right, because it’s being done out of a sense of devotion. How could we be wrong, since we’ve got everything Holy on our side?

    So I’m not sure how purported devotion to a teacher can make a person’s behavior “doubtless”, which is what it sounded like was being suggesting here.

    I’m taking issue with this concept in general, not with regards to any particular teacher. I’ve never met SMR and don’t hardly know anything about him.

    Anyway, I would hate for people to make excuses for me or tolerate inappropriate behavior from me, just because they knew I was devoted to a teacher. That’s the opposite of a supportive sangha, as I understand it.

  247. John Tischer on August 17th, 2009 10:51 am

    A lot of people didn’t think VCTR was enlightened….I couldn’t figure out why.
    One could be deceiving one’s self, which is why the admonishment to check the teacher out thoroughly. But it really is up to the individual.

    “My old teacher once said you could have a perfectly realized teacher, but if you approach him or her for the wrong reasons, or with the wrong attitude, you could potentially end up more confused and deluded than you were to begin with. That’s if you’re devoted to a perfect teacher”.

    Of course….same deal relating to any teacher.

    Then there’s the story of the nun that practiced in front of a tooth she thought was a relict of the Buddha, but was actually a dog’s tooth….
    she got enlightened anyway, so the story goes. It was her intention and pure devotion that mattered…not so much the object.

    I’m mainly saying it’s very difficult to judge someone else’s path. This is
    not the same issue as looking critically at an organization.

    Of course one can see, presumably, if someone’s behavior has qualities
    of the dharma or not…that’s why the sangha is important…so we can give each other feedback. I wasn’t implying that having devotion justifies
    any kind of behavior.

    BTW Danny, Tatewari turns out to be bogus.

  248. danny goldberger on August 17th, 2009 12:02 pm

    Rita you should read my post again. I didn’t say anything about traditions being dropped into Shambhala. Quite the opposite. And it was just a suggestion of a possible direction. Re:making the teachings of Sacred Path available to many. . . they are: try Amazon.com. Thing is most of us only get a small piece when we read it. Only a small percentage of people will practice wholeheartedly even if we air-drop copies of the Werma Sadhana on London and New York. What we need is a few people actually manifesting the fruition of the teachings, something that hasn’t happened much so far. By saying ‘you can have these teachings but you actually have to do it, not just pretend; we increase the chances greatly.

  249. rita ashworth on August 17th, 2009 1:15 pm

    Dear Danny

    “What we need is a few people actually manifesting the fruition of the teachings, something that hasn’t happened much so far.”

    I am not sure about the above comment -what do you really mean here? Would we ’see’ or ‘feel’ that state from others -thats an interesting question? How does one decide on that finally?

    As to the idea of basic goodness itself -yes we do have the books and
    I think we/others should distribute it as widely as possible. What I was
    talking about here was the concept of basic goodness just entering the
    language as though people could discuss it in everyday conversation maybe like the concept of ‘god’. Perhaps here I was thinking more
    of Shambhala Art in this context – as Art seems one of the ways that
    you permeate society with ideas. Perhaps also you could use popular
    music in this regard.

    Re the werma sadhana being dropped on everyone in New York or
    London -that might be a good thing – it might be a switcheroo event. Perhaps you could manifest the essence of it much as the way Mahakasypa(correct spelling?) got enlightened when the Buddha held up a flower. I think there can be a shift in consciousness merely by people discussing things aswell witness poetry and philosphy in the western sense and the eureka moment.

    Yes and is it the text really or something ‘deeper’ that it arouses -here
    psychology comes in I think a little.

    Hope to hear other comments?

    Best

    Rita Ashworth

  250. Ngakma Zer-me Dri'med on August 17th, 2009 4:37 pm

    Many of us have been stewing over Edward’s questions for years. I have no intention of conveying myself as having answers, but I would like to engage the questions anyway.
    Edward: “What difference does it make who somone is devoted to?”
    Ideally, it makes no difference at all. But in the world of real human beings, it seems almost impossible not to fall into the trap where people who think they have devotion to The Guy are somehow special, and people whom they think do not have that devotion are at best marginal. In this regard, I have never met a group of Buddhists with less confidence in their own teacher than the Sakyong’s students. I don’t see any other way to understand the vitriol with which they fall upon anyone who asks a question. I was surprised at first that all questions were met with some version of “You hate the Sakyong,” until this became clear to me..
    Edward: “Does devotion prevent a person from being a decent human being? Is devotion something that makes us dishonest or crooked, or blind, a kind of alibi that we have to use to justify our behavior?”
    Devotion is a Buddhist practice and the heart and soul of Buddhism is basic human decency. But it seems very easy for devotion to be twisted into a mechanism for self-justification. It’s a very small twist at first, but down that road lies the whole horrorshow of cult behavior. This is what bothers me the most about what is happening in Shambhala. I know that there was plenty of such behavior when Trungpa Rinpoche’s students were young and green, but I have always drawn encouragement from the fact that it has proved possible for people to grow up.
    Edward: “. . . you could potentially end up more confused and deluded than you were to begin with. That’s if you’re devoted to a perfect teacher.”
    A perfect teacher is the one who is perfect for you. Wrong attitude, confusion, etc. are always possible, as you have seen, but that does not mean that the practice is not worth attempting.
    Edward: “A lot of the evil committed in the world is done in the name of one religious figure or another. . . . How could we be wrong, since we’ve got everything Holy on our side?”
    I have a lot of sympathy with people who look at the history of religion and decide that the whole endeavor should be dropped. But I think that the Shambhala teachings offer the possibility of doing something really different, something that can break through the old ways of practicing religion to something that actually helps. That is why I am so sad to see that the holders of the Shambhala teachings have in some ways given up on them.
    Edward: “So I’m not sure how purported devotion to a teacher can make a person’s behavior “doubtless”, which is what it sounded like was being suggesting here”
    Doubtlessness is a matter of view on the part of the practitioner. It is fruitional, a result of practice. It has absolutely nothing to do with justifying anything other than t he nature of mind

  251. damchö on August 17th, 2009 6:59 pm

    “…it seems very easy for devotion to be twisted into a mechanism for self-justification. It’s a very small twist at first, but down that road lies the whole horrorshow of cult behavior.”

    Yes, thank you Ngakma Zer-me. And it’s a shame that we can barely even use the word “cult-like” anymore, due to its identification only with crazed self-appointed gurus, mass murder, mass suicide etc. The word is occasionally brought up at Shambhala centres precisely in order to laugh at it. And from the ordinary perspective on what the word means that’s understandable. But also unfortunate because it used to cover a much wider range of concerns than just those melodramatic and very extreme ones.

    Perhaps we will have to come up with another word which highlights the following dangers: insularity and separation along with strong emphasis on one’s own uniqueness, hints of hubris, marginalization of dissent, increasing importance placed upon monitoring and control via the police / military function of the kasung, the phenomenon of groupthink in various ways, increasing glorification over the years of the leader and leader’s family, and so on. And not least: ridicule of anyone–with NO LESS devotion to the lineage–who happens to be genuinely concerned about these things.

    “Edward: ‘A lot of the evil committed in the world is done in the name of one religious figure or another. . . . How could we be wrong, since we’ve got everything Holy on our side?’

    Edward, for me the answer to that question is: because certain basic dharma teachings are constantly forgotten. Trungpa Rinpoche called the vajrayana a “spiritual atomic bomb”. He warned of its dangers earnestly and often. Vajrayana came from and was practiced within an extraordinarily different socio-cultural world. Are we yet ready to implement it in the West? For me this remains an open question, as I witness various forms of arrogant and shockingly uncompassionate behaviour from those who have been empowered by it–not just the green 20-year-old seminarians but from senior teachers also (almost entirely in this particular sangha I should add). And maybe one of the glories of Shambhala was to have been its capacity to introduce the power of tantra in a form which we in the West could comprehend better, could practice more faithfully and with less confusion. Maybe Rinpoche saw all the dangers and presented Shambhala as an approach which we could practice with less risk of toxicity. I can only speculate.

    One thing I can say though is that the Shambhala sangha has moved in a very radically different direction to every other Tibetan Buddhist sangha in the West. And all the ways in which it has diverged from all the other sanghas are ways which will tend to heighten the danger you bring up Edward, rather than diminish it. The Shambhala leadership as I have seen it certainly does seem to feel that it has “everything Holy on their side”.

    And now, having in good faith voiced my genuine worries, borne of real experience and tempered by much devil’s advocacy: cue the predictable ridicule.

  252. Edward on August 17th, 2009 7:22 pm

    Thanks for the responses.

    My old teacher recommended the book “Journey Without Goal”, among many titles by Trungpa Rinpoche.

    He also talked about cultism with some regularity, and said that it’s just another form of cocoon, or self-enclosed withdrawal from what is “outside” to protect the presumed “center”, except it’s done on a larger scale. He said in his opinion the scale doesn’t make any difference– anything or anyone that can have a self-identity can also engage in cocoon behavior– people, liver cells, social groups, all sorts of things.

    For me, that kind of explanation makes it all so very simple.

  253. danny goldberger on August 17th, 2009 7:45 pm

    ‘Perhaps we will have to come up with another word which highlights the following dangers: insularity and separation along with strong emphasis on one’s own uniqueness, hints of hubris, marginalization of dissent, increasing importance placed upon monitoring and control via the police / military function of the kasung, the phenomenon of groupthink in various ways, increasing glorification over the years of the leader and leader’s family, and so on. ‘

    I don’t think these things are accurate. Simply, at no point are people being encouraged to be ‘precious little snowflakes’[strong emphasis on one's own uniqueness] which seems to contradict the groupthink idea, which also seems pretty far fetched in my experience. The notion of the Kasung as a control mechanism is just silly. Just because Karelis said it doesn’t make it true. The glorification of the leader and family was in full swing while the DD was alive.(some might remember a huge kerfuffle when he bought Lady Diana a Porsche)
    and those Senior teachers behaving uncompassionately. . . Students of the Dorje Dradul no doubt.
    The point being, yes of course there are problems. The amount of agression that comes from posters here should be enough to make it clear that there have always been problems. Suggesting that this arises from the current Sakyong is absurd. It is the students. . . of both Sakyongs who cause these problems. There are a handful of students who actually do the practices right, they are very decent people. There are many who at least have softened a little. . . and there are positively scads who have only made things worse for themselves. This has nothing to do with who was teaching, in breath/outbreath, or what you call it on a given day. This is the fact that the Vajrayana is treacherous, and ego is a sticky wicket.
    Damcho, I hope you don’t think I am ridiculing you by pointing out that I think your observations are contradictory and incongruent with my own.

    To Namkha etc. I have complete confidence in the Sakyong, as do many many others, Your statement is simply a slam. It has no merit.

  254. damchö on August 17th, 2009 8:42 pm

    Danny, no I don’t believe your last post is ridiculing me. But I believe you have misunderstood my point about uniqueness. If you go back and reread that paragraph, it should be clear I am referring to the *group’s* uniqueness, rather than that of the individual, which the individual then clothes him- / herself in. On the contrary, there is less and less latitude for richness of personality within Shambhala, in my view. To bring up an example brought up once before, try and imagine as free a spirit as Allen Ginsberg hanging out at a land centre today, becoming beloved within the community precisely because of his open mind and heart and unpredictable spontaneity, invited to collaborate with the Sakyong in poetry etc. I’m not sure Allen would be able to breathe within Shambhala today. No, the whole point about uniqueness is that the *group* creates and continually strengthens a sense of it, and then the individual lives within that group sense of specialness. This exonerates them from examining it closely. After all, how can their ego be involved if they’re doing it all for the Cause? For Dharma? For the Salvation of the World? This is precisely the point.

    Groupthink: well, admittedly that comment is only based on approximately 3 billion conversations I’ve had in centres, hearing the same exact phrases to describe things, the same exact defenses of one thing and another. (Okay, I wildly exaggerated. Maybe closer to 3,000.)

    “The notion of the Kasung as a control mechanism is just silly. Just because Karelis said it doesn’t make it true.” I’m not referring to something anyone else said, only my own eyes and ears. Live at a centre for a few months with an impartial, unbiased attitude: I believe the great majority who try that experiment will recognize that the Kasung take note–and are asked to take note–of what is said, especially what is said by people viewed as insufficiently kosher / orthodox / whatever. I would say there are no other possible explanations for certain things I’ve witnessed. And I’m far from being the only one who has observed this.

    Your anecdote about the Porsche seems to me to illustrate the opposite of what you meant it to, unless I am misunderstanding. The fact that there was a “huge kerfuffle” in the first place would tend to point to a greater perceived freedom on the part of students to speak out about what was bothering them than there is today. (Also, back then there were always various individuals on the shrine who didn’t happen to all belong to the same family…)

    “There are a handful of students who actually do the practices right….there are positively scads who have only made things worse for themselves….This is the fact that the Vajrayana is treacherous…”

    “Made things worse for themselves” *and*, necessarily, others. Here we are in complete agreement Danny. The only place we seem to differ is: I happen to think that number is increasing, for reasons given.

  255. danny goldberger on August 18th, 2009 1:56 am

    Well, it seems I did misunderstand that first bit. But I do feel that the level of delusion has been fairly constant, even diminishing . I just don’t believe the churchy uptightness that bothers us both(it seems) comes from the top down. I know far too many people who are progressing quite well on the path, whether they are older or younger students.
    The Kasung thing I have to bring up again. I have been a Kasung for thirteen years and can assure you that in no way are people instructed to look for or quash dissent. It simply isn’t true. This goes back to the question of the students; there are those who will mistake the teachings to suggest that they should actually try to keep people from expressing doubt. That is nowhere in the teachings and certainly not in the intetion of the Sakyong.
    Allen Ginsberg. . . interesting choice. But lets pretend you chose someone a little less egomaniacl as an example. Freespirited and direct does seem to fly, of course it can be met with resistance and scrutiny, I know, I have experienced it. I have also kept right on going. Eventually people recognize genuinness. Ginsberg was kind of a clown really, but he grew up(some). I have seen a lot of clowns grow up recently too.
    I don’t know if you live at a small center or what, but I haven’t seen this repression you claim is so prevelant.
    As far as people saying the same things and giving the same logics for everything… I have had a problem with this too. I used to get bored stiff during talks (by senior students of the Vidydhara) because people clearly were just repeating words, with no real understanding of the meaning. Again, I don’t feel that this is getting worse, or better. It is a characteristic of the culture we come from, the difference between the pastor who talks from the heart, and the one who can’t speak without a bible.
    The Mukpo Family has always had a huge level of privelage(the blood family, not the we are all Mukpos family) that was my only point. People act as thought SMR being king of Shambhala and having a royal family was his idea. I think we need to bear in mind that we live in the single most materialistic society on earth, and that we are barely into the second generation of these teachings. SMR has been pushing his senior students to step into the dharma wholeheartedly so as to bring us a bit closer to an enlightened society, people are starting to do it, but the fact that nothing that impressive has emerged just yet shouldn’t be too surprising. The best we got out of the Vidydharas students were some Acharyas, Robin, a handful of senior teachers and the wackjob in crestone who proclaimed himself a Vajra Master because his students couldn’t resist his charisma. Again, quality of the students.
    That being said, there has been remarkable progress. Basic Goodness is becoming much more well known. Compasion is more than a buzzword, but something that is being contemplated deeply. And Vajra energy is no longer an excuse to be a drunk asshole.
    (ran out of characters maybe say more later)

  256. Edward on August 18th, 2009 2:08 am

    Thanks Mr. Goldberger, that was interesting and informative.

    I had to laugh out loud at one of your comments. I remember attending an intro event by the gentleman from Crestone, and while I thought he did have some charisma, which I welcomed, I couldn’t believe some of the things that came out of his mouth, about “taint” meditation and getting “results” within 2-3 minutes of sitting, and so on.

    In a way, it’s both funny and scary what can become of us when we step out of previous structures that limited our behavior, and express a whole nother side of ourselves!

    I’m not sure who’s to thank, but this is becoming a great discussion, as far as online discussions go.

  257. Rita Ashworth on August 18th, 2009 6:38 am

    I find Mr Goldbergers comments quite interesting – it is a snapshot of how
    he views the organisation at the present time re the ‘dissenters.’

    The question though now is how could the Sakyong accommodate
    divergent views within the greater shambhala mandala. I have no
    problem in some of the older students forming their own organisations
    and going their own way and it seems from what Richard has said that there will be more room left to ‘help’ people out organisationally -or have I
    misunderstood that? Surely it would be better to work with people in some
    way who have different comprehensions about what Trungpa Rinpoche
    taught than not.

    I dont know about Ray but I think it is best that he is not vilified at the
    present time -whats the point in doing that? In a practical sense he has
    split from the organisation so why are people in SI still bothered about him.

    Myself I am veering away from a structured linear path -that is a personal choice – I want to do things in a more ad hoc manner. I wonder if SI
    could devise programmes for people who dont fit the mould? May be one could do some programmes still within SI?

    Re the kasung -the kasung are interesting. I have done some guard duty
    in the past myself. In London in the 1980s some Wednesdays I would
    open the place up wearing the blue blazer and the grey skirt -very nice, but
    I think that has now gone by the board and things are more informal. Re
    the services generally UK is a very uniformed society – I think in the past 10 years I have worked with all the services, the army, the fire service, the prison service – one could go on and on. To me the essence of public service in this manner is one to protect and perhaps two to listen otherwise you have problems. This is especially the case in the prison service when at one point I was locked out because the protection squad had to remove people from the yard because they would not return to their cells.

    So yes dissent is interesting too – does it have lessons for all of us into how we could encompass diversity rather than muffle it -can we have ‘communities’ (plural) instead of community (singular) in this coming enlightened society.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK

  258. Caroly on August 18th, 2009 9:27 am

    Searching for crazy wisdom I found this text that speaks for itself.

    From: The Divine Madman Drukpa Kunley:

    ‘I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited a Kagyu Academy,
    And in that Kagyu Academy every monk was holding a jug full
    of chung -
    So fearful of becoming a drunken reveller, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited a Sakya Academy,
    And in that Sakya Academy the monks were splitting subtle
    doctrinal hairs -
    So fearful of forsaking the true path of Dharma, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited the Academy of Galden,’
    And in the Galden Academy each monk was seeking a boyfriend -
    So fearful of losing my semen, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited a School of Gomchens,
    And in those hermitages every Gomchen wanted a lover
    So fearful of becoming a father and householder, I kept to myself
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited a Nyingma Academy,
    And in that Nyingma Academy each monk was aspiring to
    perform in the Mask Dance
    So fearful of becoming a professional dancer, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited Mountain Hermitages,
    And in those hermitages the monks were gathering worldly
    possessions
    So fearing to break my vow to my Lama, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited a Charnel Ground
    and outlying areas,
    And in those deserted places the Shaman Diabolists’ were
    brooding on fame
    So fearful of enslaving myself to gods or demons, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited a Pilgrim Caravan,
    And found the Pilgrims engaged in trading
    So fearful of becoming a profit-hungry trader, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited a Retreat Centre,
    And here the meditators basked in the sun
    So fearing to relax in a small hut’s security, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, sat at the feet of an Incarnate Lama
    Whose constant preoccupation was his religious treasures
    So fearing to become a collector or miser, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, stayed with the Lama’s attendants
    Who had established the Lama as their tax collector
    So fearing to become a servant of the Disciples, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited the house of a rich man,
    Where the slaves of wealth were complaining like Denizens of Hell
    So fearful of rebirth as Lord of the Hungry Ghosts, I kept to
    myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited the house of poor, lowly
    people
    Who had placed their patrimony and possessions in pawn
    So fearful of becoming a disgrace to my race, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, visited the Religious Centre of Lhasa,
    Where the hostesses were hoping for their guests’ gifts and favours
    So fearing to become a flatterer, I kept to myself.
    I, an ever roaming Naljorpa, wandering throughout the land,
    Found self-seeking sufferers wherever I looked
    So fearful of thinking only of myself. I kept to myself.’

  259. Caroly on August 18th, 2009 9:39 am

    Could we start a new thread on crazy wisdom?

  260. damchö on August 18th, 2009 10:54 am

    Thanks for your thoughts Danny. Just a few comments:

    First, I would not expect you, as a kasung pledged to loyalty, to do otherwise than to defend the kasung. That’s fine. What I’m more interested in are corrective mechanisms. Pride in the organization is great; enthusiasm is great. Belief that we specifically are the ones who will save the world? Belief that since we are destined to succeed, we must not slow down the mission with unnecessary checks and balances? So dangerous.

    My experience is different from yours here.

  261. damchö on August 18th, 2009 11:32 am

    “Allen Ginsberg. . . interesting choice. But lets pretend you chose someone a little less egomaniacal as an example. Freespirited and direct does seem to fly, of course it can be met with resistance and scrutiny…”

    This is an interesting response. “Egomaniacal,” first of all. Seems to me we’re pretty much all egomaniacal, right? Ego is ego. It has many styles. Five major ones, according to the teachings, and countless combinations of these. Now, are all styles of ego viewed the same way within Shambhala these days? Your comment suggests not, as does my experience.

    You say, “freespirited and direct” people …*of course*… can be met with resistance and scrutiny.” I’ve emphasized “of course” to point something out. Ultimately, you say, it will “seem to” fly. But those qualities can “of course” be scrutinized. Why specifically freespiritedness? This is really my point.

    From all that I have heard, Trungpa Rinpoche loved that quality. Yes of course he then worked with that student’s energies, as with everyone’s energies, to try and transmute it all into pure gold…

    But the first thing I ever remember hearing about Rinpoche–from a student of his from the early ’70s–concerned this. He told me that Rinpoche loved intensity and passion, loved all the richness in people: the more the better! I was fascinated by such a view, since it was utterly different from what I’d experienced within Christianity. So I remember asking him further what he meant by that, and he said that it was all going to be turned into enlightened energy, and that Rinpoche had said if there wasn’t much there to begin with, there was much less “stuff” to work with and transform. Brilliant confusion yielding brilliant wisdom.

    I think Ginsberg *is* an “interesting choice,” as you put it, to bring up. He’s interesting because he may have helped interest more people in dharma than just about anyone in the sangha outside Trungpa Rinpoche himself. And in fact is still doing so. How many people in this generation and future generations will hear of the dharma first through his poetry and example, and be inspired to practice? We can’t measure that.

    (out of characters)

  262. damchö on August 18th, 2009 11:33 am

    (continued)

    Didn’t intend to write so much on this but … your use of the word “freespirited” seems to have got me going…

    Trungpa Rinpoche was gloriously, even shockingly “freespirited” and remained so all his life. Are we trying to ensure that only one particular type of person speaks for Shambhala from now on? And that its public persona is so tame even a fundamentalist Christian, say, will feel unthreatened by it?

    But since you called Ginsberg an “egomaniac” and a “clown,” let me stand up for him in another respect too: he was tremendously courageous. He worked with his fears thoroughly. In fact he made an actual list of all his fears early in life–a very long list–and kept challenging himself to work with them so that he could cross them all off one by one. I can’t come up with very many people as brave as he was, actually. And from all the outpourings of appreciation after his death, it seems he was exceptionally generous too.

    We’re trying to cultivate warriorship. I think he’s someone we can learn from. He often said, “candor ends paranoia,” and he practiced it, and inspired innumerable people to open up and relax, and to stop hating themselves quite … so … much.

    You say, “Vajra energy is no longer an excuse to be a drunk asshole.” Why is “drunk” in