On Differing Views and Paths
July 16, 2009 by Andrew Safer 
Print This Post
Interview with Richard Reoch, by Andrew Safer
On-line discussions on the Radio Free Shambhala web site and various listservs have been pointing out that there are students of Trungpa Rinpoche who are continuing along the path he set out for them, and who don’t feel welcome within the current-day Shambhala community. It no longer feels like “home” to them. Sometimes they are disparaged by community members who cite their “lack of loyalty” to the current Sakyong.
Andrew Safer of Radio Free Shambhala recently had the opportunity to ask Richard Reoch, President of Shambhala, to comment on this state of affairs.
Radio Free Shambhala: As you know, there has been tension and disagreement between some of Trungpa Rinpoche’s senior students and some of the students of the Sakyong, regarding changes to the practice path and differences of view. Many of these senior students do not feel that there is room for them within the Shambhala mandala.
Richard Reoch: It’s true that some of the long-term students of the Vidyadhara feel like they’re not supported. I and others have been in conversation with some of the long-term acharyas to see what is the practice support that is needed that would continue to nurture their path, and not make them feel excluded.
RFS: Sometimes the samaya of these senior students has been questioned.
Richard Reoch: That’s not what I feel Shambhala vision is about. I do not believe we should be commenting on or having the presumption to comment on another practitioner’s samaya. We all have a common, deep karmic connection. Probably most of us can’t even fathom it. We are all in this extraordinary lineage stream. We have a deep shared vision, at least about what Shambhala means, in an archetypal sense, in our subconscious.
To regard someone who is maintaining samaya within the Shambhala lineage as a dissenter is a mistaken view. It is not helpful to comment on the legitimacy of another person’s practice of samaya. Perhaps this happens because we don’t have the ground for the perpetuation of lineage in this culture. If you think several generations ahead, are we going to say that the students of the next Sakyong are dissenters because they’re following the teachings of Mipham? This is a fundamental misunderstanding of lineage.
One problem with the transplantation of egoless devotion from a culture like Tibet to a culture like we have in the West is we don’t have a tradition of lineage in modern form. We don’t have the cultural roots to support that. We are all grappling with how to understand this profound teaching.
I try to use the office I hold (as President), and the authority that goes with it to deal with this issue. When members of our community are described as “border tribes”—when they write me or meet with me—I devote a lot of time and try to learn from them. I think there has been a kind of polarization in which extreme language is used. We genuinely have to go deeper, beneath this level of argument, to find the commonality. I’m definitely doing that, person to person.
Maybe now that the current orientation of the path is getting clearer, we need to have a conversation with the senior acharyas about precisely what could be the support that can be provided for people who started on a particular element of the path of Shambhala and that needs to continue and be supported?
Five Sakyongs down the road, there will be people who say “I make a personal connection by reading the works of the Vidyadhara.” Others will day “How fortunate it was for Shambhala that Mipham the Great reincarnated as the Sakyong.” Eventually, it’s not just about tolerating differences; it’s about appreciating the incredible richness that’s available in our kingdom.
RFS: The real question is: how are the teaching stream and legacy of Trungpa Rinpoche going to continue?
Richard Reoch: I’ve been in discussions with Carolyn Gimian since the beginning of the Chögyam Trungpa Legacy Project about the importance of that initiative. The analogy we have used is that the Legacy Project is like a presidential library, so things don’t end up moldering and being lost. I’ve had some initial conversations with some of the longer-term students and acharyas about how to create an identifiable and helpful framework so no one is seen as being on one track or the other, or as renegades which is antithetical to the long-term survival of the lineage.
RFS: Many people who are devoted to Trungpa Rinpoche and who don’t consider the Sakyong to be their teacher don’t feel welcomed by the community, and they’re afraid to speak up.
Richard Reoch: One of the earliest statements issued by the Mandala Governing Council created after the first Shambhala Congress was a statement on the commitment to openness. I asked members of that council to list the issues that people are afraid to speak up about. We seemed to have inherited an incredible atmosphere of fear, and I did not understand that. I had no idea the extent to which this community was traumatized. When I asked what issues were not being addressed, people were afraid to name the issues. I think we all realized, ‘Wow, we can’t even talk about what we can’t talk about!’ Opening up that discussion was like Glasnost and Perestroika in Shambhala.
I talked to Larry Mermelstein, and asked, “Is there anything we can do to reduce this climate of fear?” Some people were experiencing this fear in a very palpable way. If we can’t create a social framework in which we understand that people will have different points of view, then all the notions of fearlessness and openheartedness—everything we’re so proud of about the Shambhala inheritance—absolutely won’t take root. We can’t build an enlightened society on a basis of fear.
Wherever I go, I invite people to talk to me about this so I can find out more about it. Sometimes, because someone has said something extremely abusive, we feel like we’re going to lose membership. There are people hiding out, as if they’re the old Chi Kung masters at the height of the Cultural Revolution hoping they’re not noticed by the Red Guards. It’s a slow process of personal conversation, trying to address these tendencies of people persecuting each other.
When Radio Free Shambhala was established, people contacted me as if this was the end of the world. “No, just think ahead,” I said. “If we think about the new golden age of Shambhala, there will be countless Web sites and social networking opportunities where people express their experience of the dharma and of different teachers, including what others might disagree with. If there’s one thing that prevents establishing the kingdom of Shambhala, it’s called fascism, and I‘m not having anything to do with that.”
Thanks to this site and thanks to Richard.
This is interesting – another interview re the structure of the organisation.
Firstly why has this interview happened at this time – is it that more people are having qualms about the way SI is evolving – dont think Richard would have done this interview if he was not getting a lot of questions from everyone, afterall he was the communications officer for Amnesty. However I dont know if he can hold or encompass all the divergent views arising now in the greater sangha as to the way the
Vidyadhara wanted an enlightened society to evolve. I think the Sakyong by instituting the changes within the organisation has really made people out there really question what the Vidyadhara envisaged as an enlightened society and to bring these views, feelings back within SI as a whole I am not sure if this is possible.
So Richard is having talks with the greater sangha and the acharyas about how SI can not exclude people -
how they can nurture our paths. I dont know perhaps now there has to be a reframing of that question how can the ‘dissenters’ nurture your path?!
Maybe there has to be split -myself I see SI emphasis on financing the whole thing to the nth degree abhorent and shambhala buddhism I still find questionable especially in regard to the wishes of the Vidyadhara for the shambhala teachings to be open to everyone. In addition the level of scholarship going on in the propagation of the shambhala teachings is abysmal – as far as I can see we have the Sakyong and three other people deciding on the whole future curricula of the organisation at the
pesent time – is this reasonable?
There is the slim possibility that teachers now on there own path -teaching streams could be re-integrated within SI as separate colleges maybe agreeing on an ethical level about how they can conduct themselves but as to finances and governance I think the die has been somewhat cast. We can all see that Ray is getting students and that older students of Trungpa are also getting students. Is the Sakyong getting students – I cant see now a rapid increase in the level of the memberhsip within SI -perhaps Richard could enlighten us on this. Myself I like Richard – I thought he was a good choice to be President but maybe he should have been having open conversations like the one above much earlier. In the UK communications have to done with the public almost within days when issues errupt.
Anyway for me SI has come to tipping point – hence the interview I think – at present I think I am following my own conscience as to how to proceed perhaps due to my northern bolishiness – I hope people everywhere in all your separate organisations become more ‘deviant’ and ‘unpredictable’
on your religious journeys.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
This is disappointing. Something more specific would have been better. For example the status of relations with the Oaji sangha or with Reggie. The Legacy project, at least in Boulder, foundered for lack of support from SI.
I’m curious: is there anything still happening with it?
Oops. I’m posting again because I forgot to check the “Notify me of follow up comments” box.
Apologiex.
From the end of the Shambhala Times posting of the same interview:
“President Reoch writes: “I was asked by Radio Free Shambhala to talk about the current guidelines for inviting teachers and, in the course of that, asked if I could talk also about the issue of fear in our mandala. I am delighted that Radio Free Shambhala is posting that interview on its website. Along these very same lines, I was deeply touched to hear the Sakyong say recently: ‘It is not a matter of us all agreeing. It is a matter of us not giving up.’””
Interesting to have the topic of “fear” be the central thread in this interview, and at that the first congress that fear was palpable.
My experience of discussions here has been less a sense of fear and more irritation and judgment, ie. statements about the organization or the Sakyong as wrong for doing this or that. It’s had a more vajra quality to my ear. (or perhaps that is my own vajra ear hearing it that way)
Rita: the membership role has had regular growth for the last few years – per the SDB that is tracking that data with some precision now. Not sure I would call it “rapid” growth though, more steady. And seminaries and abhishekas are regular so that should be some indication of how many people are entering those mandalas.
I’ve obviously missed something. Can somebody please explain what it is that people are afraid of?
Howard, personally speaking–and for what it’s worth–I do fear certain potentials within Shambhala, heightened more and more by the direction it has been going.
Not because I believe in good guys and bad guys, obviously. Shambhala is filled with loads of kind, dedicated, wonderful people. But because I’ve personally experienced a number of times within Shambhala the ways in which a big Agenda (very, very big in this case), peer pressure and conformity, collective defensiveness, a seeming fear of dissent and desire to monitor and control as much as possible, and other of those ancient temptations of power can simply erode our best intentions. That the leadership of Shambhala has the best of intentions I have no doubt. That’s not the issue.
This is all the more poignantly applicable to dharma organizations. Because, well, dharma is the Truth, right? How could we possibly deviate very far from the Truth so long as we’re a dharma organization? It just can’t happen. It could never happen. We don’t have to worry about it at all…
For me this question trumps everything else: is the organization fundamentally healthy, wholesome? Does dharma come before everything? Everything–even the survival of the formal entity in its present form and ambitions? If so, then it seems to me all other issues can resolve themselves over time. If not…
So to answer your question very specifically: what I personally fear are the dynamics of power within Shambhala. In my experience it has become ever more opaque, secretive, and tightly controlled. It has the biggest possible agenda. It is close, it seems to me (and in the absence of anyone answering my question about this) to having effectively left the larger body of Tibetan Buddhist lineage. And it has all kinds of ways of marginalizing or simply ignoring dissent.
These are the things I have seen, and honestly they have frightened me very much. I realize this view is different from probably the great majority here, but I can only share what I have experienced.
Richard Reoch: “One of the earliest statements issued by the Mandala Governing Council created after the first Shambhala Congress was a statement on the commitment to openness. I asked members of that council to list the issues that people are afraid to speak up about. We seemed to have inherited an incredible atmosphere of fear, and I did not understand that. I had no idea the extent to which this community was traumatized. When I asked what issues were not being addressed, people were afraid to name the issues. I think we all realized, ‘Wow, we can’t even talk about what we can’t talk about!’ Opening up that discussion was like Glasnost and Perestroika in Shambhala.”
Very telling, Mr. Reoch…and how come you missed this all these years?
Comparing Shambhala to the Soviet Union is also telling…(I didn’t say it, he did). Will there be another committee to study the issue of openness,
the way there is one to study the issue of diversity? Am I being critical, or, just observant? The whole thing begins to seem absurd…thanks to Mr. Reoch for his honesty….it is so revealing.
dear damchö, i think a number of factors point to SI being just as close to Tibetan Buddhism as always; not separating further from it. Things like:
- cohosting probably the largest Rinchen Terzod abhisheka ever held
- cohosting H.H. the Karmapa’s first visit to America
- rebuilding the Surmang shedra
- helping to support Choseng Trungpa Rinpoche’s education
- the Sakyong’s responsibilities and visits as Mipham Rinpoche in Tibet
- and the marriage with the Ripa family and lineage
i’m sure i’m forgetting many other indications too. i don’t see any contra-indications really either. namely, having a terma tradition as a “specialty” in a lineage is not a new concept nor causes you to be your own thing. many nyingma lineages also specialize in particular terma, even though they may do many other things too. so we can i think have our “specialty” shambhala terma that we’re known for, as well as hold the “specialty” surmang flavor of chakrasamvara, plus lojong, etc etc. without needing to create a whole new lineage or separate in any way (in my opinion.)
Davee
One could as easily say that the SMR is doing these things because he has become a pawn of the Tibetians. It depends on how you want to look at it.
I’m not saying you’re wrong in your view. I’m saying what you want as an outcome may determine how you see things. Your comment has nothing to do with this thread, actually…in my opinion
damchö,
I appreciate your sharing your concerns about the ‘temptations of power’ in SI, and I don’t know whether you are in the minority on this site at least. But perhaps it would be even more illuminating if you could tell us why you personally feel the need to retain anonymity by using a Tibetan name when you express yourself on this site. What are the personal fears you have about revealing your identity here – the name you are known by – you know, first and last names? I think that sharing those fears would open the discussion further.
President Reoch spoke of “trying to address these tendencies of people persecuting each other.” ‘Persecuting’ is a strong word. Usually it refers to the victimization of a minority by a more powerful majority, doesn’t it? The strong persecute the weak, right? Like the Germans persecuting the Jews and Gypsies, or a boss picking on an employee? Doesn’t persecution carry a connotation of vindictiveness?
Is it accurate to say that dissenters on RFS are “persecuting” anyone with their complaints, questions and criticisms? I’ve never heard anyone speak of dissidents as ‘persecuting’ their powerful oppressors, although plenty of powerful oppressors are known to have literally persecuted dissidents.
However, it may be that the marginalization of those students of CTR who question what is being done in Shambhala Intl. IS persecution. I have heard of attempts to shut people up – to the point of condemnation, ridicule and slander. Is there a culture of persecution in SI? Is this what you fear, damchö? I haven’t personally experienced this because I instinctively moved out of the line of fire about 10 yrs ago.
It’s so interesting that Pres. Reoch “had no idea the extent to which this community was traumatized.” That means that nobody let him in on the ‘family secrets’ when he was inducted into SI. Now why was that, I wonder. Well, all dysfunctional families hide their family secrets in order to appear respectable. “We don’t hang out our dirty laundry,” as my grandmother used to say, especially with such a profound and brilliant inheritance as we share in Shambhala, right? So perhaps to protect the faith of those who believe in the bright and shining mythology of Shambhala, we hide our dirty laundry. But in the process we’ve become a bickering dysfunctional family, burying fearlessness, openness, genuineness, authenticity and all the other virtues we’re supposed to embody. What irony!
Methinks Trungpa Rinpoche would have wanted a bit more of truth telling. Truth telling washes the dirty laundry. I know it’s hard work, and scary, but until it happens, the mandala will not be fundamentally healthy and wholesome.
Let us hear your fears, damchö, and start the ball rolling!
Warm regards,
Suzanne
Please check this out.
http://www.rememberingthemasters.org/2009/06/tribute-to-jamyang-khyentse-chokyi.html
John, I agree that Richard Reoch’s speaking of the beginning of Glasnost and Perestroika within Shambhala is an interesting choice of metaphor. We would have to see how far it could proceed. But certainly for it to succeed, it seems to me some really fundamental things would have to change in the organization.
Dear Davee, I’m not sure the particular examples you bring up touch my real concern. For the most part these activities are only to be expected, I would say. To *not* help support the current Trungpa Rinpoche would be inexplicable. Ditto to *not* cohost the Karmapa, given the former Trungpa Rinpoche’s profound connection with the former Karmapa–not to mention the fact that Shambhala still presents itself as a Buddhist sangha within the Tibetan tradition. And of course the Sakyong is going to visit Tibet as Mipham Rinpoche, since he was named as such and has responsibilities as such. I don’t believe Shambhala would throw any of these activities and duties away. Why should it? But this isn’t the point.
More the point for me concerns your last paragraph, where you speak of Shambhala as merely having a “specialty” within a lineage. I agree that “specialties” exist, but then the question remains: which lineage is Shambhala a part of, within which it has its specialty teachings? Is it within the Kagyu lineage? In that case it is ultimately subject to the Karmapa, isn’t it? A few years ago for instance the Karmapa very earnestly, even sternly, issued a statement asking all of his centres to become vegetarian. Have Shambhala centres become vegetarian? If not, and if they are still part of the Kagyu lineage, then they are consciously disobeying the Karmapa.
Likewise, if Shambhala remains within the Kagyu and / or Nyingma lineages, where are the lineage holders represented on the shrine? Where for example is Penor Rinpoche, the Sakyong’s main teacher I believe? This is why I asked that question, because the shrine really is a place where a centre or sangha does express its connectedness and continuity with lineage. It’s such a basic, answerable question, isn’t it? Yet seemingly no one will answer it.
So yes, Shambhala isn’t going to suddenly turn and cut off all contact with the rest of the Tibetan Buddhist world. It would obviously not be in its own interest to do this, apart from anything else. But I think on a *deeper* level this is what seems to be going on. For example, as I understand it, only the Sakyong–alone in the world–can give the empowerment to what is now *the* central vajrayana practice within Shambhala, thus isolating Shambhala in a profound way from all other sanghas. And I believe John Rockwell was recently quoted by someone on this board as saying that in the future the Kagyu and Nyingma vajrayana will have to be specifically requested, will not be ordinarily taught? Such a state of affairs is quite unique.
I appreciate the view President Reoch is expressing. However, exhorting people to hold a view has limited efficacy without a supporting practice, and one practice that seems to me to be particularly helpful here is that of asking questions.
If you are a “newer” student who has an opinion on the “older students,” an appropriate question might be “How would you know?”
The Vidhyadhara, the Sakyong, and many teachers remind us that as we practice and seem to progress or become inspired, ego is inflating right along side in subtle and maybe not-so-subtle ways. Seeing this is a mark of insight, let alone of developing decency and a sense of humor. So we could all ask, “In what ways am I pretending to be a buddhist or Shambhalian but actually acting like a cult member?” If the answer is “not at all,” seek an honest friend to have the discussion with.
Similarly we could ask, “How is our organizational neurosis manifesting?” If we are human beings in this world and have an organization, its not possible that we don’t experience organizational neurosis. And that neurosis is going to mirror what’s going on in the larger society. So we could look at that and reflect back. How much in our own organizations are we subject to the worship of the “new,” to theism, to shortening attention spans, to demonization of the other, etc?
The Vidhyadhara taught us not to get caught in the trap of idealism and perfectionism, where we regard our own neurosis as a source of shame, rather than as good manure. If we can’t look at it squarely, we will never have the robust container that can hold differences and therefore a society.
Speaking as an older student, one reason many of us are so sensitive to this is because we’ve experienced being led by a genuine teacher, manifesting as cult members, being inflated and deflated, and being ground down at the intersection of practice, wishful thinking and real life for many years.
I appreciate Michael Chender’s comment – I met you briefly when I was Halifax – Michael do you remember the incident with the turtles on Halifax Common?! Perhaps I should have gone with the turtles I may have got a better story!
Anyway as to your advice I think I have gone through all the processes you suggest and although I do have a big, big ego – I feel quite liberated about stepping out of SI for some time. Perhaps just as a one-off people should try it in the organisation, dont be SI members for a month just open up to the world………that emptiness experience might change your mind about things.
Well to get back to the debate I really need all religions, humanists etc etc
to be given the chance of going to the xth degree with the shambhalian teachings – I dont know perhaps its the ‘buddhist/shambhalian gene’
theory that CTR talked about……….but walking round Manchester one sees so many desperate people hanging out on the streets-you cant ignore the possibility that transforming society through these teachings has to be attempted.
I like things to be free – its part of my northern upbringing. Recently
I went into a Quaker Meeting House to book a room for an event you
know the people in that room were so happy -the man that dealt with my query was so gentle, amusing and almost a relic of a bygone age, and as
Richard has brought up the idea of prerestroika I will bring it up too with that famous phrase of Mrs T (even tho I detested the woman it was a good
phrase) ‘I thought we could do business with that man’- and that is now my position. These teachings have to be open to everyone we have to do business with everyone. SI, the Sakyong maybe even CTR couldn’t and cant do it on their own. Lets make no mistake we are talking about a
revolution in human discourse and society. I am not going to be limited by the SI organisation in doing what I and now perhaps others feel to be right-I am tired of second-guessing myself. Life has to move on.
Well think thats all
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
rita ashworth on July 16th, 2009 8:36 am wrote:
“Anyway for me SI has come to tipping point – hence the interview I think – at present I think I am following my own conscience as to how to proceed perhaps due to my northern bolishiness – I hope people everywhere in all your separate organisations become more ‘deviant’ and ‘unpredictable’
on your religious journeys.”
‘Outliers’ x Malcolm Gladwell goes a long way toward disabusing the reader of the notion of the Horatio Alger-style, self-made, individual success story..
Rather, he points to an alternate story of success as determined by such factors as environment, timing, and community, which support the unfolding and ripening of an individual’s talents.
Cheers,
Ian
I think it’s also worth saying with regard to the Richard Reoch interview that if any of us down in the lowly ranks were to use the metaphors of glasnost, perestroika, the Red Guards, and fascism, we’d be dismissed as a fringe loony.
hi damchö, the sakyong’s root teacher is the vidhyadhara. so in that sense the shrine is consistently showing the current lineage holder and his origins. but again i don’t think we have to show a certain amount of lineage holders on a shrine. if there were no faces on the shrine at all, that might be fine too? like the shambhala shrine setup. how much is just enough?
re: requesting nyingma and kagyu practices. it’s my understanding that relates to seminary specifically. one does what one’s teacher asks, yes? but if one feels strongly, they can request to do kagyu ngondro and that path instead of the shambhala ngondro path first. but it has to be requested. not sure if anyone gets their request, but hey this is the vajrayana. no promises. and beyond that there is always a notion of requesting a lung and to be introduced into a mandala. nothing new there. but after scorpion seal, as far as i know, one still goes onto one of our other specialties.
interesting question you posed about ‘which’ lineage are we. normally i would say we’re the “Surmang” lineage; because we really came from there; and they held a synthesis of kagyu and nyingma streams for some time, and they had heart relationships with both the karma kagyu lineage as well as certain nyingma lineages. Trungpa Rinpoche went to shedra in a neighboring nyingma monastery that also had a kagyu synthesis. I’m not sure it’s exactly cut and dry there what the hierarchy is. does his holiness the karmapa dictate what happens at sechen monastery even though it’s historically a nyingma monastery? yet they also have a heart relationship with the karma kagyu. who’s in charge! my sense is that it’s not so black and white actually, but more shades of gray with respect to hierarchy and when someone issues a dictum who it might apply to. especially in the monastery complexes that are not solely karma kagyu, but hybrid lineages like what was going on in surmang (and sechen and dzongsar and other monasteries). they hold multiple lineages, probably the lineage holder of each valley has a certain loyalty and sense of hierarchy to the different lineage leaders perhaps not as fully as a lineage solely in the karma kagyu hierarchy.
and to rob’s related link above concerning Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö Rinpoche (who was also a terton), he preserved distinct lineages that were dying out and was careful not to muddle or confuse them. i don’t think he would have a problem with what was going on at surmang, or with the vidhyadhara’s terma like the “sadhana of mahamudra” that completely mix the kagyu and nyingma symbols into one practice. also, one of khyentse rinpoche’s students was ju mipham rinpoche, who is known for his shambhala terma discovered in the 19th century.
I was thinking the same thing, Damcho. It’s quite a statement coming from the President of Shambhala!
[VCTR, “Words to ‘My Favorite Things’”, Charlemont, MA, 1977, lines 1-82:]
Tigers with cubs licking their young
Snow lions rustling their manes
The Garuda fluffing and ready to fly
Dragons thundering beyond heaven
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Watching the Sakyong buttoning his coat
Wearing the armor of Shambhala mark
Seeing the innocent perk up
Watching the hummingbirds do their seeking
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Mo-mo with noodles
Uniform with lace
Sweet smiles that suggest the court
Gleaming expressions
That lead to good manners
Without being hampered
By dog bite or bee sting.
I simply regard myself
As the courtier of Kalapa
That Kingdom of Shambhala
Then I don’t feel weak or idle.
I simply remember
I’m a part of the vision
Let us resound
The thunder of Shambhala.
Not being a parrot
Trusting in the mind
Yet devotion at heart
Proclaiming as god
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Not being crocodile
Seeking for no pleasure
Outstandingly elegant
I feel part of the family
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Not being kangaroo
Jumping into conclusions
Genuinely loving the master
I feel truly honored
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Not being mosquito
Taking my chance at an inappropriate time
I am a good servant
Sensitive companion to the court
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Not being too much of tortoise walker
Efficiency and no mind
Play an important part
I take my duty as a good bureaucrat
This is the way I awaken and serve.
No peacock fancy dressed
With a good cologne
Doesn’t quite proclaim
As good guard or good attendant
Genuine willingness with perkiness
Provides good landmark
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Not being new-age watchdog
Be kind and willing
But at the same time
Nasty and bite through whoever deserves
In the protection of the king
This is the way I awaken and serve.
Rhinoceros will never make good servant
Metaphysical speculation occupies one’s mind
So one should come off it
Probably good shock
Will do you good
This is the way I awaken and serve…
[concluding lines 83-150 in next post]
VCTR, “My Favorite Things”, [lines 83-150]
Whenever I serve it is in the fashion
Of lion-dog and good-dragon
I feel good despite my peacock pigeonness
I simply remember this goodness is sanity
Let me pray otherwise
Sky may fall on my head.
Bright blue sky
Beyond your mind
White light of sanity
Beyond speculation
Intellect that is totally beyond scholarship
This is the way I wake from confusion.
Genuine mind
Taking tortoise walk
Genuine discipline
In the snows and in the caves
Fantastic meditation
Sitting and dancing
Fantastic phenomena that wake up the mind
This is the way I wake from confusion.
We go beyond our mind
In the name of our heritage
Catch or kill the phenomenal world
Love or hate
I go and dance with them
This is the way I wake from confusion.
When there is a gap
Mind spins
When there is a trap
Mind relaxes
This is the way I wake from confusion.
When I feel so so so confused
When I feel utterly wretched
When I feel truly degraded
This is the way I wake from confusion.
Then I feel like the tiger
Like the lion
Like the garuda
Like the dragon
I simply find myself as the universal monarch.
Bright blue sky
Crisp real kippers
Polished good books bound in leather
Good old traveler smuggling foreign jewels
These are a few of the wonders I trust.
Green stinging nettles boiling in a pot
Celebrated monk turning into yogi
True monkey-lion wearing Black Crown
These are a few of the wonders I trust.
Consuming nectar beyond cats and dogs
Grandchildren surpassing their fathers
Conquering foreign lands with self-snug smile
These are a few of the wonders I trust.
When the head aches
When the gut quakes
When I’m feeling lost
I simply remember my innate heritage
And then I don’t feel so insane.
[End]
RFS: The real question is: how are the teaching stream and legacy of Trungpa Rinpoche going to continue?
Richard Reoch: I’ve been in discussions with Carolyn Gimian since the beginning of the Chögyam Trungpa Legacy Project about the importance of that initiative. The analogy we have used is that the Legacy Project is like a presidential library, so things don’t end up moldering and being lost.
This exchange struck me as encapsulating the chasm in a nutshell.
Andrew asked how we can ensure the continuity and preservation of the Vidyadhara’s teachings and transmission. Richard answered by creating the equivalent of a presidential library.
The Vidyadhara’s teachings are a living, breathing transmission of ego-shattering wakefulness, brilliant sanity, and unceasing compassion — not a stack of dusty books to be shelved away in a library or museum.
Also, what does Richard mean by “… the transplantation of egoless devotion from a culture like Tibet?” Tibetan culture ego-less? He’s got to be kidding! Richard should listen to the Vidyadhara’s seminars on the Sadhana of Mahamudra where he recounted and deplored all the intrigues, power-tripping, corruption, feuds, and petty intrigues in the Tibetan monasteries and government. Or watch the movie “Kundun.” If Tibetan culture was ego-less and united the Chinese Red Army wouldn’t have been able to march right in and take over their country in such a short time.
Jolly good luck to us all!
(p.s. I seem to have lost my gravatar.)
Dear Ian
Just a brief reply to your comment. I too have read that most popular author Malcolm Gladwell. I remember the story in my brain about what was it the brown shoes – how someone in New York just created a fashion and it grew and grew. I used tipping point exactly because of the
divergent streams now evolving within and without SI -thats why I believe
Richard has done the interview to kind of show that SI is still open to diversity. But is it really if you look at the whole thing concretely, in toto,
factually. What was once almost a call for a ‘universal’ religion encompassing complexity and desires one could almost say has been
narrowed down in to Shambhala Buddhism and at the present time in history that just wont do.
I dont seek individual success – I seek community but a community that
is spiky, questioning, mad,divergent, and uncompromising in protecting that critical intelligence that CTR goes on about so much.
Its strange I was thinking about buying the Outliers book recently but I did not have much cash so that got blinked. Now I am reading a critique of
Foucault- I find Foucault very interesting with his ideas on sexuality and prisons as a social construct-have you read him?
I am also into Michael Haenke – I have bought three of his dvds -he is
so learned about everything cinema -hope you can catch his films.
Anyway I digress community is fundamental to everything that I am
proposing, buddha, dharma, sangha you know but not at the cost of open dialogue and rigid conformity thats where the western tradition points to role of the individual in seeking to articulate new ideas about life as we know it, Jim. I would be ingnoring my own braincells if I did not question, and study life’s vicissitudes.
Anyway would welcome more criticism of my position it makes me ponder things more.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport Uk
Back over at the Shambhala Times site, Bill Karelis has some direct and incisive comments.
All I can say to Mr Karelis’s comments is wow yet again -and perhaps what is indeed really happening in Boulder and Halifax.
People please post we need to hear you.
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Thanks very much for your post Davee, which contained a lot of new information for me. I see that the lineage question can get fairly complex. I also appreciate simply your effort in trying to explain.
I’m trying to keep an open mind on that question. It troubles me however because it is so much of a piece with so many other things. And because of the seeds of distrust which have been sown.
You say that the Sakyong’s root teacher is his father. Okay, but still what you’re going to have on the shrine over time is a single family. People sometimes say, “oh there are hundreds of family lineages in Tibetan Buddhism,” but are there really “hundreds”? Or just a handful or two? And how many were successful, thriving lineages, and for how long? That last question is rarely asked, it seems to me. And do we even know about the ones that *weren’t* so successful? Or do they tend to just not be remembered?
Because even the Dalai Lama and Dzongsar Khyentse for example freely, even bluntly speak of how much Westerners still romanticize Tibetan culture, still believe that the system somehow miraculously didn’t contain corruption. And also when I look at the history of hereditary rule in general, it seems there are more-or-less invariably one or two successful or at least fairly decent monarchs, and then at some point (usually by generation 3!) somebody quite, quite disastrous… Doesn’t that stand to reason when you’re limiting your choice of leader in every generation to just one or two people? And power does corrupt ever so dependably. Even, *especially*, when we simply “know” that we have God / the dharma on our side…
As you have shown, the question of lineage and authority can become quite nuanced in Tibetan Buddhism. But I also think it’s crucially important that there are individual lamas and others *outside* Shambhala that the Sakyong and his acharyas are genuinely answerable to.
I heard Ken McLeod once say that early in his teaching career he asked several people to look after him in that respect, to be unafraid to be totally honest if they felt he was engaged in anything that might become unhealthy. This is partly what I’m talking about in terms of checks and balances. When the Kagyu and Nyingma lineage holders disappear from the shrine, a new exclusive central vajrayana practice is introduced, effectively a fifth school of Tibetan Buddhism proclaimed etc, alarm bells do go off for me, especially in the context of my full experience with Shambhala.
Furthermore, has “Shambhala Buddhism” been recognized as such by the rest of the Tibetan Buddhist world? Or at least most of it? Or at least some of it? Or even any of it? If not, then isn’t Shambhala effectively going its own way, doing its own thing? This is what I am wondering about.
I find this interview disingenuous, not because I don’t like Mr. Reoch as a person, and not because I don’t appreciate his apparent commitment to openness. The problem is that that commitment is a commitment of the mouth, belied by the actions of Shambhala International. Essentially, Mr. Safer’s incisive questions in this interview go unanswered.
Mr. Reoch seems unaware that the actions of the current administration of Shambhala International have perpetuated the fear and sense of intimidation among senior students, which Mr. Reoch admits he does not understand. There is, to begin with, the well-known reality that teaching permission is granted in proportion to perceived fidelity to current Shambhala International policy.
To take another example, there have been recent “harmony” meetings, where at least two acharyas have been bullying the senior students present into a silent compliance with the current policy on devotion.
To take another example, the very presence of the Dorje Kasung in the speech realm in Boulder, attending in force every administrative and community meeting within Karma Dzong over the last 15 or 20 years, suppressing dissent with pacification techniques, even making sarcastic remarks about individuals–basically acting as the thought police–has contributed to virtually the entire senior community absenting itself from Dorje Dzong. Withheld and carefully managed microphone time has overwhelmed (by controlling the discourse in) every so-called Congress and group gathering that I have attended over the last five years.
Mr. Reoch’s repeated references to senior acharyas helping to solve the problem of inclusivity does not jibe with one of the main functions of the acharyas, which is to propagate adherence to new curricular and practice policy, for instance, in the current “teacher trainings,” whereby teaching permission is given in exchange for conformity to the new practice and study stream–a bargain not unlike the one the acharyas themselves have themselves been asked to make. (Not every acharya has gone along with the pressure, but some have bought it hook, line and sinker, and now impose it on others.) Therefore, it is not the acharyas, as a body, but the thousands of the Vidyadhara’s direct students, to whom the task has clearly fallen to propagate the Vidyadhara’s teachings.
On the point of samaya, I appreciate that Mr. Reoch sees it as a personal matter, but this view does not accord with the letters Chris Tamdjidi sent out as Director of Shambhala Europe to a number of senior students in the last couple of years, ordering them to return their Vajrayana materials, if they did not conform to Shambhala International dues payment policy. If this isn’t intimidation in the name of corporate policy, it would be difficult to imagine what would be.
With regard to the title of the article, “On Differing Views and Paths,” is it really appropriate for the foremost representative of Shambhala International, the President, to be welcoming and “supporting” the view and practice of the Dharma espoused by the Great Vidyadhara, whose umbrella actually protects Shambhala International from falling into spiritual disrepair? When it comes to the hearts and minds of the Vajra Sangha, who represent the body of the guru, it is not a matter of “support” by a corporate entity, and its representatives. The real question, as Mr. Safer asks in different ways, regards how the institution continues to box out so many of the Vidyadhara’s students, minimizing their presence and contribution, by displacing his teaching and practice stream.
Personally, I supplicate that the Vidyadhara’s Dharma teachings flourish in all societies, including the Shambhala community. I believe history will look dimly on the current developments in the very organization he established to establish and further his teachings.
I’m still blown away by some of the statements Mr Reoch makes in this article. He’s basically admitting that the criticism coming from RFS and other sources about the current state of SI is absolutely spot on!
I don’t see that at all, Mr Tischer.
Davee,
Either one might agree with Mr. Karelis’ assessment that Mr Reoch is being disingenuous in his answers, or, if one feels Mr. Reoch is being honest when he stated ” I did not understand that. I had no idea the extent to which this community was traumatized.” after how many years of being President, could be construed as evidence of incompetence. The other possibility is that Mr. Reoch wishes to expose some of the problems he sees in the organization. I would have no idea why he would choose this method to do that. So, then, sir, how do you see it?
From the article:
there are students of Trungpa Rinpoche who… don’t feel welcome within the current-day Shambhala community. It no longer feels like “home”… Sometimes they are disparaged by community members
If you’ll forgive me for saying so… maybe this is good? perhaps even fantastic?
My old teacher used to work really hard to make his students feel this way, at least his older students who had been meditating for a while.
As a matter of fact– I’d forgotten this– he literally criticized his older students in front of the newer students, suggesting that the old fogeys’ practice was not so good. The old students were “holding things back”, they had lost their edge, were worn out and jaded, and were just hanging on to their memories of how things used to be, he said. The new students gobbled this up like frappucinos on a summer day.
I suppose I loved this as a new student, but I resented it and felt betrayed by it as an older student. It was completely offensive to me, in every way possible.
Much later I began to wonder if everyone had gotten what they needed– the new students were encouraged & “romanced”, while the older students had their “home” taken away from them.
While in a way this seemed brutal, unnecessary, not to mention untruthful to me, perhaps my teacher had his reasons for doing this.
More about home:
I have no home.
Home I have none.
I have no home.
While growing up, since I was little up to now, I have never had a family. Having no family seems very sad, but when I think how I have no home, it is very strange. Home and family – my parents couldn’t create it. My friends couldn’t create it. No one has been able to create it. Why? the family created by my parents and friends was just a family according to their own way of thinking.
In particular, my own situation is due to the fact that no one could understand everything all together: both worldly and spiritual views and how to live one’s life….
Therefore, since I have no ultimate heart friend other than myself alone, I think that it is definite that no one can create an ultimate home or family for me. Still, strangely, this home of being homeless is my home wherever I go. Everything is my home, the home of being homeless.
-CTR
Rita writes:
“What was once almost a call for a ‘universal’ religion encompassing complexity and desires one could almost say has been
narrowed down in to Shambhala Buddhism and at the present time in history that just wont do.”
As well, I suppose that from one perspective you could say that acknowledging your family of origin limits the possibilities that this life presents you.
From another perspective, acknowledging and respecting your origins could open you to becoming a universal citizen, a citizen of the world, since everyone has a family of origin. That is something we all have in common.
The fact that the Shambhala lineage traces itself to a king who received teachings from the Buddha gives some orientation to the family of origin of that tradition.
“…community is fundamental to everything that I am proposing, buddha, dharma, sangha you know but not at the cost of open dialogue and rigid conformity thats where the western tradition points to role of the individual in seeking to articulate new ideas about life as we know it, Jim. I would be ingnoring my own braincells if I did not question, and study life’s vicissitudes.”
Well, seeking open dialogue, you risk rejection. Seeking freshness, you risk brushing up against peoples’ comfort zones. Seeking articulation you risk looking like a fool.
I think what the Shambhala Buddhist tradition points to is braveness to extend yourself genuinely, gentleness to support yourself naturally extending in that way, and intelligence to experiment with timing between the two.
I would be happy to hear your thoughts on these matters..
All the best,
Ian
It is odd but instructive that so many of the comments on Andrew Safer’s interview with President Reoch miss a rather obvious difference between Mr. Safer’s questions and President Reoch’s answers. That is, they are coming from very different points of view.
In essence, Mr. Safer’s questions are based in his opinion that the Vidyadhara’s teachings and legacy are not being perpetuated by Sakyong Mipham. In contrast, President Reoch speaks from the point of view that the Vidyadhara’s teachings and legacy ARE being perpetuated by Sakyong Mipham.
With this understanding, President Reoch is not being disingenuous at all, and Mr. Safer’s question is not being answered. This is the perpetual risk of PR and attempts to bridge gaps when there is no ground of good faith. (to the webmaster: You really have to do something about the problem of text entry in IE8 at this particular line).
Nick Wright
P.S.: The Gravatar site instructs one quite blandly that “To request a gravatar from our servers, you simply add an image to your users activity with an “src” attribute that points to our gravatar image generator and includes an MD5 hash of the user’s email address.”
Is there a more helpful (dumber) way of getting avatars linked with comments? (not that my avatar image is all that helpful after all!).
Avatar now manifested, in some mysterious way . . .
Nick:
I beg to differ. Please re-read this section of the Q&A:
—–
RFS: The real question is: how are the teaching stream and legacy of Trungpa Rinpoche going to continue?
Richard Reoch: I’ve been in discussions with Carolyn Gimian since the beginning of the Chögyam Trungpa Legacy Project about the importance of that initiative. The analogy we have used is that the Legacy Project is like a presidential library, so things don’t end up moldering and being lost. I’ve had some initial conversations with some of the longer-term students and acharyas about how to create an identifiable and helpful framework so no one is seen as being on one track or the other, or as renegades which is antithetical to the long-term survival of the lineage.
—–
What I understand from this is that Richard is aware that there is a danger that there are elements of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teaching stream that could become lost (”so things don’t end up moldering and being lost”). He also acknowledges that there are two paths–the one set out by Trungpa Rinpoche (which is quite clear cut, identifiable and specific) and the one the Sakyong has evolved/is evolving (”so no one is being seen as being on one track or the other”). Furthermore, he pointed out the importance of the Chogyam Trungpa Legacy Project in the context of ensuring that Trungpa Rinpoche’s path and teachings continue.
(As some others have mentioned on this thread, I too feel that a “presidential library” as such falls short of being able to perpetuate the living quality of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings and practice stream, but that is another issue. )
I very much appreciate Richard’s straightforwardness in this interview. I think one of his strengths is his appreciation for diversity. He did not pretend that there is no elephant in the room. I suspect he has spoken with a number of individuals who see significant differences between the two views and paths. Considering this, if he had simply said that Sakyong Mipham is perpetuating Trungpa Rinpoche’s legacy, full stop, THAT would have been disingenuous.
Also, you wrote:
“This is the perpetual risk of PR …”
I assume you are referring to Richard’s responses here. If this is the case, I find it insulting. He is not a PR flak. He is the President of the Shambhala organization.
Nick Wright wrote on July 18th, 2009 8:24 “In essence, Mr. Safer’s questions are based in his opinion that the Vidyadhara’s teachings and legacy are not being perpetuated by Sakyong Mipham. In contrast, President Reoch speaks from the point of view that the Vidyadhara’s teachings and legacy ARE being perpetuated by Sakyong Mipham.
“With this understanding, President Reoch is not being disingenuous at all, and Mr. Safer’s question is not being answered. This is the perpetual risk of PR and attempts to bridge gaps when there is no ground of good faith.”
For one thing, Nick, the basis of Andrew’s questions is not just his opinion that the Vidyadhara’s teachings and legacy are not being perpetuated. That concern has been expressed by many on this site.
But your analysis also does not address the issue of why people are afraid to speak up, why people feel intimidated. If President Reoch admits to an “incredible atmosphere of fear” and observed about the Mandala Governing Council, ” I think we all realized, ‘Wow, we can’t even talk about what we can’t talk about!’” – obviously there IS something weird going on – “no ground of good faith,” as you put it – within Shambhala International itself.
Mr. Karelis has shared his observation that “the actions of the current administration of Shambhala International have perpetuated the fear and sense of intimidation among senior students,” backed up by several examples. One of those examples is the “very presence of the Dorje Kasung in the speech realm in Boulder, attending in force every administrative and community meeting within Karma Dzong over the last 15 or 20 years, suppressing dissent with pacification techniques, even making sarcastic remarks about individuals–basically acting as the thought police–has contributed to virtually the entire senior community absenting itself from Dorje Dzong.”
Nick, since you were a loyal kasung while the Vidyadhara was alive, and are now a loyal senior kasung serving Sakyong Mipham, I wonder whether you can remember the atmosphere of the kasung during the Vidyadhara’s reign in contrast with the current atmosphere. Can you? I can. The kasung did not act as ‘thought police’ while Trungpa Rinpoche was alive, except to police themselves. Remember?
So, what do you have to say about the ‘ground of good faith’ in relation to Mr. Karelis’ observations? I’m very curious.
Suzanne Duarte
Andrew, was the interview with Richard a sit down, face-to-face affair or was it conducted over the phone. Or was it a series of email exchanges? Was it edited down from something longer? Did Richard have approval rights on the results?
I find the issue of the Kasung being used a “thought police” very strange. Bill Karelis has been doing a lot of good work, especially involving the finances of SMC (I’m not acquainted with his dharma activities). He does tend to be a little immoderate in choice of words. I’m sure he’s a burr under the saddle of a number of people in SI. No harm in that whatsoever, imho, but I wonder how representative his experiences have been.
Dear Chogyam Trungpa Legacy Project [2006: these notes were sent in response to a call for suggestions about how best to preserve and perpetuate VCTR’s Legacy]
Here are a few notes since I’ll not be coming [to Halifax for an exploratory CTLP meeting], if they can help; at least I want to make a gesture of support by offering some ideas. There’s an idea to have touring exhibits, is it? That reminds me of how the Krishnas would pull up to Pearl Street with their semi-trailers full of exhibits and gear and set up on the court house lawn in a sort of carnival atmosphere; they had the most amazing lifesize diorama of the life-cycle of a man from placenta and newborn through corpse and skeleton and a dozen stages in between in a big glass case.
So, beginning with the Legacy of body, speech and mind of CTR model, seeing KOS as the embodiment of the vision that needs to be perpetuated, and such a Legacy should support the present Sakyong’s activities as the principle perpetuator of the living Legacy of CTR.
Beyond that, I’ll just run through this list without too much elaborating:
- Cultivate sangha children; mentorships; apprenticeships
- A la Robt Burns, a Mukpo Night celebrated mandala-wide
- Commission a bust of CTR sculpted by Joshua Muldar for Halifax Centre [and make mini-busts like the plaster casts of the Great Stupa for Surmang fund-raising]
- Free distribution of CTR books
- Free introductory ST levels
- Commission illustrated comic on the life of CTR like the Milarepa one
- Circulate sangha dohas
- Preserve and display relics
- Commission new Mudra theatre and performances of CTR plays
- Sponsor micro-grants and loans for legacy-oriented activities
- Sponsor a worldwide literary/essay prize w/ Shambhala Sun
- Sponsor daylong public readings of Sacred Path of the Warrior on Parinirvana Day April 4, like James Joyce’s Ulysses is read on Bloom’s Day June 16.
- Sponsor scholarships; endow Mukpo Chair of Buddhist Studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax…
So these are some spontaneous ideas for how a Legacy might work. As important as it is to propagate CTR’s heritage by taking positive steps, also important is not taking steps that could injure CTR’s reputation and create obstacles for ordinary people who don’t know what a mahasiddha is. Emphasis should be on the root teachings and not on stories. So I hope this contributes a little to a successful summit in Halifax. If there are minutes taken, could they be posted on sangha-announce? Best wishes, John
[I would like to add one more idea: forming a league of teachers in the cities to do outreach to outerlying under- or unserved areas, offering meditation instruction in public libraries in the boondocks, do book study groups, etc., or even consider moving to a frontier town where there is no institutional Dharma and offer what you have to offer: this would advance the Legacy tremendously.]
Any more ideas?
“He’s basically admitting that the criticism coming from RFS and other sources about the current state of SI is absolutely spot on!”
He acknowledges fear of speaking out and fear generally at the first Congress a few years ago, without asserting the causes of that and listing some things he’s doing to address it as he volunteers for the organization. How is that any assertion that RFS as a whole is spot on? I don’t get that.
This web site is perhaps an example of how that fear of speaking out is being overcome, because people are here speaking their mind (whether we agree with each other or not). Maybe it’s an expression somewhat of his success over the last few years in championing the importance of diverse views and accommodation, via the congresses and personal mission. Since this is mostly a volunteer organization, it’s probably a mistake though to expect the nebulous “them” or “him” to fix it though and more on all of our shoulders.
Richard was the PR man for Amnesty International. That was his job : Public Relations.
I don’t know why people forget this. He was hired specifically for his PR skills which he is very good at, in that universe of discourse.
PR experts are very very good at saying little of substance, but leaving the person or group feeling that they have been heard. Then you go away, afterwards, and nothing has changed, no feeback has really been implemented, the course of the organization continues on the same course.
It is about assuaging, not hearing or implementing.
I
ad hominem, chris. and it’s funny suggesting “PR for Amnesty International” implies some kind of professional spin doctor. I mean what does Amnesty International need spin for ever? Do they have skeletons in their closets somehow?! He must be really good if I’ve never heard of those! lol.
Andrew wrote: “He (PR) also acknowledges that there are two paths–the one set out by Trungpa Rinpoche …and the one the Sakyong has evolved/is evolving (”so no one is being seen as being on one track or the other”).”
I think that is a misinterpretation. If it were correct, then President Reoch would have to agree with Mark Szpakowski’s statement that I think sums up the view behind Radio Free Shambhala.
“Shambhala vision and kingdom is not being attended to: its throne sits empty. It is the Sakyong’s to take, if he so wishes. But he has chosen to take up a different throne, in a different kingdom.”
I haven’t talked with him for some time, but I feel safe in suggesting that President Reoch would not agree with Mark’s statement. Rather, he is talking about perceptions of there being more than one Shambhala, not about their actual existence (at least I hope he is), and about the physical work of preserving records of the Dorje Dradul’s activities.
President Reoch seems to think there is a way to accommodate within Shambhala those who don’t think Mipham Rinpoche is the Sakyong. I think that has the same inherent problems as trying to incorporate whole Patrick Sweeney’s Satdharma group within Shambhala. The problems are primarily about divided loyalties and sharply differing interpretations of the Dorje Dradul’s intentions. I really doubt whether there are “accommodations” that will hold long term.
The inclusiveness of Shambhala is based on all the different groupings under its umbrella recognising the Sakyong as the hereditary king of Shambhala. I don’t currently see that happening with either the Radio Free Shambhala folks or the Satdharma folks.
Suzanne: As I see it, an opinion is an opinion, whether it is held by one person or many. I don’t think we are talking about “facts” here, we are talking about people’s different interpretations and understandings of what the Dorje Dradul said and intended.
As to the Kasung question, I am surprised that you who are normally so skeptical are so credulous about Mr. Karelis’s claims. (I have developed a “sophisticated” method of dealing with unsubstantiated hearsay claims: 1) If it sounds far-fetched it probably is. 2) Suspend judgement pending corroboration—especially if the claim seems to be intended to play to my hopes, fears or biases. 3) Don’t pass on hearsay to others as fact.)
I was just teasing you. Seriously, I became a Kasung in May, 1977, and since that time I have occasionally heard people accusing the big bad Kasung of intimidation, enforcing the party line, suppressing dissent, etc. I actually heard much more of that while the Dorje Dradul was alive; hardly ever these days. Apart from the occasional individual kasung losing his or her mind on the spot, none of it was true. I know of no current or past Kasung policy or directives regarding dissenting views in Shambhala (although if someone at a meeting loses their mind and becomes abusive of the space and inconsiderate towards others, I can see the kasung on duty asking them to cool it).
Hey! Kids! We have the President of Shambhala acknowledging that, maybe, he missed the point !!!! Can no one relate to that here?
Am I totally off, wrong view, or what? Please, feed back on this. To me,
this point is very important. Thanks in advance…… J.T.
I’ve been following the discussions here and I’ve hesitated before writing basically for 2 reasons: I’m a new Shambhala practitioner (I’m doing my Rigden ngöndro) and I’m from Brazil, where the Shambhala group is small and where, with the exception of one person, no one has been a student of Trungpa Rinpoche. So it’s another context in relation to this discussion.
However, what surprised me since the beginning is a kind of common “culture” we seem to share. Before I knew Radio Free Shambhala, I had tried to start a discussion within the Brazilian Shambhala group about the way our group new leadership has been dealing for 18 months with different views, different backgrounds and open communication — basically, presenting different views (even from people that has had a decisive role starting Shambhala in Brazil, or from some of our main senior teachers from US or Canada) as “non-Shambhalian” (basically because they have different views); systematically denying any opportunity for conversation (the group doesn’t have regular channels or practices for this, and particular demands are never answered); and the consequences of this not only to the “old” ones (in our context, some “old” ones are new ones like me) but also to the new ones, presented to a version of Shambhala without dissent, in which only the ones who agree are heard and encouraged, and in which in the future we’ll have only one flavour (as the denied voices are being discouraged and some of them are looking for other ways to live their connection to Shambhala).
For me it’s difficult not to feel an identification of this to some topics discussed here: the notion of sangha as a herd; a kind of “cult culture”; leadership practice without inquisitiveness, in which questions asked are explicitly silenced as a way to promote exclusion.
I’ve been discussing this with some of my senior teachers, and also with people from the Office of Practice and Education — as of course it’s disheartening to realize that these are the values of the Shambhala vision been practically implemented in a relatively new context like in Brazil.
As the new leader works closely with the Office of Practice of Education, I’ve told how this policy of silencing and exclusion was being perceived as a deliberate choice coming from Halifax. I’ve been told it is not, although sometimes it’s been presented this way here.
But of course it’s a challenge to work with one’s connection to Trungpa’s and Shambhala teachings and practices and this kind of culture, that sometimes I see as closer to a coup d’état or to an ethnic cleansing.
And I’ve thought it may be worthy to share this with you, as in spite of the different contexts, it’s as if some similar core values are being implemented and reinforced, at least in practical terms, in different parts of the mandala, or at least are being perceived this way.
Regarding Richard Reoch’s role in this interview and these communications, yes, he is a former PR person for Amnesty International, but now he is President of Shambhala (legally, Varjadhatu) and Chair of the Kalapa Council (legally, Kalapa), in the first report of which is (or probably he) stated:
This is from a remarkable document, linked to from the governance page on the shambhala.org web site.
When have the Dorje Kasung acted as “thought police?” Can someone please give an example? That’s a pretty heavy charge.
I don’t believe the Dorje Kasung have acted as “thought police.” That’s far too subtle a role for them. They function as protectors of the external environment — not the realm of thought. That would be the domain of the mahakalas, I would think.
This is in response to Nick.
Both The Sakyong and Richard Reoch were very much enthusiastic about having Satdharma be in cluded in the Shambhala communinty at the urging of Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamtso.
Lady Diana objected to having Patrick Sweeny included within the Shambhala mandala., and it was called off.
In Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s will, he did say that Lady Diana could be asked for advice, but did not have the final say. The Sakyong did.
Apparently she did in this case.
I’m sure there are other factors invoved, but at the time, many of us wondered who was in charge?
And that is the way things are.
Mr. Wright impugns my character generally, but fails to address the specific events I mention in my comment (above), regarding the role of the Dorje Kasung in influencing civilian affairs in Boulder over the last two decades. Not only is what I wrote true, it is demonstable in detail, and it is reflective of a larger phenomenon affecting our whole community–increased Kasung intrusion into civiilian government and the daily life of the community.
I am grateful to Mr. Wright for offering his views, as it provides an opportunity to examine this downturn in greater detail.
In Boulder, during an interregnum period of having no Director for the Center, in the 1990’s, Dapon Mark Thorpe and Dapon Dennis Southward took central positions on the governing body then in place, the Shambhala Council, steering actions (such as moving Shambhala Training into Dorje Dzong, which downsized the market share of the Boulder Shambhala Training program), and such as signing documents on behalf of Shambhala Intennational (giving away the asset base [the value of Dorje Dzong] for borrowing purposes, to SMC, unbenounced to the local sangha–a predicament that has lasted, so far, nine years, much affecting the growth of the Boulder Center).
Now in Boulder the practice and study head is a member of the Kusung Division, ready to execute central policy, including, it is rumored, to diminish the place of the great Vajradhara thangka. Dechen Choling has been run by a ranking Kasung officer for many years, Simon La Haye; Karme-Choling was run for some years by Dapon Suzann Duquette. I believe the Halifax Center is also run by a longstanding Kasung member.
These appointments are and were deliberate attempts to control what one Kasung described to me as the “:chaos” afflicting the major centers, namely the influence of senior students on policy, as opposed to the influence of central governmental thinking.
The tone of this Kasung-executed control is often threat and repression, even without specific threat of reprisal. The examples I gave in my previous comment hold true. When Dapon Southward made his not-so-invisible presence known (along with others in the Desung Division) at every community gathering and in Boulder for 15 years, it had the general effect of emptying out the meetings. They dwindled to a handful of stalwarts, many of them Kasung. It was the end of an era–the era of open communication in the shrine hall of Dorje Dzong. I don’t believe Mr. Wright was in Boulder during this period.
The other administrative meetings of the Boulder Center were and are similarly controlled from the inside by Kasung presence.
The two siginificant changes in Kasung manifestation in the last decade or more, of which I am aware, are the abandonment of the uniform in public, and the growth of the Desung Division, purported to help those in dire need. I believe these two developments have both represent ed significant problems for the Kasung involved, as well as for the community, and should be subject to open discussion among the sangha.
Ashoka, the first reference in this thread to the Dorje Kasung acting as ‘thought police’ in Boulder in recent years is in Bill Karelis’ post of July 18th, 2009 2:06 pm. Perhaps those from Boulder who have attended the gatherings Bill mentions can confirm or deny his observations. damchö lives in Boulder and speaks of fear on July 16th, 2009 7:10 pm. Martin lives in Boulder, I believe, but he may be one of the many students of the Vidyadhara that Bill says have absented themselves from Dorje Dzong (aka Shambhala Center). Then there is Carlos A. Inada writing from Brazil on July 19th, 2009 8:22 pm, regarding the suppression of dissent that he has observed there.
On the other hand, Nick Wright writes on July 19th, 2009 6:55 pm: “I became a Kasung in May, 1977, and since that time I have occasionally heard people accusing the big bad Kasung of intimidation, enforcing the party line, suppressing dissent, etc. I actually heard much more of that while the Dorje Dradul was alive; hardly ever these days.”
That’s funny, because I was in Boulder off and on while the Vidyadhara was alive and even worked within Vajradhatu during his last year there, and I don’t recall those charges being made about the Kasung in those days.
Richard Reoch said, “When I asked [the Mandala Governing Council] what issues were not being addressed, people were afraid to name the issues. I think we all realized, ‘Wow, we can’t even talk about what we can’t talk about!’
Could it be that suppression of dissent – or feedback – has advanced to the point that people who have internalized the ‘thought police’ automatically deny this phenomenon when others bring it up? From a living-systems perspective, creating a closed container that blocks feedback is suicidal – that is, unsustainable. Unfortunately and sadly, that seems to be the direction in which the current manifestation of Shambhala is going. Denial of feedback, rather than self-reflection and responsiveness, is a fairly reliable sign of a closed system.
Martin:
To answer your question about this interview, I was talking with Richard (on the phone) about another matter, and at some point the conversation shifted to the topic covered here. Later, when I looked at my notes, I realized that this piece could stand on its own. I e-mailed my suggestion to Richard and he concurred. I did not edit his remarks. What you see here is what he said. As a courtesy, I sent Richard his quotes to ensure accuracy and he acknowledged that they were accurate.
Cheers,
Andrew
ps I don’t think I ever thanked you enough for the wonderful music tapes you gave me when I drove from Boulder to Halifax in 1987. (Go Count Basie, Eddie Lockjaw Davis, James Brown and the rest!)
‘Well, seeking open dialogue, you risk rejection. Seeking freshness, you risk brushing up against peoples’ comfort zones. Seeking articulation you risk looking like a fool.
I think what the Shambhala Buddhist tradition points to is braveness to extend yourself genuinely, gentleness to support yourself naturally extending in that way, and intelligence to experiment with timing between the two.’
Dear Ian
Thank you for your further comments.
I have not been a kasung for a long time but was not one of the slogans ‘Don’t afraid to be a fool’ Not totally sure about this because I have been reading lots of books recently. So yes I am prepared to be a fool if that is what it takes for people to engage with me . I am experimenting with relationships and how to be with people in this world.Did not CTR challenge us to see life as an experiment. Of course you have to do it with mindfulness aswell.
As to gentleness what do we really mean by this concept – what may appear gentle to some people maybe compliance with authority to another. I think gentleness in our culture is some what suspect – I think it needs to be explored most acutely that’s why I like Michael Haenke because he flips things so much emotionally in his films. Foucault is even more transgressive in regard to gentleness in that his own personal relationships with his friends may appear provocative and ‘ungentle’ to the outside observer.
Now as to the SI generally at the present time Shambhala Buddhism still seems to me to be an unnecessary diversion from the real task of getting to grips with our own culture in the west. For example take the art of the Rigden King that is now on SI shrines for me personally I don’t see the concept of King or Queen in this way. My own religious experiences seem to tie in more with the Art that the Pre-Raphaelites evolved (perhaps that’s a karmic thing don’t know for sure). Think my next read will be John Ruskin’s work on Art. Any way I digress but in relation to Art both CTR and indeed Khandro Rinpoche have urged us to explore our own culture in order to evolve our own connection to Mind as we know it, Jim. I also think we should explore governance in the same way that we explore Art because the occupations are somewhat similar. A Kalapa court that would work would encompass many political variations one has to allow for diversity here. Africa does have its chiefs you know indeed I spoke with one or two of them in London and from speaking with them I found their manner to be inclusive and one could almost say ‘gentle.’
Well think that’s all for now – hope to hear more from you.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Yes, one of the slogans of the Dorje Kasung was “Not afraid to be a fool.”. Another was: “If you can distrust the rules laid down around you, and maintain a sense of humor, sucess will surely follow.” One of the greatest disappoinments among many in the direction of the mandala , has been the transformation of Kasung into palace guards. One of the most successful strategies, was to both disempower and “empower the Kasung” in this way by making them palace guards, instead of wrathful protectors of the dharma. At the time of the Regent, he really didn’t like the Kasung, and was in the process of disempowering them . They were becoming almost obsolete in terms of appreciated presence. So a more conservative position was better than nothing, I imagine.
And even now — way different views:
Personally it makes me quite nervous to send a comment to this board. My own experience in the past is that I am jumped on (that’s how I feel, it might not be QUITE that bad) for my views. Once I responded on sangha-announce to a post of Barbara Blouin’s about a new article on finances and had a response from Mr. Karelis that seared my hair. Several others in the community responded to me privately saying not to feel badly.
So, when those of you mention fear in the Shambhala community and a feeling of alienation please take a moment to recognize that you are creating that for some of us in a different context. In your cyber world.
As for exaggeration that Mr. Wright speaks of — I was at one of the congress’ that Mr. Karelis spoke of which I believe his post mentions not being allowed the microphone. (Cologne ‘07) My recollection was that immediately after Carolyn Mandelker spoke about the new proposed curriculum, Mr. Karelis was given the microphone and he spoke at length about how bad the new curriculum was and how 98% of new people would not want it or something like that. (in other words, I believe Mr. Karelis has exaggerated not being able to speak at Congress’)
But I remember being struck by the 98% figure. Since I was NEW at the time, I took the microphone and refuted his comments, saying I would LOVE the new curriculum and I guess I represented the 2% that Mr. Karelis had not spoken to.
Later, in the same Congress Mr. Karelis was again given the microphone and spoke about the Shambhala finances and how bad they were.
It didn’t appear to me that he was in the least denied the opportunity to speak his mind.
Moreover, with regards to the recent post about the Kasung presence in Boulder — since I’ve only once visited for a few minutes, I do not have a direct experience but all the Kasung I’ve ever had the opportunity to speak directly with have been warm, friendly and quite intelligent.
Once again — it’s just a different view point.
Unfortunately I’m guessing not many who read this board attended or watched Pema Chodron yesterday at a Sangha Retreat in SMC — she spoke at LENGTH about those who irritate us — jokingly calling the person “Joe” — how we can be kind to everyone EXCEPT Joe — because we’ve known him since he was five and he IS NOT a nice person. On and on.
Perhaps we need to start calling each other Joe –
That would be more direct — like calling a spade a spade, right. That those of us on Side A — know that Joe(s) on side B just do not have basic goodness, that their motives are impure from the GET GO – that they don’t have the SAME intentions as Side A. And then we can flip it — and point the same fingers back at side A from Side B.
With love –
From Joe
Edit: For further clarity — Mr. Karelis didn’t mention WHICH Congress’ specifically just that he didn’t feel he or others were allowed microphone time at Congress’ nor at community meetings. I only experienced the ONE Congress with Mr. Karelis in Cologne. Perhaps the others his claim is true BUT he said — ALL Congress’ — thus my comment on exaggeration.
I took a look at some of the governance pages referenced above and especially this one: http://www.shambhala.org/community/govdocs/Governing_Structure.pdf
Like much of what comes out of SI, it was verbose and self-referential. It needs to be tightened up and simplified.
Anyway, in principle, it the orginizational structure doesn’t seem all that bad: advisers to the Sakyong, a council for affiliated groups and a board of directors for the legal and financial stuff.
Briefly, a number of things jumped out at me:
First, Richard Reoch has almost unlimited power. He chairs everything and appoints the administrators of the various centers. I assume he can replace them as well.. Regardless of his virtues and vices, this seems too much for one person.
Second, there are very view people from the CTR era represented in the higher councils. There are a number of their children, which I think is great, btw. I think many of the earlier generation feel excluded. This is, after all, an organization we worked very hard to build. It would be nice to be included in determining it’s fate.
Third, it does seem top heavy. The “Mandala Services” (which I think means the administration) gets pretty short shrift — too many chiefs and not enough Indians (as we used to say back in the day). “Vision” and “planning” are all well and good, but I wounder how they’re to be executed.
I didn’t see anything that showed how the adminisration was organized, what the head counts are and who runs what departments. This is, of course, the essence of how power is exercised in an organization. It’s also where they live and die.
It’s common for non-profits to create lots of committees, some charged with “organizing the volunteers” when there aren’t any volunteers to organize.
“The inclusiveness of Shambhala is based on all the different groupings under its umbrella recognising the Sakyong as the hereditary king of Shambhala. I don’t currently see that happening with either the Radio Free Shambhala folks or the Satdharma folks.”
This is an interesting comment that Nick Wright has made but whether the concept of hereditary king crosses over into formulating how people should practice and carry the teachings forward is debateable. We have had wars in the UK about the powers of Kings and in fact where a kings power can not reach. All of laws in the UK still have to signed in by the Queen and I think the Queen still has the power to remove a Head of State in her commonwealth terriotaries witness Gough Whitlams removal from power as prime minster in Australia in the 1970’s. I wonder if the same applies to Canuckland?!
But really religious practice has slowly be gleaned over the centuries from the influence of the monarch and it has been left up to each persons conscience as to how they wish to practice their religion. If ones samaya is with Patrick Sweeny, Chogyam Trungpa or even now perhaps Reginald Ray you are asking people too much to remain in the shambhala umbrella by showing alleigence to the Sakyong and his own personal way of appreciating the shambhala terma before all else.
Alleigence to a King does not preclude a divergent point of view from that of a King – in UK history many kings have come and gone and those that are successful allow their people to have essential freedoms to practice as they wish to. Compare for example the flowering of the arts in Queen Elizabeths I time with that of the repressions that her half sister Queen Mary exerted on her subjects.
This insistence on the shambhala buddhism as the way forward to the detriment of others belief in another conception of CTR’s shambhala terma I think will make many more people jump ship. So yes I think it is a crisis of sorts – maybe for people on the edge of the whole thing these views on rfs will contribute in them staying or leaving.
As to the role of the kasung in the whole thing – I think there are kasung lite and there are kasung proper…..in the UK all Her Majesties Forces have to make an oath of alleigence to the Monarch but when that Monarch transgresses shall we say the bounds of proper conduct it is the duty of the military to remove that monarch under the direct orders of the government. I think we came close to this with the Duke of Windsor in the Uk in recent history – I think if he had not abdicated the government may have removed him in due course. Where is this digression relevant to the present debate perhaps in the brief reply posted in regard to the relations with the Kasung and the Regent, so yes there has to be a balance of power between the military, the king and government for the country to be blessed with good governance.
Perhaps we should have more discussion on the role of the kasung in the differing views thread as Mr Wright has made some incisive comments on this debate.
best
Rita Ashworth
Hi Rita,
Thanks for your thoughts and insights. Here is what comes to mind–
“As to gentleness what do we really mean by this concept – what may appear gentle to some people maybe compliance with authority to another. I think gentleness in our culture is some what suspect – I think it needs to be explored most acutely that’s why I like Michael Haenke because he flips things so much emotionally in his films. Foucault is even more transgressive in regard to gentleness in that his own personal relationships with his friends may appear provocative and ‘ungentle’ to the outside observer.”
Another question could be asked: can gentleness actually manifest separately from fearlessness and intelligence, or do they, in practice, become ineffective or dormant once you try to remove or isolate one from the others?
Similarly, you could look at symbolism of the three central bodhisattvas in Buddhism and ask: can you actually engage in intelligence without energy and a concern for others?
“I also think we should explore governance in the same way that we explore Art because the occupations are somewhat similar. A Kalapa court that would work would encompass many political variations one has to allow for diversity here. Africa does have its chiefs you know indeed I spoke with one or two of them in London and from speaking with them I found their manner to be inclusive and one could almost say ‘gentle.’ ”
My own personal approach to organizational diversity is to stay connected with a few communities– my professional work environment, an exercise community, the Shambhala Buddhist community in capacity of volunteer, and so on..
In terms of societal variation and diversity within Shambhala Buddhist community, my experience has been that it is welcome, included, and invited– with art openings, poetry readings, music performances, and photography exhibits offered within the actual Shambhala Center..
In regard to organizational variation and diversity within the Kalapa Court, and by extension, the wider Shambhala Buddhist organization– in terms of practicality, it could be a bit unwieldy..
Should hospitals and public utilities also be run with a diversity of governance styles, the more the better? Or should they be run in a streamline manner by trained people of buoyancy and humor, in order to provide you with good service and get you on with your full day of creating art and practicing religious freedom?
What do you think?
Cheers,
Ian
Dear Ian
Thank you for your comments.
I agree it would be possible to work with SI in the art realm I am not arguing for the segregration of artists into political groupings as was done in the Soviet Union with bourgeoise art and socialist realist art.
Rather I am trying to get at the ideas of what CTR wanted to see in this world as an enlightened society. And here he urged us to use our critical
intelligence in the formulation of politics in our world. For example his criticism of politics in Washington but his praise of the Boulder council in the way it conducted its affairs – he thought the actions of the City Council more considered rather than the rush of senatorial politics in the capital.
And what does a city council do in our present system in the UK – it has to work with many diverse groupings, it has to accommodate their wishes as of course they pay their taxes too. In fact most councils in the UK I think
now have Diversity and Inclusion Officers. Diversity is also considered at a national level within the UK aswell with the creation of various committees on relationships with people of different faiths. So the whole thing might appear to be unwiedly but you have to construct your society in this way if it is to work properly.
As to religious organisations in regard to the present debates within SI
I was thinking of Archbishop Rowan Williams and his management of the Anglican church and how capably he has done that in keeping on board say reactionaries and liberals. Good marks to him for doing this!
So why could not the same be done within SI – I think at one point it may have been feasible for the Sakyong to do this but he preferred to be exclusive instead of inclusive in that Ray lost his position as an acharya and others are now contemplating whether to stay in the organisation because the teachings at present do not match with their own conception of the Vidyadharas teachings. The timing I think was on his side but he preferred to go with his own conception of things. I think a Shambhalian ruler should resolve things by bringing people on board if you want to run things properly. Why are so many people not on board if the whole thing is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread?
As to gentleness I am testing it out in its many guises- for example I am attending a class on the Meisner Acting method which might appear confrontational to some people in that it has the exercise of people facing each other and commenting in rapid fire succession on physical attributes and mental conceptions. I think it is close to maybe the rinzai zen attitude to things – but anyway my point is that at the end of the whole thing people have become gentler and appreciative of each other. So gentleness is a big subject – can you really see when it is happening? I really have become most interested in acting. Trying to get some copies of Trungpa’s plays to see how they went. Been on this board a lot today because of day off -now running out of time…..
Also run out of spac….R!
To Ms. Baranay’s remark about my not being denied the microphone at the Cologne Congress, it is true that I was able to speak to the assemblage twice; however, she misrepresents how much. She said I spoke “at length” regarding the new curriculum. Actually, I spoke for about 30 seconds, after Ms. Mandelker’s 45-minute presentation–which is quite a bit of time, but not what Ms. Baranay said it was. Regarding finance, I spoke for a shorter time. Perhaps Ms. Baranay is confusing my remarks about curriculum on the conference floor with other remarks I made in the curriculum subgroup.
A significant problem at the Cologne conference was the division of the subgroups. They were structured in such a way that made it impossible to participate in more than one dialogue meaningfully, even though there were six or so principal subgroups. The subgroup discussions were then “summarized” by their leaders: I recall that the finance subgroup leader, a significant donor in Europe, summarized the subgroup conversations with nothing but a fundraising pitich, ignoring the call for transparency from the floor by another donor, who had said, “I don’t mind giving 10% of my money, so long as I know where it is going.”
Regarding Ms. Baranay “refuting” any statement about the shortcomings of the new curriculum, she did protest the crticism, but didn’t refute it, because she didn’t present any reasons, aside from her personal impressions of her own education, which have to be somewhat circumscribed by lack of contrast. Interestingly, the Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche threw out the curriculum she was defending a few months later.
My remark about the curriculum, incidentally, was that it didn’t address the needs of 97% of the people coming through our centers. I have visited about two-thirds of the Shambhala Centers in a teaching capacity many times, and I will stick by that estimate. Ms. Baranay is one of the lucky 3%, seemingly. That doesn’t refute what I said. Since 2007, the curriculum has lost even more of its Buddhist basis.
As far as my exaggerating my impressions of the Congresses, I did attend two of the three. The first Congress in Halifax was a nightmare of microphone abuse. For example, when an older, very honest and brave accountant stood up to criticize the SMC financial disclosure, she was silenced by fast-talking representatives of the SMC Board. The level of aggression from the official side, so to speak, was so high that very few dared to approach the microphone in the larger assemblage, for fear of being talked down. This is exactly why I decided to speak up at the third Congress in Cologne.
Also, at the first Congress, meditaton practice was used, and even presented, as calming the anticipated discontent from participants–a use of meditation I hope I never see again in my life.
In short, the Congresses aren’t Congresses in the sense that they represent the expressed concerns of the sangha in a meaningful way.
“The tone of this Kasung-executed control is often threat and repression, even without specific threat of reprisal.” – Bill Karelis
What’s this mean? General threat? Like, “Why I oughtta!”? Bang zoom!
Or is it a Buddhist form of Threat and Reprisal which is Threat and Reprisal, Not Threat and Reprisal, Not Both Threat and Reprisal, and Not Neither Threat and Reprisal?
Crikey. Panties are definitely all bunched up. Practice, cry, work, sleep, practice, laugh. It’s nice to know y’all are all so psyched to propogate the teachings but the first thing any students see is your bunched up panties.
“When Dapon Southward made his not-so-invisible presence known.”
-Bill Karelis
Dude. Are you saying he is fat? That’s cold.
Bill’s not-so-poverty-stricken presence can be somewhat room-emptying as well, I’d venture.
In fact, except for straight dharma and crazy old stories, very few “Senior Students” should be allowed to have microphones. It makes sense, by the way. I hope that in the next 30 years I learn to keep my mouth shut, too.
Dear Davee:
Myso called ad hominem remarks about President Reoch are not throw away insults, or changing the subject. They are on point. My experience from years of dealing with him, is that he is primarily there to soothe away problems, not implement input from the sangha, or substantially address concerns. Unlike you, I have spent hours and hours on the phone with him, first about property that was possessed illegally by a rich donor, promises led to nothing. He is now in state care custodially and physically. No sangha take care of him any more, and the family has no longer any final say in his care, unless they want him back. She still possesses my property.
And again about preventing Tagi Mukpo from being put in total custodial and state care, promises, verbally and to the larger sangha in Shambhala addresses, again led to nothing. These remarks about listening and making people feel like they are being heard, and then nothing is prevented or changed, comes from direct experience. Either Richard Reoch is powerless to make changes he has literally promised with tears in his eyes or he is simply there to make people “feel good” momentarily and make the latest crisis go away.
Apologies for the paragraph confusion. It is very difficult to make changes and type on this site.
Richard Reoch is very good at what he does, that is all I am saying. He is very good at listening, and making people feel that they are listened to, and then nothing changes. One of the skills I assume he learned as a PR person for Amnesty international. Public Relations is what it is, crisis management at the first intervention level, and making sure that appearances are taken care of. It is not about solving or resolving the problems in a fundamental way. As he himself once said on Chronicles, he “channels the Sakyong” thus he is simply implementing corporate policy, not creating it.
Humorism. Yes, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, but not just yet. Your take on the seriousness of this thread, as well as the laughs, are priceless.
Rob, re Both The Sakyong and Richard Reoch were very much enthusiastic about having Satdharma be included in the Shambhala community at the urging of Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamtso., from what I knew Richard Reoch was the driving force for that, pulling the Sakyong along and negotiating with Lady Diana, but in any case the Sakyong’s condition for accepting Patrick Sweeney was that Patrick not have a lineage successor. Not really a feast of dharma. Transmission isn’t really transmission if you can’t propagate it.
A good example of a feast of dharma, by the way, was the “other” Rinchen Terdzod, where many tulkus and tertons and practitioners celebrated their many intertwined strands and traditions. How about having that kind of open and generous approach within our greater community, and with our lineage siblings of many generations?
Hi. I think it is better to talk about happy things like skateboards. I like Buddha. I like Bill Karelis, though he is a little whacked. I like white clothes. I think the Sakyong must not eat scambled eggs before a talk.
White umbrellas are not that good for sun.
my pencil is only good for writing things temporarily.
Did you all guys know that digital storage can sometimes get lost, like if the hard drive crashes and stuff?
I have a lot of theories.
I know a lot of things.
I don’t need to meditate because I have used my concept to become invincible.
Like Reggie Ray.
I used to drink a lot of coca-cola, but not really much anymore.
tonight I ate chicken because I thought it was tofu.
Mind is deceptive.
Democracy is silly.
I don’t eat scambled eggs much.
maybe the talking is getting bothersome to the talkers.
Read maxim, airbrushed boobies.
See you later
the cow says. . .
Maha-moo-dra.
Comparing attempts to heal late 1980s split in Vajradhatu with the inclusiveness of the Rinchen Terdzo seems inappropriate to me, to say the least. For one thing, the Chronicles article on the Rinchen Terdzo does not mention the healing or accommodation of splits as profound as the one that happened surrounding the Regent appointing his own dharma heir in defiance of those he had split with. I won’t go so far as citing of the Rinchen Terdzo as disingenuous–perhaps instead as another example of the “anything goes” view that often caused the Vidyadhara heartburn–as I experienced him. Others may disagree.
Martin, what stands our for me from the Kalapa Council report linked from the governance page:
- the direction of power is 100% outward from the center: there is no circulation of power/energies. The center is solidified and protected, with access to it filtered.
- as such it turns mandala into hierarchy, as opposed to energy that’s both chaotic and naturally ordered around a center that is open, radically empty, and communicative.
- two new legal, corporate entities are introduced. Kalapa has previously been discussed on this site. This document makes clear that Kalapa, a corporation distinct from Shambhala International (which legally is Vajradhatu), is moving to transfer and hold all the power, rights, and ownership of key assets (including of Chogyam Trungpa’s legacy and of the Stupa and of Kalapa Valley), with what looks like no accountability or checks and balances, and no effective role for sangha or even government in a larger sense.
- the second new corporation is Sakyong Ladrang, the family/household entity: committed to the protection and support of the lineage of Sakyong kings—past, present, and future. It is the repository of the wealth and sacred legacy of the lineage.
In a way the forms and entities themselves are not really the core of the issue – it is the energy they embody. People experience that energy differently, pretty obviously, and that affects how they see the forms. However, to me dharma means that it’s not all relative, and is to some extent the practice of seeing through your projections, to pretty ordinary relative truth (”things as they are”). I think it’s important to hold your seat, to care for the world, and to look at this both clearly and kindly.
Mark
A lot of what I knew about Patrick Sweeney was what Vajradhatu / Shambhala openly reported. I had know idea there were conditions attached to his lineage holdership.
I do recall second hand information where Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche wondered how a Regent could have a Regent.
This is news to me.
What you quoted from the Governance manfesto reminded me of a quote from some Iceland college kids fresh out of business school in America who ruined Iceland financially, and bought 8 percent of American Airlines, and was dictating to American Airlines what to do, never mind they new nothing first hand about business, but airlines.
I still wonder to this day who is in charge.
If what you quoted was a direct quote from the Sakyong (the Governence statement), I’ll back off (for some reason, my spell check isn’t working here for the moment).
Make sense out of the people who from Icelaland bought 8% of American Airlines in a press release before Iceland lost all of their country’s money:
“our suggestions including monetizing assets..that can be used to reduce debt or return capital to share holders”.
Huh?
It didn’t make sense.
Rob
“danny goldberger” writes:
Hi. I think it is better to talk about happy things like skateboards.
Hi danny. Taking your comment at face value, this sounds like an attempt at censorship, doesn’t it?
You would like us to only talk about happy things. Unhappy things– e.g. dissent, or disagreement, or not liking something– is not so good, not so approved by you. This is not censorship in a top-down gestapo manner, but more an attempt at mild-mannered peer-pressure censorship. Wouldn’t you say?
I don’t mean to single you out. Speaking as an outsider, I think this sangha as a whole (and probably English-speaking society as a whole) has a taboo about dissent or about sharing raw and rugged emotions, or just about disagreements. Whenever there is a heated discussion on this website, there are always people who seem to jump in and try to diffuse the “heat” and make it into an unheated discussion.
But perhaps the heat or the tension or the conflict or duality is not as threatening as we think it is? Does trying to control the duality reduce the aggression in the situation?
If we are afraid of duality, there will always be a taboo about dissent, I think.
[VCTR, from the unpublished poetry, 30 October 1969:]
Polarity makes two love
Polarity makes two love
It is polarity where the music starts
It is polarity where the true emotion lies
But this polarity makes a bridge
Where the two poles meet at the summit
It is the skillful means and wisdom where two things could coordinate
Or co-exist in one
As two wings of a bird
It must be in the state of harmony
Or for that matter
Birds could have eight wings
And still remain in the state of co-existence
That is Plato’s philosophy of freedom and humanistic wisdom
I am in the West
Therefore I could be regarded as a Westerner
What is most interesting is not what Richard Reoch, President of Shambhala International , actually said or didn’t say in this interview with Andrew Safer, but the fact that he even agreed to an interview to be published on this site.
When a repressive organization or authoritative regime approaches a final crisis a certain thing begins to happen: a mysterious and unstoppable fissure begins to take place. All of a sudden people just know the game is up and they cease to be afraid. More and more, speak out, indifferent to the censure rules set out by the repressive regime any longer. For the President of Shambhala to be even giving an interview on RFS seems to be one of those panic reactions .
The apologists for SI laughed, I remember, at the name “Radio Free Shambhala” but it seems to have been more apporpriate than even RFS knew.
Like you, Chris, as I’ve said here before, I’m surprised by the interview and Mr. Reoch’s statements. I’m also surprised that other’s aren’t more surprised.
I sense a hesitancy of some sort here, to really examine what Mr. Reoch had to say.
I welcome Edwards comment on Danny’s post but Danny’s post is also quite funny too!
Yeh I agree Edward dissent has to be debated -one just cant get away with it in ordinary life or in the arts – climaxes to all things! I dont think
we would be human if we were not annoyed by stuff.
Re the seariness of the whole debate I remember an image that CTR
used about a pterodactyl. He said even if you see a pterodactyl in the sky
you could just say ahhhhhh-there is pterodactyl in the blue sky. So yes
I think we can have arguements as you stated and still remain mindful in
the fierceful quality of them.
So I hope Mr Goldberger posts again and asks or makes some suggestions about the whole debate.
best
Rita Ashworth
stockport uk
I see both in Andrew Safer’s questions and Bill Karelis’s comments that “Many of these senior students do not feel that there is room for them within the Shambhala mandala.” and there is “fear and sense of intimidation among senior students”. I am genuinely sorry that that is the case, but are such comments based on the notion that there is nothing but innocence in the hearts of all these parties?
I’m not denying the verity of any of these comments, but I want to point out that many senior students and many newer students have had to bear many insults and much ridicule about their intelligence and their devotion to the Sakyong—including their love for the lineage of Sakyongs—for many years, as well.
There are a rare and few innocent parties, here at this gathering, and unkind comments always come back to haunt us.
Perhaps I misunderstood danny goldberger’s comments.
It sounded like he was saying “I have no soft spot. This discussion does not affect me in any way, I am above it. My hands are clean. Other people are whacked, but I am amused with skateboards.”
Quite possibly this was not at all what he was trying to communicate, but it’s how I interpreted his remarks. I’m sorry if I was too critical, or trying to censor other people, or being a jerk, or not being patient enough to listen more closely.
. . . .
I’m still curious about something I was told last year by the designated speaker at a Shambhala Buddhism intro event. I was told “The Sakyong has said that we have to say the goal of practice is to attain a calm state of mind.”
I have two questions about this:
1) Is this Trungpa Rinpoche’s teaching, that SMR is helping to preserve?
2) If our goal is to attain a calm state of mind (and perhaps to preserve that state once we attain it), does that leave any room for discussion, or disagreement? Would we be better off not having open microphones, just friendly people to politely silence discussion and help calm our minds once again?
Or am I misunderstanding this? Am I the only one confused by this?
Hi Edward, I doubt this is the best place for practice questions. Perhaps finding a meditation instructor that you work well with would be better.
But to your question, no. A calm mind is not the ultimate point. But stability of mind is a prerequisite for doing other practices like contemplation, compassion practice, sadhanas, etc. Therefore, the Sakyong recommends practices like Shamatha that develop stability among other things so then one can move further. And intro events are usually teaching what we call Shamatha. CTR also had us do a lot of Shamatha, I believe for the same and honestly quite traditional reasons. Nothing really innovative about it, though he taught more formless versions of that technique here than is traditional and the Sakyong has suggested students start with a more precise variant.
Does this prevent dissent? I don’t think so, but it might help ensure that discussion and dissent is born out of intelligence more so than klesha.
“the censure rules set out by the repressive regime”
Chris you’re really wacky; lol. help! help! i’m being oppressed! Clearly basic goodness, in accord with openness and diversity, has nothing to do with it! It must be the calm before the collapse of the regime!! pfpfpf
This is an organization for and run almost entirely by volunteers. Try to get anything done, and you’ll see quickly if there is any real power being in a “position of authority” here. ha!
“Shamatha” means the development of peace, and stability of mind, meaning not being swept away by thoughts and emotions, is certainly necessary to proceed along the path. But the goal is full awakening, enlightenment, if you will, which, at least in Tibetian Buddhism, at least from VCTR’s approach, requires the Mahayana and Vajrayana paths. In “As It Is”, Tulku Ugen speaks on the limitations of shamatha practice, as one example. I am doubtful that SMR would be teaching that “all you need is shamatha”, but then, I don’t really know.
“Chris you’re really wacky; lol. help! help”
So much for admonishments about ad hominem arguments. Your really funny , Davee. I guess you forgot about the ad hominem admonishments, when it comes to you own arguments. Must have hit a soft spot. You compliment me . Do you think your insults would stop most of us anymore? That’s the point I was making. Social kudos or insults all the same now when it comes from people who only want “peace” and conformity. We are beyond that because we don’t care anymore about appearances. That’s my point.
I will say it again, if all was right in the current scene in SI, you all wouldn’t even be paying attention to what is said here. You just wouldn’t. . Particularly Pres. Reoch and Shambhala loyalists who always are on the ready with ad hominen remarks when they can’t answer in the universe of discourse .. It means that there is some kind of panic spreading, within the organiza tion and it will crumble from within.
By the way, the rumour out “on the streets” outside this mandala, far and wide, amongst those watching from a more bird’s eye view, is that SI doesn’t have long here in the States or Canada. The loyalists are always the last to know, in a closed system, what is happening. Lost of luck to you too, Davee sincerely. Perhaps learning Chinese is advised.
“Chris you’re really wacky; lol. help! help”
So much for admonishments about ad hominem arguments. Your really funny , Davee.
.
I will say it again, if all was right in the current scene in SI, you all wouldn’t even be paying attention to what is said here. You’d be doing whatever you do, within the mandala.. Particularly Pres. Reoch. It means that there is some kind of panic spreading, within the organization and you can’t stop the flow of the shift that is taking place.
Believe it or not, this site was not set up to convince loyalists like yourself. .Why are you feeling that it is? I believe it was a forum set up, and had to be set up because of repression within SI. Its very existence demonstrates the repression.
Chris writes:
“By the way, the rumour out “on the streets” outside this mandala, far and wide, amongst those watching from a more bird’s eye view, is that SI doesn’t have long here in the States or Canada. The loyalists are always the last to know, in a closed system, what is happening. Lost of luck to you too, Davee sincerely. Perhaps learning Chinese is advised.”
Hmm, could be.. that’s where The Onion seems to have headed.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/internet_adds_12th_website?utm_source=a-section
Cheers,
Ian
I didn’t mean wacky as in crazy, I meant wacky as in funny. But my apologies for being insulting. I found your comment so unexpected it gave me a good laugh. I need more shamatha clearly.
Learn Chinese! You’re cracking me up again.
Really though, do you actually think the most likely reason that people – whom are still inspired by the direction shambhala is going in – would be here to discuss with those who are not so inspired is because there is some kind of panic spreading ?!? Or that Mr. Reoch would talk to Mr. Safer for such reasons? I find that assertion beyond bizarre. I thought folks here *wanted* more discussion generally. Maybe it’s just me. I’ll try to shut it, I’m creating censorship apparently.
Thank you for your clarity. What I mean is, loyalists who are going along with the program and are happy with the current situation, would not experience repression. They would experience reinforcment and appreciation for being on the side of the “good” in little letters. So, for you to argue with other’s expression of a different experience, is not given much weight. No offence, but you cannot mystify or argue people out of their experience. I would imagine, that those that go along are made to feel very very appreciated. That all is fine in the world, and you are fine, and everything is wonderful. Nothing wrong with that. The good Germans in Nazi Germany had the same beautific smiles about there version of “Shambhala” to use an extreme example. It was only when things so fell apart that even they couldn’t deny what was happening anymore, to use an extreme version of “in” group out group.
I recently spoke with an old dharma friend who attended a program as a helper. This person sat in on dharma discussions, and as an old Trungpa student naively tried to shareexperiences with the way CTR taught mediation, or S-V. This person was censored, made to feel crazy, and the director scheduled a meeting with to discuss waywardness. This friend is by no means an “anarchist” or trouble maker. Even people now, that have been on fence somewhat, are made to feel censored by the slightes variation with the current program and correct way of doing things. This is not Shambhala view. Sorry, Davee, but you couldn’t really know whether their is repression/oppression because you sound like a happy camper..
I can’t argue with someone’s experience true, nor you with mine. But a lot more gets posted here than someone’s experience and there is still much that could be discussed.
Mmm, comformity is not an all or nothing kind of thing. You could even argue that in Shambhala Training a discipline of the practice is how one dresses and holds themselves. But even at a basic level, we need some conformity to have a culture and socialization. We don’t take off our shoes and pick our toes in front of a class while teaching. That’s conformity. But you’re talking about presenting only one dharma? Well in a curriculum, there is a range of things that are recommended. Otherwise you’re teaching a muddle. We don’t teach all techniques in level 1, we teach open technique. Some directors diverge from curriculum, but only so far. So there is some conformity that is quite reasonable. And I’m sure I can think of some stories that would *not* be appropriate to share at a level 1 program, can you think of any? Not because they’re all that secret, they’d just be tacky to share or confusing. But then it’s a judgment call, and people have a mix of opinions about what is appropriate at a setting. Some are in the Shambhala Training manual, though picking one’s toes in public is not explicitly mentioned, so sure you could say Shambhala International is setting standards for presenting the dharma. But that’s the job of SI too, to a certain degree, since what we do is teach the dharma. There must be *some* quality control yes? That doesn’t mean conformity to a single presentation, but it does mean a certain range of reasonableness and accuracy. The Vidhyadhara explicitly asked us not to corrupt the dharma. He also asked us to hold ourselves a certain way and be descent and wear ties and all sorts of things to conform to.
But I have no idea what stories your friend told, so I can’t comment upon my experience of them as censorship or just told in poor judgment or if i would agree or disagree with the leadership of that center. Sounds like you experience them as censorship. I certainly see other possibilities knowing no more detail. I’ve seen a range of situations already in classes from what I saw as helpful to not so helpful. And as a community that holds and transmits the dharma, i posit that our job should be to find what is helpful and discern what is not helpful and avoid what is not helpful. But that’s ongoing discernment as we go along, requiring sensitivity and intelligence.
You guys bait the best hooks. With the best bait too!
Chris: do the rumor specialists you refer to indicate that SI is just going to collapse or that it’s going to be packed up in shipping containers and sent to Hong Kong?
Mark S. and Bill K.: is it possible that the SI investment portfolio is wobbly or has been dimished to such a degree that the organizational moves to protect assets is actually that? I ask from a completely innocent and naive place, but nevertheless wonder if that could be the thinking at Corporate? Contained and protected so that if the whole portfolio become close to worthless in the market those artifacts, copyrights and so on could not be seized by lenders or investors or whomever might be able to mount litigation to claim them?
(moments later) Huh. I can’t really believe you played the Nazi card, Chris. So we’ve got foamy AIDS hysteria (20 years later) and Nazi comparisons. Huh.
Dear All,
Not sooner than today I had the chance to read the interview with President Reoch. I’m glad I’ve read it, because it seems to me that Richard revealed one very important point, which is how he uses – as he wrote – “the office (…), and the authority that goes with it.”
I would like to invite everybody to a heuristic joke with a leading idea of how to decode what Mr. President says.
1) So how he uses the office? He talks.
“I and others have been in conversation with some of the long-term acharyas (…)”
“Maybe now that the current orientation of the path is getting clearer, we need to have a conversation …”
“I’ve been in discussions …”, “I’ve had some initial conversation with some of the longer-term students and Acharyas…”, “I talked to Larry Mermelstein, (…).”, “Wherever I go, I invite people to talk to me…”
And last but not least:
“When Radio Free Shambhala was established, people contacted me as if this was the end of the world. “No, just think ahead,” I said. (…)”
2) What is the quality of those conversations?
Some did not arise yet (“Maybe now … we need to have a conversation”), other were just “initial” or about something which at this stage just “could be” (“what could be the support”).
3) What is the intention to lead those conversations?
“to see what is the practice support”, “how to create a …helpful framework”, “(to) create a social framework in which we understand that people will have different points of view”, “so I can find out more about it”, “try to learn from them.”
…to me nice and polite but useless.
4) Are those conversations enough? No.
“We genuinely have to go deeper, beneath this level of argument, to find the commonality.”
Where?
“in an archetypal sense, in our subconscious.” – I admit this phrase was used differently but somehow fits in this logic emerging from above quotations, doesn’t it?
5) Does this entire approach make sense?
“Probably most of us can’t even fathom it.”
It is striking that we can’t learn from the President what he actually did. After so much talking taking any action would be a proper thing to do, wouldn’t it?
6) “I had no idea the extent to which this community was traumatized. When I asked what issues were not being addressed, people were afraid to name the issues.”
Hmmm, I would not mystify this fear in its most simple form. Most of us are capable to lead our lives and work sometimes with much bigger and more complex challenges. After all this community is not that big. I’m sorry to state that, but in many cases it is the level of nonsense which might be taken as some sort of traumatizing power.
If this is time for Glasnost and Perestroika it is good to remember that Glasnost only created auspicious environment for Eastern Europe to regain freedom. Russia however was left in the cold with Yeltsin, the drunk , who paved the way for Putin. The conversations are not the essence of what is needed at all. What the people need is reality with no artificial administrative obstacles for their freedom, so that they could fulfill their lives with no intervention of usurpers who are stealing their live.
7) President Reoch wrote:
“One problem with the transplantation of egoless devotion from a culture like Tibet to a culture like we have in the West is we don’t have a tradition of lineage in modern form. We don’t have the cultural roots to support that. We are all grappling with how to understand this profound teaching.”
Well, Mr. President, I’m honored to completely disagree with you. In the West we have countless brilliant traditions and people working tireless and egoless for the benefit of others even if not being supported by the heritage of the Buddha. One important stream is the tradition of debate starting from Greek agora including e.g. at Wittgenstein (“What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.”) Also if I may offer kind of common sense idea, it seems it is better to deal with a decent man and disciplined thinker even if he or she never had heard about egolessness than with smart charlatan using the “dharmic” jargon. So in the case Mr. President is right, that we don’t the sufficient cultural roots, there is still a huge potential in this situation we are dealing with. Since as far as I know only few are truly enlightened the ideals of decency and precise, consequent thinking are quite good.
“Huh. I can’t really believe you played the Nazi card, Chris.
FYI people outside the SI mandala, who have even briefly been through the revolving doors, are referring to it as the Buddhist Facist wing of buddhist religious groups.
What Buddha Taught: A Doha from the Talk on Abhiseka
When “this” is beyond words,
How does “that” work?
How do we know “that” works
If we don’t understand what “this” is all about?
When we transcend “this” and “that” altogether,
How do we perform bodhisattva actions,
Which seems to suggest having full understanding
Of “this” and “that” put together?
If “this” and “that” are simply mirage-like,
Pure conception alone,
How do we understand that “this” and “that” are in the state of one taste,
Or they are co-emergent?
Nonetheless, realizing “this” and “that” are one in the all sense,
We begin to find vast space which neither has beginning nor end.
Hey ho!
Why don’t we come together in that particular state
Which is free from “that” and “this”?
Let us experience the ultimate joy which transcends any petty joy.
Let us think bigger.
Let us develop greater vision
Which consists of mixture between intense blue and vermilion red.
Let us sing and dance.
[VCTR, Bedford Springs, PA, March, 1982]
re: fascism; that criticism was laid first against the Vidhyadhara in a very public way (see his wikipedia article).
but that criticism was mostly, in my opinion, simply people misunderstanding devotion and the vajrayana approach. comparing us to the theravada and other groups – who are now prolific in many cities – we do look quite different and i can see the confusion.
though perhaps the Vidhyadhara did use a sense of exclusivity and inner circle as a motivation tool or a way to inspire further effort? I don’t know. I don’t experience a sense of inner circle really with the Sakyong because there is not much of a “scene” going on. I experience it as pretty straightforward and simple teaching situation. Of course in a volunteer organization, the more one volunteers the more one is plugged in or the more responsibility one might be asked to take on, so there is inner and outer in that sense. But that’s voluntary. And there are social dynamics in any volunteer organization.
Again, I suspect Mr. Reoch is mostly talking to people as a course of action because it’s a volunteer organization. One can’t really order people around so much, you know? If you want something done here, you have to do it yourself. That isn’t a kind of non-theism ethic so much as just the reality in any volunteer organization. Though we might consider how much our demands on the organization can become a kind of theism.
Dear Roman:
Thanks for that break-down of Richard Reoch’s interview.
Hours and hours of talking, and listening with him. He is just amazingly skilled in this. And then you realize, after nothing is done, or changed, that it was just a phenomenal waste of time because of the wrong expectations. He was simply there to garner the differing “views” of people and to help develop another public relations /marketing strategy that will incorporate some aspects of what was said and “talked about” in the latest introduction in the Shambhala Address, or Harvest of Peace Address, or the 16th version of the curriculum/Shambhala view of reality.
One realizes, too late, that your hours of “sharing” were actually hijacked into the latest PR spin to simply “protect” the mandala from current or anticipated dissent or trouble and to spin out the next magic show of delusion.
The reason there was a “scene” around VCTR was that he was relating directly and constantly with his students, beyond the formal teaching situation. The reason there is no “scene” now, is because SMR is not doing that.
different teacher, different style. if you want a scene, there are plenty probably.
am i the only person who sees this organization as voluntary and run by volunteers? why are we so demandy all the time. sure Mr. Reoch has some ability to do things, but to me it seems incredibly limited by just the reality of a volunteer, donation-based organization. at other volunteer, donation-based organizations mostly what one does is inspire the volunteers. and that’s all you can do to get anything done. and that is mostly talking, no? what else would he do, use a whip? there is some budget decisions, but international does not have a surplus of income to throw around at solving problems. the services provided are most basic still. so i think the bottom line is it is up to us, and always was that way. nothing new there.
Volunteers? Yes at the lowest level. Just like medieval monasteries. But this is not a volunteer situation anymore, like it was.
Adminstrators and Acharyas are paid with salaries and teaching gifts, the former director of SMC , I heard, had also a SUV as a perk , and believe me, when you are approaching retirement you are not going to jeopardize your livelihood by “speaking out”.
People who literally wrote the books were “paid” by being appointed Acharyas, which then led to livelihood salaries , teaching gifts and perks.
Goodness Davee, you can’t be this naive.
I’m not naive. Sure there are a few jobs in the sangha, especially at the land centers where there’s full time work to do. But really there isn’t much of that. And the salaries are not great.
Does SI have a big staff of 50 people or something? no it doesn’t. Maybe it has 1/10th of that. Mr. Reoch did for a long while work for the sangha without drawing a salary at all, maybe that’s still the case. The international organization that people here like to harp on so much has as much staff as a corner coffee shop. It’s not a “government”, it’s a coffee shop! (a pretty uplifted and nice looking one though, with some damn good coffee to share) And you can talk to the President of the cafe if you want, even the cook if you are so inspired. The last cook was pretty outrageous, the current cook is less so.
i’m just surprised when anyone complains that something isn’t getting done the way they want. it’s like we’re sitting at the counter complaining that the place is unkept. well pick up a broom, dammit. ok, some things you can’t sweep yourself. if you don’t like the special today, pick something else on the menu. or add a grain of salt. or eat somewhere else if you really can’t stomach it. but it’s rude to sit at the counter and endlessly berate the customers as to how much better the food was with the last cook. would anyone decent really do that at a cafe? some of us do like the food. ok, i took that metaphor way too far.
Hi Davee,
I would like to invite some non-Buddhist friends and associates to donate hundreds of dollars to Shambhala International.
They would do this in return for being able to consider VCTR’s Shambhala teachings and sit with others for a weekend. And as part of the deal, the person tasked with protecting the Shambhala tradition (the Sakyong) would agree not to combine it with Buddhism, so my friends could feel like full participants, rather than second-class citizens. The Sakyong would also agree to take advice from VCTR’s students, as VCTR suggested in his commentary on his will.
Do we have a deal?
I fear that the more SI turns away potential customers, or alienates older students, the more its revenue could diminish.
Being poor might be a fantastic credential to some volunteers or employees, to show how dedicated they are, but part of their poverty could be directly related to SI’s corporate policies, or to SMR’s decision to break with his father regarding Shambhala.
I personally don’t have any desire for SI to crumble to dust, I just wish it had something to give that I wanted to receive and that it wanted to receive what I have to give.
On a side note, can someone tell me what VCTR said about doing Shambhala training inside the Vajradhatu centers?
I heard that initially he was very much opposed to this, and wanted Shambhala training to take place OUTSIDE of the existing Buddhist centers, but the students said this was not possible because of financial reasons.
What happened after that? Did VCTR make further comments about this?
I ask because I wonder if this is one of the roots of the whole desire to gradually do away with Shambhala training today, as a set of separate programs. Maybe there really are major problems that come from doing two separate traditions in the same spaces.
Did VCTR ever approve of this? Did he say more about it?
Re Chris’s comment that SI doesnt have much longer in the states and Canada – I dont know if this is true or not but I do know that older students are forming their own organisations like Ray and Midal and they are probably garnering students that would have formerly gone to SI – so this is a concrete fact and it is happening, and I think there will be more older students doing the same thing in the future aswell.But of course these older students will have their own new students and they will take their tradition forward aswell.
All this reminds me about what happened with John Wesley the founder of the Methodist church in the UK -he did not want to split from the church
of England but he was forced to do so and as he was such a charismatic
figure he got many people to follow him to the extent that our social
reforms in the UK were influenced by prominent Methodists of the time.
Perhaps an older student will write a book that just hits people – the
success of religion just spins on ordinary factors such as these matters
at times, witness for example CTR writing Meditation in Action and it
having a profound effect on Samuel Bercholz.. So in this early time
of dharma propagation in the west things can change wildly an organisation that was up I think could down just as quickly. For the organisation to stay up I think it would take practice in all its facets – I think this because in trying to organise events over here I have been going round to some churches – I was impressed by a Christian Science group in my local area who had an open bookshop for people to drop in – it was a very inviting atmosphere and the people were really helpful. So yes there is that people factor to the whole thing.
Re the incident about the old CTR student at the new Shambhala level – in London we had a really, really old student from the Samye Ling days in the 60’s –people were into him or not into him – I personally liked him as he upset the apple cart of the discussion groups a lot –it was so much fun to me. I see you have to get over so much information in a Level I I know that but could not the space just be an open space –screw it up a little……I think it would be great. You know the person who
ends up the winner of Big Brother is a not person that follows all the rules –people need transgression as they need a cup of tea in the morning!
Best
Rita Ashworth
Just a brief reply to Edwards question re the original set up of the two
teaching streams.
I know from living in Halifax from 1991-1995 that a separate location was
used for Shambhala -it was above an office building near the city -but at some point Shambhala moved into the Tower Road building.
Even curiouser in the London Shambhala centre they would hang the shambhala banner on the partition so that you were facing away from the
Buddhist shrine – so it became a shambhala environment – at some
point also a shambhala shrine was set up with the ashe -so there were two shrines. Its interesting that you said CTR wanted the traditions in
two separate buildings I had not heard that -where did you get that
information from thats an interesting spin on things. Hope you can tell me
about this……
Best
Rita Ashworth
Well, Edward, my cafe analogy is perhaps too materialistic. But the menu has been changing true. Shambhala Training as I know it has not changed explicitly. Just asking a Director to avoid any Buddhist analogies, which always had a risk of occurring.
What is explicitly changing is the Buddhist curriculum which is going to be taught with Shambhala metaphors to a greater degree. So the Shambhala Training entrees and appetizers are about the same. But the Tibetan cuisine portion of the menu is getting some fusion influences from the new cook, more Japanese flavors, and not everyone likes it sure.
I don’t think anyone is a second class customer – though not everyone likes all cuisines (of course). Fine to be selective with the menu, unless you want to learn to cook the cuisine too. And every seat is in the VIP section.
Rita Ashworth writes:
interesting that you said CTR wanted the traditions in two separate buildings I had not heard that -where did you get that information from thats an interesting spin on things.
Rita, please see Mr. Martin Fritter’s comments of June 22, 2009 at 2:51pm on this page: http://radiofreeshambhala.org/2009/06/new-curriculum/
He says:
when Shambhala Training was started the was not supposed to take place in any of the Vajradhatu facilities – Dharmadhatus, KD, RMDC and so on.
I personally would like to hear more about this. What did VCTR say about it initially and over time?
Although the Vidyadhara encouraged a healthy skepticism/cynicism in us, he also warned us about the problems with cynicism. He said that it was too easy to become cynical—all one needed to do was to criticize everything.
Alternately, having just returned from Scorpion Seal retreat, I can tell you that it was a massive, heartwarming, brilliant and unrelenting Trungpa-fest with endless and constant quotes from the Vidyadhara; with many incredibly thorough teachings on CTR’s brilliant teachings on the ayatanas; hearing inner outer and secret instructions on the practice; and hearing from many senior students who were simply amazed at this event intended to carry forward these most profound teachings and heart-blood of the incomparable Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, Based on that experience, I would have to say that in order to keep the vast majority of these arguments on RFS afloat, I would recommend staying far away from the Scorpion Seal teachings.
On the other hand, if many of you are feeling courageous and daring, I’d highly recommend getting to the Scorpion Seal Assembly asap. You’ll be amazed at how CTR is so alive and so well and so vital in the current Shambhala scene. Don’t stay away from this—your root guru’s precious terma—it is your inheritance. This is the Sakyong’s courageous gift to you.
Alan:
You wrote:
“On the other hand, if many of you are feeling courageous and daring, I’d highly recommend getting to the Scorpion Seal Assembly asap.”
It’s a Catch-22. In order to go to Scorpion Seal Assembly, you have to be a student of the Sakyong, i.e., receive abhisheka from him. In other words, you can’t get there from here.
Yes, I wonder if by the time you reach Scorpion Seal if you haven’t had all the “courageous and daring” whipped out of you, so it seems really
fantastic….which could work, by the way…it’s a matter of contrast.
Personally I feel slightly “courageous and daring” to continue my path
without guidlines….although, I must add, I have a teacher now that has more
confidence in me than I do…
…exactly the same as VCTR did. Funny, isn’t it…these words?
John – I believe your teacher is now Khandro Rinpoche. I have had the good fortune of hearing (over and over as I love it) a 2 CD talk she gave in Boston Shambhala Center about emptiness. As well as a talk I attended of hers in Vershire at Dzigar Kongtrul retreat in 2006. A general dharma talk.
In both she was quite clear about kindness — about how it’s important to be kind to each other regardless of lineage.
She goes on in the Vershire CD to talk about NOT being the type of Buddhist who people make a U-Turn when they see you coming. That that type of Buddhist misses the point — kindness, generosity, compassion.
At this point, if I see you coming — I’m tellin’ ya — I’m taking a U turn — along with many others who post here.
And not because I don’t have courage and daring but because I have courage and daring and have chosen to recognize what HE Khandro Rinpoche says “An absolutely enlightened heart would be of no value if it wasn’t a sympathetic heart.” Why would I want to meet up with you. I wouldn’t.
I’m happy though for you John that she has confidence in you. That is way we seek teachers, isn’t it?
Perhaps you might TRY to be happy for others who have found teachers as well without telling them they have been whipped and subdued to a point of mindless discernment.
Tsk tsk
Joe
Hmmm — in re-reading your post John — perhaps you were saying something actually kind.
Not sure – I just can’t tell.
In any case, I’d probably stop to ask if I did see you. Not turn around –
Joe
Dear Joe:
Self-righteous moralizing about someone’s style of expression, is not usually what is meant by kindness in Buddhism.What your doing/ perpetrating is a Christian view, and a fundamentalist view at that. Admonishing others and moralizing them into your view of kindness.
I can guarantee that you would have done a U-turn
if you had tried to enter the Vajrayana gate of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and his students.
You are starting out with a view that is biased toward the ‘good” in little letters. This is not an auspicious start. Very tiny view.
I remember the then Director of Karme Choling, Judy Robinson, in her departing speech after her five year tenure, before the age of moralizing kindness in Shambhala, thanking those who had seemed to be mean to her, not “appearing particularly kind”,, because she realized now that they had been the most kind, the one’s with the “wrathful masks.” They didn’t care about being “seen as kind” but were really kind but having an allegiance to the truth. They were willing to be honest. And that was the only kindness, to oneself and others.
You also have no idea of how Khandro teaches her students, by a 2 part tape for a general audience.
I agree — nothing more irritating than moralizing.
Thanks for the reminder Joe.
Joe
John Tischer said:
Right on target, so direct. This is really worth contemplating, by everyone on all sides.
And this permeated the community, society, and government.
There’s a radical difference in atmosphere here. In 1981 (I think) Chögyam Trungpa met with his students, and notably with Barbara Blouin, who had written a very critical letter to him. He took the time to compose a personal response, by letter, and then came downtown to Halifax to meet in person.
That may have been then, but that is the way to be!
Huge amounts of teachings occur in non-formal-teaching contexts. With VCTR you were liable to have your mind handed to you on a platter in many seemingly “mundane” interactions.
Hopefully it is also like that with SMR. The paucity of stories of that ilk lead me to think otherwise. Or perhaps the Great Divide manifests in SMR’s students not sharing with the VCTR Geezers…..
My current teachers transmit constantly in informal situations, and also communicate with students directly via email especially regarding non-trivial questions / issues.
Lets get off this “being mean is good ” garbage.
One thing the Vajradhatu sangha did have was a well known reputation of being mean and arrogant. Something the “old fogies” should not be proud of as being their heritage. I don’t recall the Vidyadhara being mean. Scary maybe, but not mean.
Chris saying to Joe
“You are starting out with a view that is biased toward the ‘good” in little letters. This is not an auspicious start. Very tiny view.” is outright trash.
I guess kindness is evil.
Us vs. them. Arrogance to an extreme. Condescending lecturing to anyone who takes an opposing view (especially those who don’t have your vast experience). An absolute obsession with being critical of the practices of “the other side” as if it constrains your own practice (and as if they are hanging on your every work). Gee, who am I talking about? No egos running amok here? Let’s show those guys how enlightened we are with the strength of our criticism! Debate is cool and criticism can indeed be constructive, but please, how about a little perspective and a reality check? Time to move on already. And please, no elightened put down is necessary to explain to me how I don’t get it, because I wasn’t there.
Andrew,
Yes you can get there…your prajna is better than that. This is your guru’s teaching; it’s the path he laid out. Not from me; not the Sakyong; it’s Trungpa Rinpoche’s. In other words, it’s yours. Go get it.
John,
“courageous and daring” whipped out of you”?—a most presumptuous and baseless comment….Does it make you feel better to imagine that we who love both Sakyongs are fools? Is your courageousness and daring whipped out of you? I would never presume that despite your snide comments. HEKR is in town this weekend, I’ll ask her what she thinks about this and hopefully report back.
Michael,
re: “Hopefully it is also like that with SMR. The paucity of stories of that ilk lead me to think otherwise.” And what actual, direct personal experience of yours is this based on? There are certainly as least as many stories to the contrary that I could supply you with. It really depends on who you choose to listen to—don’t you think? You listen to conservatives and Barack O. is a scourge; you listen to others and he is salvation. Some older students say “there is no room for us in Shambhala.” others say this is the true expression of Trungpa Rinpoche’s mind and the Sakyong is brilliantly carrying forth his most profound teachings—are the latter liars and misguided fools? Are all your comments hearsay? Sure sounds like it. Do you think that it’s at all possible that the Vidyadhara told his son more about how he wanted the Shambhala teachings to proceed than he told you or your sources? Do you think that is worthy considering?
Samsara is endless, n’est-ce pas?
Alan
Chris said on July 22nd, 2009 11:52 am
*“Huh. I can’t really believe you played the Nazi card, Chris.
*FYI people outside the SI mandala, who have even briefly been through the
*revolving doors, are referring to it as the Buddhist Facist wing of buddhist
*religious groups.
So what Chris? I’m talking about the frothing Bill O’Reilly kind of tone you’re bringing to the conversation.
What’s it for?
What does it accomplish besides you letting off steam in somebody elses direction?
What’s the 80’s style AIDS phobia in some previous thread for? What does it accomplish besides S. Duarte letting off steam in a dead guy’s direction?
Is it really feedback? Honestly?
The fourth grade is back. We are back in the school yard. Time for a break.
Do you ever notice that you are always using names, and personal insults on here, when you are offended? That the level of klesha activity arises exponentially when usually a group of Sakyong loyalists arrive.
I suspect that there is a member here who is stirring things up behind the scene, someone who, because I don’t take his telephone calls anymore, sick to death of his rants about Shambhala, the Sakyong and particularly the dharma brats that ignore him, that he is personally stirring things up as he threatened he would if I posted anything. Switched sides now that you find a few dharma brats that are paying attention to you?
Alan Anderson wrote:
“Michael,
re: “Hopefully it is also like that with SMR. The paucity of stories of that ilk lead me to think otherwise.” And what actual, direct personal experience of yours is this based on? There are certainly as least as many stories to the contrary that I could supply you with. It really depends on who you choose to listen to—don’t you think? You listen to conservatives and Barack O. is a scourge; you listen to others and he is salvation. Some older students say “there is no room for us in Shambhala.” others say this is the true expression of Trungpa Rinpoche’s mind and the Sakyong is brilliantly carrying forth his most profound teachings—are the latter liars and misguided fools? Are all your comments hearsay? Sure sounds like it. Do you think that it’s at all possible that the Vidyadhara told his son more about how he wanted the Shambhala teachings to proceed than he told you or your sources? Do you think that is worthy considering?
Samsara is endless, n’est-ce pas?”
A bit touchy, aren’t we? My first sentence implies that I don’t have experience, but am not ruling out the possibility that SMR interacts in that style. The second sentence notes that I have not heard the anecdotes about his interactive style…. I HAVE heard from his students that he gives excellent teaching talks, but that wasn’t the subject of my comment – the comment was on the informal teaching aspect.
Your zealous defense / advocacy of all things Sakyong shows your loyalty to him – but there is no need to beat others on the head and shoulders with it, much less based on a not-so-precise reading of a comment.
and yes I would agree that samsara is notorious for being endless!
The Vision Free from Frivolity
The sun has not risen out of impulse,
Nor has the moon.
For that matter Vajradhatu has not developed out of impulse.
The vision of Vajradhatu is entirely free from fear and impulse.
It is the product of careful consideration and wisdom,
And inheritance of the lineage.
So we keep expanding, continuing, maintaining our dharmic world that way:
We earned what we deserved.
Our exertion and practice are free from regret;
We will never change our mind.
Let us work together in this vast vision.
Please join us.
Thank you for your support and dedication;
Without that we would not have achieved what we have achieved so far.
But we have furthermore to go.
Let us proclaim the dharma in all the ten directions.
[VCTR, Kalapa Camp, Chateau Lake Louise, Alberta, Canada, 17 January 1981, from the unpublished poetry]
I hope the Scorpion Seal retreat brings benefit to lots of beings. I think anyone on the Buddhist path has to be “courageous and daring”. I was just using that phrase in a different way than Alan used it to make a point.
I thought I was being slightly humorous….but perhaps this debate is
deadly serious for a number of people….or, what I said wasn’t at all funny.
Perhaps I could have just asked Alan why he used those words….
But I’ve heard lots of mention on this site of students in SI being intimidated in various situations….so phrases like “if many of you are feeling courageous and daring,” start to stick out….sound like propaganda….maybe they’re just innocuous words….if so, why did I get jumped on for using them in a different way? Please, if anyone runs across me, and doesn’t feel “courageous and daring” just walk the other way. And, have a nice day.
Dear Brad,
You say, “What’s the 80’s style AIDS phobia in some previous thread for? What does it accomplish besides S. Duarte letting off steam in a dead guy’s direction?”
Well, gee, I’m sorry I offended you, Brad, and I’m really sorry you missed the point I was making, which is: if the Regent had not picked up a guy off the street in the Castro District – presumably a total stranger, since he later threw him out of the car – to have sex with in his limousine, he might not have contracted AIDS and died, which prevented him from carrying on the Buddhist lineage of his guru, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. It is indisputable that the Regent died of AIDS. If he had been more careful in his pursuit of pleasure, or whatever his motivation was, he might have been able to fulfill his sacred duty as the Vidyadhara’s Regent. The fact that he was not careful in his sexual activities had vast and profound consequences for the entire sangha and for the legacy of the Vidyadhara. In fact, we might not even have Shambhala Buddhism and the conundrums it has posed for at least some of the students of Shambhala and of Buddhism. Does that answer your questions? Can you connect the dots and acknowledge cause and effect?
Suzanne
Alan:
You wrote:
“Andrew,
Yes you can get there…your prajna is better than that. This is your guru’s teaching; it’s the path he laid out. Not from me; not the Sakyong; it’s Trungpa Rinpoche’s. In other words, it’s yours. Go get it.”
This is in reference to a comment I posted about the Scorpion Seal Assembly and Retreat. My “Catch-22″ coimment must have been cryptic. Let me explain.
It’s my understanding that in order to do this practice, one must first attend the Rigden Abhisheka. That is the sine qua non. No Rigden Abhisheka, no Scorpion Seal. I do not regard the Sakyong as my teacher. I feel it would be dishonest for me to attend the Rigden Abhisheka and make whatever commitment goes along with that.
I find it ironic, and sad, that what is purported to be the pinnacle of the Dorje Dradul’s Shambhala teachings is not available to people like myself, who went through Shambhala Training, Warrior’s Assembly and Kalapa Assembly in the 1980s and have staffed and assistant directed numerous Shambhala Training levels over the years.
The gate has narrowed. It doesn’t have to do with prajna. It has to do with being on the other side of the divide.
John C, that’s a great quote, that poem of CTR’s (hopefully it’s not a fake, like that infamous paranirvana day letter last year).
Roman S, great to hear from you, and hope you continue to bring in an Eastern European perspective, and perhaps the humor special to that.
Alan A, re
Well, yes, it’s my inheritance, and doesn’t need the Sakyong’s courageous gift of it to me. It’s also the inheritance of all human beings, and doesn’t need a buddhist gate. It’s all around, in fact.
Alan, what you are experiencing is great, and it could also work for me, since I am also a buddhist, but what about all the other people? That what this terma (I’m starting to wince at this word, since it’s starting to be used in such a religulous way) is about. It is a response to “people in the future who have doubt… caught in the sickness of the dark age”. And it is a response from and speaking to their own best nature, which is no man’s land.
Cheers,
Mark
Rest assured that the poem “The Vision Free of Frivolity” and all the poems are genuine and not fake. They are Rinpoche’s true voice.
You’re welcome for the great poem, but also let us acknowledge Rinpoche’s presence is a genuine and true presence at RFS, at least as genuine and true as everyone else’s presence.
His speech in these poems makes Rinpoche as much a commentator on this and other threads as anyone else’s comments.
Suzanne I’d be happy to take this tangential conversation private, y’re free to e-mail me at wll.wait@gmail.com. You can e-mail me there free of fear of being harassed or badgered and you hold the unequivocal power to cut off the correspondence at any time you wish, should you post me there.
Which is to say–everybody else uninterested skip this chunk of wordage. Please. Take my wife.
To wit:
I didn’t miss your point Suzanne, not at all.
You didn’t offend me, you alienated me. I accept your apology.
I’m not with you 100% on your single-Castro-sex-encounter-equals-AIDS theory. Not that the sexual event didn’t occur, as you had been told it did. Rather, the chances of an individual sero-converting as the result of a single unsafe sexual encounter w/an HIV positive partner are dramatically (perhaps surprisingly) small. Established medical fact.
By 1987 the bathhouses in San Francisco had all closed up shop, Act Up was solidly formed and operating passionately, and safe-sex was the nationwide order of the day.
And the general US population was completely wigged out over the “gay disease”. Fear, panic, loathing, violence upon the well being of individuals, and so on.
We (us homo-whores (sorry, can’t resist)) were also wigged out but we were likewise preoccupied with keeping ourselves alive and out of harms way.
Now, as an insider I can tell you with certainty that if the Regent had been interested in a prostitute he would have patronized any one of the several hustler bars in Polk Gulch, but why pay when you can get it for free in the Castro? I said as much originally but that reply might have been inflicted with a bit too much poesy. Sorry for the muddle.
Here’s the thing: the phrase in your original post, “…homo-whoring in the Castro district…” is incredibly dense, packed, packaged up tight and potent like a roadside bomb. Here’s why: in it is the implication that anyone the Regent could have picked up in the Castro was diseased and capable of infecting him, in it is the implication that anyone on the sidewalk in the Castro would have been a whore.
It’s not that your logic is suspect, logic is entirely absent. I will neither support nor condemn your judgement of the Regent. Neither am I going to allow you to believe that you’re speaking truth. I will not let sneering references to my neighbors or my neighborhood stand without making a public fuss as riposte.
To further clarify: Suzanne, I am not requesting or demanding your compassion, though it would be a boon.
Here’s more: I’m sure this has all been through the grinder more than a bazillion times, nevertheless it is not fruitless to consider hypotheticals. IF the Regent had died crashing a car which he had been driving in which were several sangha members were also killed the trauma would have been, in my speculative mind, certainly as great. But the fervor and tumult of the trauma would have been far far less.
TO BE CONTINUED…
CONTINUED:
Even if it had been determined he was drunk and high on peyote and crack and acid and smack while driving this speculative car it would have been much easier to consider such an event a tragic accident.
(Skipping the Vidyadhara’s somewhat flagrant disregard for his own liver function… I know I KNOW, I said I’m skipping it!)
So, my final opinion is this: even the most discursvely enlightened individual (DIDEROT!!!) is no longer required, in the year of Our Lord 2009, to make disparaging comments, much less theorize disparagingly, about homo-whore activities, no matter who it is that activates them.
Less consicely, not cool Suzanne. Not cool at all.
Chris: I am only who I am (which sounds kind of like a disparaging version of Popeye…) My last name is Self. My gravatar is my profile pic on my facebook page. E-mail me and I’ll send you my cell phone number. So, no paranoia neccessary, if that’s any consolation. Good luck with the Nazis.
Andrew and Mark , re: yr most recent posts re: Scorpion Seal’s and Shambala’s (general) unavailabilty: I empathize, deeply and sincerely and with a heart colored by pain. I stand where you cannot. I wish there were a swift solution. I truly wish you didn’t have to live with the particular dilemma, the disappointment and the disheartening situation. In my heart of hearts I hope for a clear shot for everyone that’s stuck where you are, a straightaway, an impossibly wide sky, and a strong river’s rush to carry you where you need to go.
rgrds,
Brad
Hmm, I hadn’t thought before about the problem of lineage succession with respect to abhishekas. If a lineage holder dies, and the next succeeds, then it seems natural that the vajra sangha would receive abhishekas from the successor (ie the loppon or regent or next sakyong). But this notion of “not my teacher” for the successor sounds like quite a bind. Or worse, you could actively dislike the successor. If you just didn’t feel inspired by them, perhaps that would be much less of a problem than real dislike. Or maybe dislike would be more of a connection than indifference? Hmm, that logic implies that people here who really dislike the Sakyong actually have a really strong connection to him.
Which gets into a discussion I guess of samaya and devotion and what that means, ie. if there’s a sense that the preceptor of the abhisheka has to “be your teacher” or if that is not necessary. Maybe this isn’t such a great place for that kind of discussion. But my impression is there is quite a lot of flexibility there really.
Didn’t Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche send out a hilarious letter to folks taking Vajrakilaya in recent years to the effect that this was a very one sided relationship because he’s terrible at relationships? I’d really love a copy of that wit if anyone has it. He puts me in tears of laughter.
[From HEDKR:]
This is a message for those who are thinking about receiving the
upcoming Vajrakilaya abhisheka [in Halifax, Jan 28 - Feb 2, 2005].
I would like to give you all some time to think about this, as an
abhisheka is not a small matter in the Vajrayana tradition. I’m
sure that some of you know this already, and that this knowledge
must be making many of you uncomfortable. Some of you might feel
that receiving an initiation from another master might be an act of
disloyalty to your own master, such as Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.
This is completely understandable.
In Tibet, lamas apparently do things in two different ways. Some
lamas stress that students should follow one guru and one practice,
with obvious benefits such as not confusing the students or
dispersing their energy.
Other lamas take a different approach. In my case, I have been
labeled as an incarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo. When once in
a blue moon I remember this, I aspire to emulate his example. He
had more than 100 gurus, and Jamgön Kongtrül Lodrö Thayé, his close
associate, claimed a similar number. So in trying to follow in
their footsteps, I have not really discouraged my own so-called
students, who are really my victims, from following other teachers.
In fact, in the case of some lamas, I could not encourage them more
strongly.
I have also been fortunate in receiving teachings from many
masters, more than 30. And I also have personal and completely
selfish reasons not to be too possessive when it comes to my
students. I’m afraid of committed relationships because of my
completely unreliable nature. Nevertheless, if you choose to
receive the abhisheka from me, our relationship will be changed for
a long time, if not forever. And I should warn you that from a
mundane point of view, there will be no equality in this
relationship, and no negotiation!
There are only two ways you might find solace. First, you might
assume that I have compassion and kindness, and that I will not
mislead you no matter what happens. But this doesn’t mean that I’m
promising you that I have any compassion or bodhicitta! Second, and
more reliable, is the fact that I am a completely samsaric being,
and because of my own insecurity and love for attention and fame,
and my fear of developing a bad reputation, I’ll behave properly.
But let me tell you honestly: I’m not an enlightened being, and
even the wish to attain enlightenment doesn’t come to me every day.
I don’t even have any of the qualities of a Shravakayana master or
Mahayana master, let alone those of a Vajra Acharya. And as a human
being, I’m completely unreliable. But I have received teachings
from some of the greatest masters, Buddhas in the flesh, so the
lineage is definitely there.
Isn’t it painful to be in a situation where you need something
from someone who is completely unreliable, especially when you know
that if you ask for what you need, you’ll be stuck with him forever!
So please think twice.
Davee:
I can’t commit myself to “Shambhala Buddhism” because it is my understanding that Shambhala and Buddhism are two separate (though closely related) paths. As Chogyam Trungpa said in Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior:
“Over the past seven years, I have been presenting a series of ‘Shambhala teachings’ that use the image of the Shambhala kingdom to represent the ideal of secular enlightenment, that is, the possibility of uplifting our personal existence and that of others without the help of any religious outlook. For although the Shambhala traditiion is founded on the sanity and gentleness of the Buddhist tradition, at the same time, it has its own independent basis, which is directly cultivating who and what we are as human beings. With the great problems now facing human society, it seems increasingly important to find simple and non-sectarian ways to work with ourselves and to share our understanding with others.”
The current approach within Shambhala International is a mixing of these two paths. Unfortunately, it apears that the Scorpion Seal teachings are not available to people who believe that Shambhala “has its own independent basis.”
HEDKR, Mind’s ultimate nature
[Rinpoche’s poem appeared together with his article entitled “Distortion” which appeared in the Shambhala Sun, September, 1997:]
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.
It would be interesting if the Buddha’s successor had announced that Buddhism was really part of Hinduism, and that he was going to be combining the two traditions, to help simplify things and prevent confusions. And to clarify the inherent oneness of the two teachings.
namaste
http://radiofreeshambhala.org/2009/06/new-curriculum/
Thanks Edward for the reference to Martins post on a previous thread
where intially CTR requested for shambhala training to be held in the
70s in separate buildings from Vajradhatu.
This fact I find very pertinent to the discussion underway as to different
teaching streams for the whole thing. Did anyone take any notes of this
meeting at the time so that we could have what CTR wanted to happen
in toto.
I feel at times that historical meetings such as this one are missed in the general debate about what way SI should go. It would be good to get back
to what was said at the beginning by Rinpoche as regards shambhala training perhaps even before the book the Sacred Path of the Warrior was published as I have heard that this book was edited quite a lot.
So it would be interesting to hear from Martin again about this meeting in more depth and to hear from older students what other aspects of shambhala training that Trungpa discussed with people.
I still want the unadulterated teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche on Shambhala and I feel we are not getting the whole picture of the way he wanted things to go with enlightened society.
It would be interesting to hear peoples comments
Best
Rita Ashworth
I don’t remember the details. I worked in the administration for maybe eight years, first at Naropa (Comprtoller) and then at Vajradhatu/Nalanda (Business Manager/Director of Dharmadhatu Affairs). There was a fairly robust central office, maybe twenty or thirty people actually on salary: a pittance for all, to be sure.
Rinpoche (Trungpa) was very involved in the day-to-day decision making and it was really the chance to rub elbows with him that attracted most of the people to the “Mandala Services” (which, of course, is a recent coinage). That changed, of course, but it was after I left to work in the real world. It seemed to change a lot more after the fall at the Court which marked the beginning of the decline of CTR;s health.
For all the (seemingly endless) yammering about SI, I have no idea how it’s run on a day-to-day basis and who does what. I have the feeling that it’s become very decentralized with the centers having a great deal of de facto autonomy. Maybe I’ll pick up the phone and find out! I still know people.
Dear Davee and Brad:
You leave people with the impression that you are sorry for us, because somehow we have “missed the boat” by not following the Sakyong and his teachings. And that its not too late, if we just bite the bullet and cough up another few thousand dollars, added to the 10’s of thousands we have spent over the years in programs, to reinforce the conceptual baggage we have been carrying for years.
You need to realize that many on this site do not want the Sakyong as our teacher, feel like we have broken free from a cult, and are joyous that we have moved on and happy that we have found others that have moved on.
What you don’t know, by being embraced in a seamlessly reinforced group think, is that there is a whole cutting edge happening in Western Buddhism, freeing us also from the mind-numbing,moralizing Tibetan cultural baggage that has travelled along with the pith dharma for thirty years and is over.
So why on earth would one want to be involved in something that has rejected lineage, one of the pith aspects of dharma, and embraced so much of the cultural baggage, that is about to be left in the dust?
You seem , because you are all still in the trance of group think, to mistakenly believe that you have something that we want, when in fact, what is really happening “out here” is that Western students, everywhere, thanks to many honest and kind teachers, such as Dzongsar Rinpoche in his letter linked here, are trying to wake us up and re-empower us as Western students. Tibet as the center of dharma is over, the dharma has moved to the West. .
Unfortunately, Shambhala, in its return to the cultural baggage of Tibetan Buddhism, with its rituals, and rites, mixing that with Shambhala , seems to many of us, to be going backwards in “Time.”, with a capital T. And newer students are not going to be interested in a western educated son from Boulder High School , pretending to be Tibetan, and carrying that baggage as some kind of prop. It is the wrong prop when props are what are being shed.
That is the problem with a closed system, and systematically becoming more and more exclusive and insular. Its like the frog that has fallen in the well, and only knows the well and wants everyone to appreciate the well. When there is a whole vast sky of” waking up” outside the well that you can’t see in your chauvinism about what you have.
What is also quite remarkable is how you crash this site, and insult and moralize and lecture and cojole us, with no one censoring you. When in your venues of SI we can’t even mention CTR’s way of teaching shamatha. You actually try and censor on this site as well, when you don’t like the content. And RFS allows you this freedom. And yet you accuse people on this site of being “unkind”. Amazing.
Hi Rita,
I would love to read an article about this subject someday– about how Trungpa Rinpoche (originally?) wanted Shambhala training to take place outside of Vajradhatu buildings.
Perhaps there are records of what he said, or of what happened, and people who could be interviewed.
I can’t really imagine a more interesting article, though it would likely take time and energy to research & write.
I have bought this up before. Andrew had a quote from THE WAY OF SHAMBHALA where the Vidyadara points out the distinction(s) between the path of Shambhala, and the Buddhist path. In the book that can be bought through the Shambhala Shop (or maybe used to) which stresses how the Vidyadhara wanted to create Shambhala Buddhism, did the book distinguish the difference between the two paths? I’m asking because I didn’t read it, and I wonder if somebody out there did and tell us a few things about it. Also, I was wondering if that book suggested if the two paths were the same, and who put that book together.
If Mark is reading this, my picture is hold hat. How does one remove or change their picture?
Rob.
Dear Martin
Re Edwards further comment and my query -it might be good if you did
pick up the phone in the sense of just collating stuff about the
emergence of the shambhala teachings as you were so near to CTR.
I think it would make an interesting article on this site as a lot of the
older students are in Boulder.
I know from older students of CTR, Mike Hookham and Alf Vial and others
stuff about Trungpa in the UK but not in detail the finer points of what happened re Shambhala Training in the US – have done some articles
in the past myself and the whole process of research is quite interesting
and I think you may find it so aswell. Can you remember people who were in on that meeting for example? Any way whole thing just a thought about way you could go around it.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Rita,
I was going to pick up the phone to find out about the current organization of SI. My memories of the early days of the STP (Shambhala Training Program) are correct because we had a lot of problems trying to figure out how to pay for it. Plus the, the first Kalapa Assembly (in Showmass) left a lot of people in shock. The KOS seemed weird.
RFS: perhaps somebody might interview the surviving members of VDH Board of Directors – Ken Green, Ron Stubbert, Karl Springer plus David Rome, Lodro Dorje and Micheal Root about this period of our history.
As for myself, I think the whole “original intentions of Vidyadhara” line is pointless. It is universally agreed that Osel Mukpo is the lineage holder of his teaching. If there is room for debate, it’s as his status as lineage holder of the Kagyu/Ningma teaching of his father.
In any case as Shambhala lineage holder he has no external point of reference — there are no other lineage holders for him to consult with or be accountable to. So he can pretty much do with it what he wants.
While I had no interest in going to SMC for the Scorpion Seal, I was pleased when I heard that there were over 1,000 people there. (Is this true/) Signs of life.
re Kagyu / Nyingma lineage holder: There is, at least on the Nyingma side, another option – Michael Hookham / Rigdzin Shikpo.
His Longchen Foundation was set up at the behest of VCTR and had the blessing of both VCTR and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
His recent book “Never Turn Away” is excellent, especially regarding the “Trungpa style” formless meditation aspect.
Worth a look for any student of VCTR – http://www.longchenfoundation.org
Thanks for the further clarification Mr Fritter-it would be great if some one
could interview the remaining VDH board for rfs on the emergence of
the shambhala teachings.
I am not arguing that the Sakyong is the lineage holder of the shambhala
teachings I am arguing for a more comprehensive view point of what
occured at that time. In biography for example in the west you give people
the historical facts of what happened in a persons life and you leave
the reader with the ability to make up their own mind about what
occured. The added facts of what occured will give me personally more
food for thought about how to proceed as I too have no interest in
following the present way SI is going with the shambhala teachings.
I think I am more of the Robin Kornman school in that he stated in his
lectures that the older students were the lineage holders of CTR – it is really a question of conscience here I believe because beyond the present set up I think others in the west can manifest the shambhala teachings just as well as SI.
Of course such a viewpoint puts one beyond the pale of some in SI but I am still prepared to raise these questions because I really do believe people in the west can create a wholesome enlightened society.
best
Rita Ashworth
Dear Michael:
Thank you for putting that link up re: Michael Hookham/Rigdzin Shikpo. I discovered him by accident abou 7 years ago, and find it so refreshing and “proof’ futher that when CTR first came out of Tibet to the West in the 60’s , he was teaching Dzogchen and empowering Dzogchen students.
All his early teachings/ poems, like the one that was put on here by John Castlebury,above, about “Buddha, Dharma and Sangha” as emptiness and vividness, totally Dzogchen, are much more radical, and precise Great Perfection teachings and seem to connect so much more with the original.Shambhala teachings of CTR.
This poem is a jewel discovery . I had not read that before. “chauvanistic Lamas, Political correctness i.e. equal rights, not to be “stuck with gender or culture”. Way ahead.
Now in Shambhala we have “feminine principle” and, “diversity” and “gay buddhism” and all kinds of isms. Dualisms, as compromise, to market the dharma. People should really read this poem above.
When he realized that many in the States didn’t connect with Dzogchen teachings, it seemed he went to a more Mahamudra , gradual path approach. I have heard anectodal stories from those who were in India in the 60’s re: this transformation. Even the VY sadhana was changed from a much more Nyingma, short version with a blonde Vajrayogini, to the 6-8 hour, monastic Kagyu sadhana. I saw that VY Sadhana, shortly after L Mermelstein “discovered” it in archived material and it was circulated amongst us. It would hav More proof that CTR was always trying to empower us as Westerners, and was concerned about the cultural Tibetan baggage that would travel with the essential dharma.
Even the Sadhana of Mahamudra’s name was changed, to please the 16th Karmapa. (according to rumours circulating Asia, after CTR came out of Bhutan, he showed the Sadhana to the 16th Karmapa), and even though it is totally a union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen sadhana. So the name has even kept his Dzogchen stream “secret” until after many got specifically the Dzogchen pointing out from other Nyingma teachers.
Michael Hookham seems to have gotten the Dzogchen transmissions from CTR , before the Kagyu Mahamudra teaching stream period, and I would think that more CTR students would be curious and interested in this, particularly if one wanted to keep the Nyingma lineage stream of CTR . I have found his writings and teachings imbued with CTR.
That is what is so surprising to me, that people chose , out of some idea of loyalty to SMR to “narrow” their view, and just stick to the Shambhala/Buddhist teachings propagated by SMR, and actually dismiss other streams of CTR.
And as for Shambhala, why would people think that CTR, to make it simple, would want to mix Tibetan/monastic, vajrayana stream dharma with Shambhala teachings, when CTR was always trying, it seems to me, to be cutting through to what was essential, pith dharma, and that the Shambhala teachings seem to have been his way of trying to Westernizing the dharma and free it from Tibet cultural baggage?
Correction: Dear Chris, that thrilling poem “Mind’s ultimate nature” was *surprise* composed by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche. As noted above, DKR’s poem appeared together with his article entitled “Distortion” in the Shambhala Sun, September, 1997.
Doesn’t matter. Awake Mind is Awake Mind. It’s the same Mind.
I am soo grateful to Dzongsar Rinpoche for his bravery. That talk, response to T. Carreon. has lifted about 30 years of cultural baggage weight from me. Plus it is going to save us some money. He, like CTR and other teachers, such as Kieth Dowman with his teachings on Radical Dogchen, is trying to free us from our “trances”, layered over by Tibetan cultural baggage that has to be shed now for the essence of dharma to take hold in the West.
SI has missed the boat.
A recent quote from K. Dowman:
the time has now come to be taking an “eternal vacation from vacuous rationalization, unctuous Tibetan culturalism, and self-serving institutionalism”. He feels that it is now “imperative” that American dharma become “existential.”
[VCTR, from 1980 VY seminary transcript, Talk Twenty-Two, “Transmission: Trikaya and the Eight States of Consciousness”, Chateau Lake Louise, Alberta, Canada, March, 1980:]
When you hear the genuine teacher
When you hear the genuine teacher,
It brings the sunrise of genuine teaching.
When you transcend all those genuinenesses,
You find an utterly wordless, unspeakable vacuum.
When tigers become sheep,
Lions behave like worms.
Garudas crawl like wounded mosquitoes.
Profound teachings are questionable.
Such doctrine has been taught for the right or for the left.
Is it true that the deaf hear properly,
And the mute can speak good language,
And the lame can dance, as has been promised in the book of mahamudra?
I still would like to ask that question.
Reverend Naropa,
Can you come and tell us at Chateau Lake Louise
The truth of your discovery?
Dear Chris
You said “Now in Shambhala we have “feminine principle”…..
I would like to share a little personal history, in the mid 70s I was a student at Naropa when I heard that VCTR was giving a class at Karma Dzong titled “The Feminine Principle” I asked Ken Green if I could attend and was informed that it was for Members of Karma Dzong only but he would let me attend this class that one time but if I wanted to attend any future “ATS” (Advance Training Seminar) I would need be become a member and be fully payed up on my dues. After attending the ATS on the “feminine principle” I went on to become a member of Karma Dzong and devoted student of the Venerable Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.
So the more things change the more they stay the same, the feminine principle was taught then and it is still taught today, there were requirements and cost to hear the teaching then and there are requirements and cost to hear the teaching now……
Yours in the Dharma
James
Dear James:
What I remember as “feminine principle” was not an idealized , reified, abstraction that is happening now. There were actual consorts. There is no doubt that CTR loved women, real women. Not the concept.
The Sakyong, in my personal experience, has always preferred the company of his buddies. His own relationship to “feminine principle” has always been suspect. I have never felt that he ever really liked women much, unlike his father. So of course now, we have a reified “feminine principle”. And have you read the view of feminine principle in vogue now? It sounds like something out of the Confuscianism court. No wrathful crones allowed now, that’s for sure. A cowardly view of feminine principle if I ever saw.
CTR would never have pandered to the latest political correctness, or “isms” occurring in the current , conceptual reality. He was trying to help us cut through this all the time. Feminine principle was certainly not meant as something to “abstract” from the living, nondual reality of our being.
Chris
I have no reason to “suspect” the Sakyong’s relationship to the feminine principle, nor have I ever experienced any of the teaching as a idealized , reified, abstraction. I am not questioning your experience, I am only trying to point out that “the way thing were” in some ways are not that different than they are today. Let us not forget how often the “scene” changed, I recall many times people questioning what the VCTR was presenting. The only thing that did not change was change its self.
Yours in the Dharma
James
Michael brings up Michael Hookham’s book (which is, yes, excellent) wherein we see proof that CTR taught great skillful means all over the world and throughout his life…Dzogchen at one time and place; Kagyu path at another time and place; and Shambhala at another time and place. CTR said so many different things and gave so many different instructions…..and yet many here are *so assured* of what he wanted, backed up by a mere handful of supporting quotes. Yet, there are equally as many—if not more— CTR quotes supporting the inseparability of Shambhala and Buddhism, and still, some people make insulting little jokes pretending that they actually got more instructions than the Sakyong did and are truly doing a better job than him in carrying out his father’s instructions.
Let me clarify one thing: I’m not saying I’ve got it right; I’m saying that the assuredness of this denial of even the possibility that CTR may have instructed his heir properly and accurately, as he wished, is stunning. To disregard the possibility that perhaps the Sakyong may have received some actual direction and actual instructions from his father beyond our 5 favorite supporting quotes is insupportable for any student of emptiness and compassion.
I only have one real point to make based on my experience (and these are my thoughts, alone): Having gone to the Scorpion Seal, I saw that we have been teaching Shambhala in bits and pieces that we all know hang together sometimes—and sometimes not. That’s because we’ve mostly been wrapped up in the “Path” of Shambhala. Alternately, the clarifying View and Fruition of Shambhala have been incomplete up till now. At this point, it lands right in your lap like a big present (in the Scorpion Seal and its commentaries). It’s staggeringly vivid and clear. It all hangs together now like the net of Indra—not just an arrangement of parts and particles. And…you should see this Sakyong now that he is getting to do the job that he was trained for. It just might make you cry.
I’m sure many of you won’t believe this—and some will insult me for my apparently fawning allegiance, I’m sure. Nevertheless, if my comments can help even one person to go and see for him or her self, directly, whether there is something very favorable to gain for a student of the Vidyadhara, that would be good and beneficial, I think.
Hello, I am new student. I am wanting to take some studies from the angry ladies with the real transmissions and the stripping of this and that and the certain knowledge of the bad things done by the people who don’t understand and need to realize. Please email.
[SMR, from Smile of the Tiger, Vajradhatu Publications, Halifax, 1998:]
CIRCLE OF MUSHROOMS
Jumping from a high cliff,
I have landed in the clear blue pool of loneliness.
I, Ösel “Luminous” Rangdröl “Self-liberated”
Am fortunate to have the inheritance of my family.
Chögyam was alone,
A stray dog in his time.
Chögyam was a warrior
Chögyam was a lover
Chögyam was MAD
Chögyam was truth.
Following and leading have become interchangeable.
He said he was me and I should be him –
The dark ages have come and we should
Spread it like marmite on toast,
Drink it with mountain water,
Drink it with fresh saké.
Perseverance is my friend –
Aloneness.
Being alone, I have many friends,
But I remain alone.
Some try to please my ear, and others my heart;
Nonetheless I, Mipham,
Remain alone like Kunga Sangpo.
I, Mipham Lhaga, will always be “unconquerable.”
Beauty is desolate
Beauty is round
Seeping in the cold air of an autumn morning.
I feel proud to be alone,
To be a Mukpo.
I feel proud of my aloneness.
[St. Margaret’s Bay, Nova Scotia, 28 April 1992]
*This poem uses two of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche’s Tibetan names: his given name Ösel Rangdröl, “Self-liberated Luminosity”; and his Buddhist refuge name, Mipham Lhaga, “Unconquerable Divine Joy.”
If people have samaya with SMR and keep it, that is wonderful. If people have samaya with VCTR and keep it, that is wonderful. My personal opinion is that samaya isn’t an inheritable thing, it has to be a personal connection.
Some students of VCTR don’t have that connection with SMR. It can’t be forced or wished into existence, or logic’d into existence. No matter how many handfuls of quotes are tossed into the mix on either side. So, there are many broken hearts when they experience the teachings moving away from what they have cherished for so long.
Alan, I’m glad you had a great experience at the Scorpion Seal retreat. Mazel Tov!
Dear Timku Champo:
“angry ladies” / Not good. Tsk Tsk.
You make my point.
Chris
Before the Vidyadhara went on retreat in 1977, he sent out some of his senior students to give talks on Shambhala Training. Those talks turned out to be, by all accounts, a disaster. This was before Shambhala Training was established. In the retreat, the Vidyadhara and the Regent created the Shambhala Training program….as far as I know.
I assisted many Shambhala levels and directed quite a few through the 80’s. When they went well…which wasn’t always…there was the perception of enlightened society on the spot…even at level one. If the director took to heart the teachings and practices, the magic of basic goodness…mind of the Rigdens…whatever you want to call it, happened.
Directing Shambhala Training was the end point of the Shambhala Path in those days..and a great challenge it was.
I saw an old venerable teacher of Shambhala Training teach a couple of years ago. Unlike the “old days”, instead of an environment of the teachings being created, it was as if he was simply dispensing information. It was a shocking contrast from the way I had seen him
teach Shambhala before.
So yes, things have changed. Alan may be absolutely correct in his assertion that the “bits and pieces” that people get now come together
in the Scorpion Seal Retreat. As others here have pointed out, the Shambhala Path is now being funneled into Scorpion Seal Retreat.
I dare not say here whether I think one approach is better than another.
But it is different. And, to quote D.D. Eisenhower, “Things are more the way they are now than they ever have been.” The carrot seems much bigger and the stick smaller.
Chris, I’m not a member of SI or a student of the Sakyong.
But being as perverse as I am I have to say I am now absolutely dying to find out what the guy’s game is all about.
Best of luck you, sir, sincerely so.
Here’s a little history. After the Vidyadhara went into a year retreat in 1977, Karl Springer (Director of External Affairs) went out and hired a Public Relations firm to get Shambhala Training off the ground, “launch it” as corporate types would say. I was on staff at Vajradhatu at the time, and Karl gathered the Vdh staff to meet with the PR people. I was young (early 30s) and naive, and had just been to Seminary in 1976 where the Vidyadhara had performed the first stroke of Ashe that many of us there had witnessed. (Probably some people had seen him perform this before.) In any case, the PR presentation felt all wrong to me, so I asked a question. (I don’t remember what it was.) It embarrassed Karl and I got reprimanded for asking the question.
However, the Vidyadhara nixed the PR firm, and started training his students to present Shambhala Training. I don’t remember the exact dates or timing, but maybe Martin can remember. Soon there was a Shambhala Education program, which I participated in in Boulder, and then again when I moved to Karme-Chöling in 1979. Whether Shambhala Education was the training for Shambhala directors I’m not really sure. (Martin?) All I know is that I totally loved the material and passed the course twice, and was soon assistant directing Shambhala Training. (Beginning in 1982±, I directed levels.)
Somewhere between 1978 and 1979, Lady Rich (the Regent’s wife) was given the job of laying out the logic of Shambhala Training levels. I remember this because I was asked to write an article about this process for the Vajradhatu Sun – I’d already been writing articles for this paper – our sangha newspaper that preceded the Shambhala Sun. I met with Lady Rich once or twice, but she was struggling and the article never came to fruition – maybe because I moved to KCl, I’m not sure.
In response to Alan Anderson, I have to say that I NEVER felt that Shambhala Training and the Shambhala teachings in general didn’t hang together. Years of joyful Werma practice and directing Shambhala Training gave me a feeling for the view, practice and fruition as a whole. It was NOT an arrangement of “parts and “particles,” or bits and pieces. If it degenerated into that after the traumas of the Vidyadhara’s death, the Regent scandal, and so forth, that is very sad to hear. But for me, it was all there from the beginning. The view, by the way, was always the first thing presented by the Vidyadhara, whether in Buddhadharma or Shambhala. You know, 3-fold logic is the way VCTR taught everything: view/practice/ action, definition/nature/function, etc. That’s the way we were trained to teach. Don’t students get that now?
Alan says, “we’ve mostly been wrapped up in the “Path” of Shambhala . . . the clarifying View and Fruition of Shambhala have been incomplete up till now.” It sounds like somebody’s been holding back on you. How much did you have to pay to get the view and fruition?
To be continued . . .
Continued:
Silly me, I could have asked to receive the Scorpion Seal a long time ago – before the new regime. I wouldn’t have had to pay thousands of dollars, and take an abhiseka with Sakyong Mipham in order to get it. But I wasn’t ambitious. Everything had already come to me at the right time and I felt complete with what I got from the Vidyadhara while he was alive, and soon after he died, I felt it was time to take what I’d been given out to the world. Now I’m being told that I didn’t get it all and that I should . . . . I’m not convinced.
Suzanne – your recollections are generally congruent with mine. It should be noted that Rinpoche had great plans for Shambhala Training. He was expecting thousands of students. This was the reason Karl was interested in bringing in an outside PR firm.
Could you post me directly at mfritter@gmail.com? I’d like to have a little side bar with you!
Is that all there is? Think, people, think! There are clouds on the horizon!
(Oops…sorry…I just watched all the “Terminator” movies in succession.)
Mr. TIscher writes:
[Speaking of Shambhala levels in the 1980s] If the director took to heart the teachings and practices, the magic of basic goodness…mind of the Rigdens…whatever you want to call it, happened.
For what it’s worth, I’ve taken four levels in recent years, and three of them were magical. And I don’t say that lightly. The fourth was a bit like dispensing “knowledge” or something.
But the other three were quite magical. People had tears in their eyes during the toasting, one guest said it was the most transformative weekend of his life. A lot of juicy stuff came up during one.
I’m very, very impressed with Shambhala Training weekends. And I’ll be very sorry to see them go if the “Sakyong” nixes them, at least for people who do not fit his religious criteria. (I do like his poem posted here though.)
I love the way people are introduced to the director for their interviews, and all those little details. Amazing stuff.
Thank you, Edward. Great to hear.
Chris, I’m perfectly fine if people have no interest in studying with the Sakyong. I just want people to be respectful. You know, decent. Just have some basic human decency and decorum, even if one is upset with the direction things are going. Even in the midst of disagreement and heartbreak there’s the possibility of decorum.
Same if a group separates from Shambhala, as others have. No need to self-justify with some kind of slander. There’s the possibility of decorum and decency in separating if the group is true to the vision of the lineage.
COLD TURKEY
Umbilical cord is cut,
Cut like a bad habit,
Like a tectonic shift
Or turning-point or
A point of no return.
We change our mind,
Or mind changes us.
Truth and half-truth
Push us to abandon
All ideas whatsoever.
Every idea is a view,
Every view, a habit,
Every habit, a trap,
Trap of an absolute
Theory of everything.
Views are so fickle,
Fickle as whims but
Crushing the habit
Of clutching a view
Kills our fickleness.
[from White Clouds, Samurai Press, 2009]
Dear Davee:
From the number of posts you make over the last year you must spend your whole life on RFS. Are they paying you? Because if they are not, and you are on some kind of mission, I can guarantee you, “no good deed goes unpunished in this mandala”, and no one in Shambhala, not the Sakyong, , not the rest of the administration, cares what you are doing. They are probably laughing at it all as they laugh at all the slaves of Shambhala who keep this wheel turning and keep the inner court in self-indulgence and luxuries. . So keep on lecturing others about “decorum”. You are simply entertainment for the “gods” whose own view of “decorum” would differ from yours, I assure you. WAKE UP.
Chris
Many thanks Suzanne for the brief history -that clears up a few points.
I think of the old directors the more I would like to hear more from
is Ken Green – I have listened to him on the chronicle project but
I dont think the interview went in enough depth about his own role
and how he felt CTR wanted enlightened society to be ‘politically’
Can also the old directors be interviewed more concisely -perhaps rfs contributors could submit queries to them through the website so we could get a more cohesive interview than was held on the chronicle project.
I also welcome Davees comment re the Sakyong and everyones different
samayas and intuitions about the way the whole thing could be in the
west.
Certainly at Shambhala levels and in public talks there does seem
something magical happening when you talk about basic goodness – people prick up their ears at this ‘concept’.
So I look forward to some more history lessons!
Best
Rita Ashworth
Chris writes:
“From the number of posts you make over the last year you must spend your whole life on RFS. Are they paying you? Because if they are not, and you are on some kind of mission, I can guarantee you, “no good deed goes unpunished in this mandala”, and no one in Shambhala, not the Sakyong, , not the rest of the administration, cares what you are doing. They are probably laughing at it all as they laugh at all the slaves of Shambhala who keep this wheel turning and keep the inner court in self-indulgence and luxuries. . So keep on lecturing others about “decorum”. You are simply entertainment for the “gods” whose own view of “decorum” would differ from yours, I assure you. WAKE UP.”
So, Chris, is there a particular, currently-existing organization that you would recommend that does not model this unhealthy-sounding behavior, but instead models healthy organizational behavior?
Name? URL?
Thanks,
Ian
VICTIMENTIA
Where self is not
Split against self
There’s no schism
Mind and universe
Are homogeneous
So there’s no mind
To be persecuted
And no phenomena
To persecute mind
In the state of grace
Pain on your face
Your frantic pace
And obvious angst
Are heart-breaking
To say the least
The truth of peace
And light appears
Whenever runaway
Mind slows down
Enough to notice
[from Aspiration Highway, Samurai Press 2007]
Chris writesto Ion:
“From the number of posts you make over the last year you must spend your whole life on RFS. Are they paying you? Because if they are not, and you are on some kind of mission, I can guarantee you, “no good deed goes unpunished in this mandala”,
It’s ironic Chris would write this because she is on not only RFS several times a day, but has been on all the sangha related listseves and sites for a number of years, usually with the message of her hatered towards the Sakyong, Shambhala, his students, or who she thinks are students. It seems it has become her new religion. Being on a vendenta is not Buddhism. Also, because it’s a public forum, I wish people would stop trying to turn this space into their own personal opinion page. Daily opinions, and second (or third and forth) hand information doesn’t help much. Also accusations don’t help very much, and nobody learns much when it boils down to fighting between two people on s public forum.
Chis at one point sad “Do you ever notice that you are always using names, and personal insults on here, when you are offended? That the level of klesha activity arises exponentially when usually a group of Sakyong loyalists arrive.”
Was she talking to a mirror?
Needless to say, I’m sure sadly I , or anybody who crosses her path, will will get a not so pleasent response.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a libblous or slanderous remark. Worse, I may be accussed of being a student of the Sakyong or Shambhala..
Perhaops a one posting a day rule might help here.
Warm greetings:
Andrew Safer, thank you so much for writing the following (re Scorpion Seal):
It’s my understanding that in order to do this practice, one must first attend the Rigden Abhisheka. That is the sine qua non. No Rigden Abhisheka, no Scorpion Seal. I do not regard the Sakyong as my teacher. I feel it would be dishonest for me to attend the Rigden Abhisheka and make whatever commitment goes along with that.
I find it ironic, and sad, that what is purported to be the pinnacle of the Dorje Dradul’s Shambhala teachings is not available to people like myself, who went through Shambhala Training, Warrior’s Assembly and Kalapa Assembly in the 1980s and have staffed and assistant directed numerous Shambhala Training levels over the years.
Davee wrote:
Hmm, I hadn’t thought before about the problem of lineage succession with respect to abhishekas. If a lineage holder dies, and the next succeeds, then it seems natural that the vajra sangha would receive abhishekas from the successor (ie the loppon or regent or next sakyong). But this notion of “not my teacher” for the successor sounds like quite a bind.
I think you’re underestimating it a bit, and also it’s not about ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’ the lineage holder. Christopher Columbus, if we’re still not questioning liking and disliking then maybe it’s time to consider embarking on a spiritual path, preferably with Tilopa’s lineage.
What has been removed for many people of good heart is the possibility of continuing with the advanced practices with trust in the integrity of the lineage transmission. Now, if as Alan Anderson says, this Sakyong is coming into his power then all I can advise is that he starts to manifest some kind of presence in the mandala that is a bit more representative than the fumbling meditation instructions that appear on virtually every page on the Shambhala site. He looks like a young footballer unaccustomed to public speaking, and out here, apart from a framed picture of a golden boy, some romantic hearsay and some pleasant books, this is all I know of him. (No, I don’t count occasional podcasts as Vibrant Proliferation of the Thunder of the Lineage into All Quarters.)
We were all the Mukpo clan, as was Dilgo Khyentse and 16th Karmapa. Mukpo clan are lions, always were. Now we seem to be playing at being peasants of the realm and maybe we might wrap a bit cloth around our hips or wear a little cut-off top like Khandro Tseyang and scurry about with little nervous feet. It’s all very confusing.
To convince me around the embodiment of the lineage, I would be looking for certain clear signs and understandings within Shambhala Buddhism:
• I took refuge into the Kagyu lineage, I felt the welcome. The moment those Kagyu gurus leave the chants (is this for real?) I am cancelling my sub. I hope they roar on the way out and set fire to the curtains.
• The Kagyu lineage insists on ngedon (not trangdon which is just learning the model and the words), and there are fierce penalties for any self deception here, which were certainly not implied in e.g. this student’s recent experience of Sutrayana Seminary. I applaud some of the elements of the new curriculum, particularly the discussion groups, but if the only conditions of shooting through from L1 to Rigden Abisheka in 3 years are funds and free time, then there is surely something rotten in the state of denmark.
• It is understood that a ‘contracted’ relationship with a spiritual friend who knows you better than you do is not dispensible. Presumably this would provide some quality management re the point above.
• It’s not about conditionality in relationships, or strangling the Tea Boy from Nepal.
• It’s about being a monarch with a broken heart not worshipping a monarch and getting points for looking positive
• It’s about the tradition of the spiritual warrior which resonates in virtually all spiritual traditions to the extent of culthood, and involves training in virtue, shila, nobility, self mastery and vastopenheartedness and which requires uncompromising truthfulness and the willingness to be completely open without obscuration, because only by doing so are we invulnerable. Thus heaven meets earth, the feminine principle contains and births the masculine principle, and the Great Eastern Sun arises.
• Spiritual materialism has to be routed out at the core – it is a concrete barrier to authenticity. It needs to be debunked and defragulated at source to erase separation between ‘spiritual’ and ‘personal’ life, including work, sex, peeing, financial reporting and peeling vegetables. This instant. No excuses. We have to save this world.
I reiterate that I would greatly prefer Shambhala Buddhism to embody these things. Perhaps it is doing so outside my realm of experience, and I must admit the possibility of complete projection of my own inadequacies onto the Shambhala container.
Maybe the alternative is to bank on the vajrayana arising spontaneously from the mahayana, and that I learned dzogchen in Level 5. Hey ho the happy yogini!
Susie, New Zealand
Greetings once more.
Feminine principle has been mentioned. This is good, of course. For an informative experience, grab VCTR Glimpses of Space. It really isn’t about bonking (. . . particularly) or proportional representation on Shambhala boards. Integration of Feminine principle is absolutely unequivocally essential for spiritual path, sine qua absolutely non. In Shambhala, despite some pretty Cynthia Moku banners and a whole committee set up to proliferate the teachings (presumably?) it’s pretty obscure. To what extent is it apparent as a cultural norm and embodied in the Inner Court?
I’d like to hear more of the voice of Samyung Agnes Au, whose talk on feminine principle is a delight that still lurks as an MP3 (I hope) at the bottom of Khandro Tseyang’s page on the Shambhala site, but not on the Search facility, which would of course improve its accessibility. Insight (all-encompassing) must provide the container for action. First scan the field. The snake coils before it strikes. Before engaging vajra sword, count to nine. Be the gap.
A superb protocol and absolute minimum prerequisite for any attempt at deeper democracy in any environment and particularly in virtual ones.
Susie, New Zealand
Greetings to all for the third time, and thank you for your indulgence.
Davee, in your words, ‘There’s the possibility of decorum and decency in separating if the group is true to the vision of the lineage.’
Again, I do think you’re simplifying it a bit. To ’separate’ is not simple at all.
Additionally, we need to examine the value, and even the morality, of quietly, decorously (sp?) ’separating’.
There are some things that should rightfully be snaffled by decorum, we don’t want to spew all our petty little issues onto people and if it’s workable, then there is consensus. There are others where the most vigorous protest must be raised.
It is also really a kind of rankism to make Not Being Angry a condition of entry into dialogue, and much abuse has occurred in this world because of this. I definitely haven’t grown out of it, but it’s important to monitor, I think.
A few years ago a radical black South African gave me a new insight into the principle of forgiveness and why there is often shortfall in many existing formal ‘reconciliation’ processes. He said, “Imagine you get your bike stolen. Nobody admits they’ve stolen your bike, and so you go through this process whereby eventually they get to admit they took your bike, and you have this ritual and everybody gets to talk and then they forgive each other.
And when it’s time to go home, you find yourself standing on the pavement saying to yourself – ‘But hang on – what about my fucking bike?’
Susie
I thank John Castlebury warmly for continually channelling the profound profound intelligence of the lineage holders onto these threads. I have Dharma Rain as part of my bodhisattva name, and as a model of aptness you make me gasp.
How do you do it – do you open books at random or is your mind simply one with the dharma (!)?
I promise not to post anything else today.
Susie
Of course there is the possibility of anger with decorum, disappointment with decorum, heartbreak with decorum. That’s what I’m requesting, nay what the lineage would ask of us, yes? And I need that reminder myself.
So a Lion’s Roar of Decorum?. I don’t know, sounds like a non sequitor.
Here is a little slice from the “eternal Victory Banner” from Keith’s Dowman’s translation of Vairotsatva’s 5 original Transmissions Chapter 14″
Verse: Some believe that by designating cause and effect,
both virtue and vice are clearly defined
and the mundane world is transcended.:but moral discrimination is supreme presumption.
from commentary: Familiar with the moral causal process and skilled in the discipline of moral discrimination the result of any action can be predicted; but this facility may produce enormous complacency and arrogance that can result in exclusivity and intolerance”.
Exclusivity and intolerance..
Vajrasattva is not about being good, neither was Basic Goodness about being good. They both point to the ALL-Good. Even moralists are encompassed by the ALL-Good whether they see it or not.
Thank you so much for grabbing the steering wheel, Susanne Vincent, whomever you may be. Talk about fresh air, lungs full! And congratulations on very recently moving just a little bit closer to Australia.
Dear Susanne Vincent:
I found your posts very poignent and I am sure they will be helpful,
However , these sentiments I dont understand:
I find it ironic, and sad, that what is purported to be the pinnacle of the Dorje Dradul’s Shambhala teachings is not available to people like myself,”
I can only assume that what is the pinnacle is treckcho and tobgyal practices, with other Dozgchen practices such as a “Dark Retreat” Why would any one feel that there could be anything beyond the Great Perfection? That is not possible and to believe that the Dorje Dradul believed that, is not possible. He held the lineages of Kagyu / Ningma. The Shambhala Level I teachings were vview path fruition as one, as Dzogchen is view path and fruition,as unity, from the beginning in the pointing out. This , in my opinion, is a marketing technique and a BIG CARROT. A “pinnacle teaching” is by definition not a gradual path, laid out to synchronize with needed programmatic revenue. Therefore one is not excluded from anything. Dzogchen is not a “gradual path teaching” So you find a qualified Dzogchen teacher, with a Dzogchen lineage, as many CTR students hav e done.Holding the pinnacle teachings of the Great Perfection, and thats it. Its that simple.And you don’t have to pay thousands of dollars to do so to support a self-serving institution. It is so telling that that is what Robin Korman did, at the end of his Shambhala road, i.e. found a qualified, Dozgchen master of the Great Perfection, Lama Wangdor, to study and train with. I bet he didn’t feel deprived bby doing so.
My personal opinion is that the Shambhala Teachings were VCTR’s skillful means for teaching Dzogchen to westerners. The reference to Robin Kornman is spot on. If you listen to the full set of talks he did beginning here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4042924371389663223&ei=9VlsSq7FJcOHtgee_P2aAQ&usg=AFQjCNHNAP3_nP73PcPsLXTHakG4fTO3kA&sig2=ZIJPv89SjlnnA4PZM5XOyw
through all 5 talks, he addresses the issue of Shambhala as a re-framing of Dzogchen that broadens the cultural context drawn upon.
I never begrudge supporting local centers at all – they are a wonderful resource, and indeed Wangdor Rinpoche has taught at the Milwaukee Shambhala Center many times, more than any other Tibetan has AFAIK. I am indebted to the kindness of the center in allowing Robin and I and our cohorts in the motley “Ad Hoc Rime Committee” to arrange for Wangdor Rinpoche’s teachings there.
84000 paths to the dharma. all good.
Davee writes:
it’s not about ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’ the lineage holder
One thing history teaches us is that successors are different than predecessors.
Is the pope the equivalent of Jesus?
Is Patrick Sweeney the equivalent of Trungpa Rinpoche?
Was the Buddha the equivalent of the Hindu ascetics who were said to teach him in the forest?
I think each teacher is unique, with his or her own variety of realization, point of view, motives, purposes in life, and karmic connections with others.
I believe in some traditions it is said that making a strong bond with the wrong teacher, or taking the wrong student if you are a teacher, is the karmic equivalent of jumping off a cliff.
In those traditions you are advised to *carefully* examine the teacher (or the student) before agreeing to such a bond.
Anyway… If there is no gut-level feeling of attraction for a teacher, then what is there to work with? It would be like trying to cook dinner with make-believe ingredients.
Interesting topic, Edward. I have experienced people who have a strong longing for their teacher that appears to me as a kind of strong attraction, but I don’t think that’s the only route to the vajrayana path of devotion. My amateur guess is there is a range of ways to relate to devotion and to teachers and to lineages. I mostly experience a mirror of my own neurosis around the Sakyong, more so than any particular emotion.
And perhaps also there is a transition that can occur in one’s path, like Milarepa who starts off in misery from not being around Marpa to his later poems where that desire to return to Marpa falls away completely.
And Chris, re: decorum, someone wiser than me once roared “Never forget the Hinayana!” and printed it on T-shirts. That was during the Vajrayana section of a seminary I hear (1981?). Sure decorum isn’t the Hinayana, but if one were to look for the basic discipline practice of the Shambhala teachings it would be decorum. Which is not to say that one *has* to practice the Shambhala teachings here, but I think that decorum is fair game to request on this web site. It seems in accord with the lineage to avoid slandering the Sakyong and SI and each other, even in the midsts of expressing criticism or disagreement or anger or heartbreak. And that seems clear from the Shambhala teachings on decorum and also from the Hinayana teachings on the non-virtuous actions of speech which reinforce ego-clinging (eg. divisiveness, indignation, harshness, etc.)
Sorry if that sounds like moralizing and lecturing. So far some subset of comments (and perhaps some articles) on this site really fall short in my opinion, and in bringing it up I’m hoping to remind myself as well.
Davee,
I couldn’t agree with you more about decorum. Sooo important as a basic ground for relationship here.
My feeling about decorum on RFS is that, on the whole, it has been pretty good. Certainly not perfect. There have been exchanges from time to time which definitely fall short. In particular, presuming negative motivations in others is a regrettable thing to see, especially within the Buddhist sangha. Not helpful either.
I think where I might differ from you is in bringing in the power dynamic. But first of all, let’s not forget how much slander, harshness, unkindness etc. can occur from those defending Shambhala International. For a reminder, I invite anyone to wander over to the dharmabrats forum… There used to be some excellent, open exchanges there. And outrageousness, in the best sense, in the spirit of Trungpa Rinpoche. Now…well, you could check out any number of threads (eg, since they address people who post here, “DOOOOM” on page 3 of “General Discussion,”, or “Edward” on page 2), for a random sampler of what’s going down–and I mean down… It looks like the dralas have made a pretty thorough exit from what used to be a worthwhile, needed place. (Not saying by any means of course that the site defended Shambhala International all the time, but am merely pointing to the tone of virtually all comments about RFS. I think if you compare *that* level of decorum with what is seen here, there is no contest.)
Now you might say: well, what do you expect? It’s a high school locker room over there, or whatever–not representative. Okay. But then I must say this: the least decorous, most slanderous and dehumanizing speech I’ve ever heard in my life has come from teachers (and kasung) within Shambhala. That’s not hyperbole: we mean it maaan, as someone named Rotten used to sing… So I have a different perspective here.
This doesn’t mean that lack of decorum can be defended because power succumbs to it. That’s not what I’m saying. Only that in any given situation power has at its disposal tactics and strategies for marginalizing–silencing, ridiculing, excluding, humiliating, or just completely ignoring (a Shambhala specialty, it seems)–those who criticize it in a way that touches a sensitive nerve. When I see undecorous speech from someone on the underside of a power dynamic, my first thought is: hmm, what have they been through to bring that on? Something has happened. There has been wounding, or worse. This, again, isn’t defending undecorous speech. Just pointing out that power dynamics are present here, and they most definitely affect how we communicate, sometimes are even *able* to communicate.
I must say, it is a more than a little suspect, when slander and vitriolic , incoherent, personal, public attack on this forum is alright, when its directed at those who don’t agree with the current Shambhala incarnation. All these Sakyong loyalists say nothing about decorum in that case.
So for me, It undermines all arguments about decorum, and makes it seem that “decorum” arguments are not what is at issue here at all. Decorum arguments are a red herring then. Another attempt at silencing people.
This site, was created it seems as the last place that could discuss issues that had been censured as taboo topics for decades within “corporatized Shambhala”.
Taboo topics, such as, bizarrely, CTR’s meditation techniques.This was taboo in the Sakyong’s Shambhala since 1999, almost a decade. We watched the lineage pictures taken down from the shrine, the protectors removed. The curriculum re-invented over a dozen times, and not a word of protest or concern allowed. No concern then about treating CTR students with “decorum” and respect. “Get with the program , or get out” was the motto, and is more true now than ever. Some experienced extreme forms of bullying when we refused to see the Sakyong as “enlightened” or as our teacher. I have experienced these slices of insanity, and I have heard many stories from other CTR students, “who refused to get with the program.” Its all decorum now, and diversity, and inclusion talk, but the the underlying message is even more true now, in 2009, “Get with the program , or get out.” just as it was in 1999.
So to have people come onto this site with the same proselytising/censoring is really remarkable . If you want an example of real “decorum” is the accomodation to that on this site. If we occassionally loose it when we experience it again, it is understandable, I would say. I am amazed at the “decorum” and accomodations, patience and openness of CTR Students,, and how much “decorum” and accomodation to Sakyong students is being used on this site, to allow them to come in here attempting “pro forma” to silence people, even here. That we don’t hit them over the head with a club, is “decorum.”
Hi Damcho
As an occasional visitor to DBF I must point out that probably the main reason for the lack of posting there lately is due to Gesar no longer participating and Ashoka rarely these days.
Not much drala if the main uses don’t use, right?
Bit like a Palace with only some of the staff and court jesters hanging out . . . (maybe a bored dark Prince or two throwing coins at available targets)
Don’t think you can claim its because anyone dissed RFS, or overly defended S.I. !
While on that note Chris I think you confused Brad with me . . I am the Ozzie who appears on there, rarely and usually with some embarrassing comments. Have decided to leave well enough alone as lately the whole point of blogs seems lost on me other than to avoid real conversations or write utter tosh for the hell of it. Also prefer to meet people I don’t know before assuming I know them or their intentions, via the written word.
Thats a personal observation, not a judgement on anyone elses motives.
OK thats it from me. Glad you guys seem to be generally finding a positive voice and clarity with what you want.
Peas and love from down under
p.s. Decorum, if not defined by awareness of a situation, is definitely over-rated.
Chris: You wrote in response to my post:
“However , these sentiments I dont understand:
I find it ironic, and sad, that what is purported to be the pinnacle of the Dorje Dradul’s Shambhala teachings is not available to people like myself,”
I can only assume that what is the pinnacle is treckcho and tobgyal practices, with other Dozgchen practices such as a “Dark Retreat” Why would any one feel that there could be anything beyond the Great Perfection? That is not possible and to believe that the Dorje Dradul believed that, is not possible. He held the lineages of Kagyu / Ningma. The Shambhala Level I teachings were view path fruition as one, as Dzogchen is view path and fruition,as unity, from the beginning in the pointing out. This , in my opinion, is a marketing technique and a BIG CARROT. A “pinnacle teaching” is by definition not a gradual path, laid out to synchronize with needed programmatic revenue. Therefore one is not excluded from anything. Dzogchen is not a “gradual path teaching” So you find a qualified Dzogchen teacher, with a Dzogchen lineage, as many CTR students have done.Holding the pinnacle teachings of the Great Perfection, and thats it. Its that simple.And you don’t have to pay thousands of dollars to do so to support a self-serving institution”
The sentiments I quoted were Andrew Safer’s, and I do find it ironic and sad and feel it needs more airing.
To be honest, when I ask for dharma to progress on the path, I’m quite happy for the next snippet to come out of the mouth of my cat, or a local blackbird. However, I’m aware there is a map for this kind of thing.
You seem to show a route out of the hole in your reply, but my ignorance is a barrier – I would like to be able to understand your words above, up to ‘Dzogchen is not a gradual path teaching’. I don’t mean this as a negative comment, I genuinely don’t understand what you’re saying, and I’d very much like you to expand, as though speaking to someone who doesn’t know the terrain as well as you do.
Lama territory seems like rather a muddled world. I went to a weekend by a wacky Dzogchen teacher, he looked wonderfully disreputable and played a red hot violin. I think he was actually a reasonably big wheel. The practice did seem exactly the same as Level 5 Open Sky. Sometimes I also join eclectic Buddhist friends to attend a whole range of events (phowa practice, Tara practice, Vajrasattva practice, etc) in a range of little multicoloured halls with lots of prostrating and chanting (chang shey ja rig chho dra ur). I guess I could pass my phone number to the teacher when they put the scarf round my neck, but I’m never sure why.
Diverging re this thread, I am also interested in a couple of points. Firstly, Richard Reoch seems very interested in conversations, dialogue and so forth – which of course is a jolly good idea, and of course this isn’t one. We’re responding to his purported words as one might respond to a message from the Taliban or ET. I heard an enthusiastic comment recently that the Sakyong is now talking to everybody from the old sangha who has an issue about the way things are going. So using the same rule of thumb, if Mr Reoch thinks he’s having a conversation at the moment, I do hope that he will soon make this apparent.
Secondly, thank you so much, Chris, for the link to Robin Kornman’s talks, which are now on my laptop and which remind me of the peculiar stabling arrangement of the Acharyas within Shambhala. Apart from Pema’s work, there are, to my knowledge, no publicly available talks or videos by Acharyas anywhere. I regard this as completely potty in the dark age. Why on earth not? There are some outstanding teachers in the mandala (and talk of salaries notwithstanding, as far as I know it’s $200 per diem when actually teaching) who are not allowed to accept direct students and although, for example, Dale Asrael was recently ‘rated’ as one of the top ten Buddhist teachers in the West, nobody outside the mandala would know a thing about it.
Gidday Brad, appreciate your comment. I’ve lived in New Zealand for 28 years . . . but I guess that’s very recent compared with the Dreamtime eh.
Oh, and finally, FYI I understand Mr Reoch formerly held the position of Head of Press and Publications in Amnesty’s appallingly under-furbished and politically war-torn International Secretariat, focused on keeping its million-plus members in 85-odd countries informed and actively engaged, probably with a 486 pc and sitting on an orange box. This experience seems relevant.
Susie
Dear Susie:
It is thanks to Michael Sullivan that the link to Robin Korman Shambhala talks in Milwaukiee were put up as a link.
As for Dzogchen not being a gradual path. It’s like “you can’t get to here, from there”. Or, as long as you are locked in time, and on a spiritual path with a goal in some future,or you think that you have to improve yourself, purify yourself, or that the timeless moment is far away, and not right here in each awake moment, you are that obscured from Dzogchen. So a gradual path to reach natural awareness of the timeless moment is not possible,Dzochen is outside time and cause and effect. As Namkai Norbu once said, “Dzogchen occurs in 13 cosmos of which this is only one, and Buddhism could be a vehicle for it (but not necessarily) because it was the least dualistic of spiritual paths, or at least it was pointing in the right direction, to nondualism. People confuse Dzogchen with Buddhism. Just as Shambhala teachings are being confused now with Buddhism.
I really think that when you have the genuine pointing out from a qualified Dzogchen teacher, then it becomes clear that CTR was trying to teach Dzogchen, stripped of the Buddhist, monastic, vajrayana overlay, in his own way . A way that would be appropriate for Westerners, who were just as bedazzled by Tibetan monastic lamaism then as now.
So the merging and Shambhala and Buddhism seems way off, and is why , I think, people have such trouble with it. It is intuitively off. Because this was CTR’s way, it seems, to strip the cultural monastic overlay off, and empower students, i.e. point, as you alluded, that we are already seated on the royal seat of the timeless moment of the here and now, , i.e. the pinnacle, with nothing to do, nothing to improve, we just don’t know it because we are always locked in time, distracted by being in the past or future. When I really heard the radical Dzochen teachings, it was like a 500 lb weight was laid down. I realized that for 25 years I had been carrying this “cause and effect” weight, the next program,the next abhisheka, the next teaching, the next ,,the next… the next. And that there was a reason to keep us thinking this, it keeps the revenue flowing, the cash coming in. When really what we needed to do was relax into timelessness , recollect , remember. I would only trust a teacher now that is unequivocally teaching this: Relax and “capture the royal seat: No buddha elsewhere, look at your own face, nothing to do, rest in your own place.” There are qualified teachers who can point this out, i.e. they don’t give you anything you don’t already have, they just remind you to relax into the timeless moment.
“I heard an enthusiastic comment recently that the Sakyong is now talking to everybody from the old sangha who has an issue about the way things are going. So using the same rule of thumb, if Mr Reoch thinks he’s having a conversation at the moment, I do hope that he will soon make this apparent.”
Re above this is an interesting comment from Suzanne – is this just
a rumour or is it actually happening? Personally if it was happening I
would not be one to go in on a one to one basis, I think if such a thing
was to occur you would have to go in with a list of queries if not such
a strict thing as an agenda. It also begs the question that there may be
quite a few ‘rebels’ out there if such meetings are happening.
I like Chris’s comments I dont care if she is one this board every minute
of every day if she has something interesting and useful to say as likewise Davee and everyone else as I thought blogs/boards were for conversations that could go on for a long time. In this respect I loved being on the phone in the US and Canada as you could have long conversations whereas at the time in GB every minute cost money -that now has changed!
Anyway I have definately left the org re teachings in ordered fashion of
Shambhala International.
I think in the west it is possible to go the Robin Kornman way -this is not
to say that it will be easy but at least we will have more democracy happening from the grassroots and with the help of older students I think we can do great things.
I was listening to Tsem Tulku yesterday over the web and although
he is a Gelugpa and very traditional in his way of teachings he definately
said he wanted Asian and by implication western lineage holders. Thats
what I want too – I want Tibetans to give the whole thing to the west I
dont think they need to hold back on this. But if they dont give it I think we
will always get people like Ray trying to hit it without confirmation from the
east and personally I think this is good way to go. I dont really care
if Robin Kornman did not get the full switcheroo of the teachings perhaps
his students who were younger might get it – and that is what I am willing
to risk by studying with Trungpa’s older students.
Anyway think that is enough – look forward to peoples comments.
Best
Rita Ashworth
As a “older student” of VCTR I would like to share a few thoughts that might be helpful to this discussion.
1) Even when VCTR was alive it was questionable to assume that one knew what was on his mind, or how he would react to any situation, Having said that it is my recollection that he was not a big fan of “democracy” but rather worked to establish an “enlightened monarchy”.
2) One of the first classes that I attended at Naropa was on the life of Milarepa where it was pointed out that Marpa would not give teaching to Milarepa until it was “payed for”, so the fact that today the teaching are not free and will cost one to receive them is nothing new.
3) No one knows how VCTR would manifest were he still alive today, what we do know is that he trusted and empowered his son as his lineage holder.
so in the words of VCTR
” Good Luck ”
James Hoagland
Dear Hoagland
Everything that you have pointed out is true but I feel the climate has
changed over the years and I feel the best way to go to really propagate
these teachings as much as we can is for the
teachings to be really given in toto to westerners – I dont think the
Sakyong is going to do this so I am going the Robin Kornman way.
There are democracies and democracies – Trungpa has commented
favourably on some democratic institutions such as the Boulder City
Council and some Christian organisations. But I really would like to
hear more from Ken Green on the politics that Trungpa was clued into.
Trungpa also said that there should be a National Assembly with voting powers in his will which I have alluded to many times before which is not
now happening.
I think yes we should contribute to the finances of dharma organisations
but they should be supremely transparent. Perhaps even budgets put to the whole sangha for them to comment on and pass by voting or by their
elected representatives voting as happens in virtually all societies in the world.
But I dont think money is the main bugbear here I think in essence we are in a transition period the teachings can go with the west or get locked into
a hiatus with eastern teachers – my intuition, feelings call it what you will
is that the shambhala teachings will have to be propagated by western
lineage holders. Religions modify themselves over the centuries to the
environment they land up in -witness Christianity freeing itself from its Jewish roots and adapting and changing in the west.
Yes I too in the words of our great founder Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche wish you Good Luck and many jolly escapades in Nova Scotia!
Best
Rita Ashworth
Response to James Hoagland (JH):
JH: Even when VCTR was alive it was questionable to assume that one knew what was on his mind, or how he would react to any situation, Having said that it is my recollection that he was not a big fan of “democracy” but rather worked to establish an “enlightened monarchy”.
SD: It is true that VCTR had his doubts about democracy and dedicated his last years to preparing his students to carry out his vision of the Kingdom of Shambhala, an enlightened monarchy. He did, however, include in that vision the means for enabling feedback to the center of the mandala in a number of ways, including the Delek system, which was to be relatively non-hierarchical and uncensored, as I recall.
JH: One of the first classes that I attended at Naropa was on the life of Milarepa where it was pointed out that Marpa would not give teaching to Milarepa until it was “payed for”, so the fact that today the teaching are not free and will cost one to receive them is nothing new.
SD: As I recall, enabling students to have access to the dharma was VCTR’s first priority, so he was concerned that programs not be prohibitively expensive. I imagine that many old dogs who visit this site, especially those who, like myself, staffed the Vajradhatu mandala – such as Mark Szpakowski and Martin Fritter, who both worked in finance – can attest to this view. It did not seem that lack of money was allowed to be an obstacle to serious students. Work-study in one form or another was always available. It was, in fact, the way many students entered the mandala until recent years.
Another point: there are many stories in the Buddhist tradition of teachers putting aspiring students off, making them wait and/or go through trials before teachers would grant teachings. In my understanding of the logic of this practice, the teacher was assessing the students’ readiness for and receptivity to the teachings. Sometimes students’ ambitions and arrogance has to be worn down before they can properly receive the precious dharma.
This was the case, I have always assumed, with Milarepa. He did not go out and get a ‘proper job’ in order to pay for the teachings. Rather, Marpa repeatedly made this desperate supplicant build towers of stone and then tear them down, over and over. This was ‘work-study’ that brought the admittedly materialistic Marpa no profit. We can assume, in fact, that Marpa’s materialism received quite a devastating blow when Naropa tossed all Marpa’s teaching gift of gold dust into the air and declared that he – Naropa – had no need for it since all the world is gold.
So, Jim, I find your market logic to be at least simplistic, if not a distortion of dharmic logic.
JH: No one knows how VCTR would manifest were he still alive today, what we do know is that he trusted and empowered his son as his lineage holder.
SH: The Vidyadhara entrusted the Kingdom of Shambhala to Osel Mukpo and empowered him to be his successor as ruler of KOS. That is as far as it goes, in terms of the Vidyadhara’s stated wishes.
To continue
Continued response to James Hoagland (3):
I have never seen any written documentation, nor did I ever hear from the Vidyadhara himself, that he envisioned that the then Sawang Osel Mukpo would become the sole lineage holder of all his teaching streams in the Kingdom of Shambhala, nor that the enlightened monarch of Shambhala would be the Vajra Master of all the subjects of Shambhala. The Vidyadhara clearly stated that KOS was to be secular.
I believe it was Andrew who posted this quote earlier, but it bears repeating again:
“Over the past seven years, I have been presenting a series of ‘Shambhala teachings’ that use the image of the Shambhala kingdom to represent the ideal of secular enlightenment, that is, the possibility of uplifting our personal existence and that of others without the help of any religious outlook. For although the Shambhala traditiion is founded on the sanity and gentleness of the Buddhist tradition, at the same time, it has its own independent basis, which is directly cultivating who and what we are as human beings. With the great problems now facing human society, it seems increasingly important to find simple and non-sectarian ways to work with ourselves and to share our understanding with others.” — CTR, Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior
There are enough senior students still alive who attended Kalapa Assemblies – I believe that having attended Kalapa Assemblies does qualify one as a senior student, in general – that there are a fair number of us who still remember the Vidyadhara’s/Dorje Dradul’s vision for KOS. That vision was quite different from what we have now, in many respects. The expansiveness of that vision was quite bracing – pure, uplifted, inspiring Chögyam Trungpa. Are the Kalapa Assembly transcripts still available? Does anybody read them? Has Richard Reoch read them? Or are they now regarded as old hat? What a shame – in fact, a tragedy – that would be.
Dear Susie:
“Lama territory seems like rather a muddled world. I went to a weekend by a wacky Dzogchen teacher, he looked wonderfully disreputable and played a red hot violin”
That is why lineage is so important. There are more charlatans out there than ever and why we have to question, and use our intelligence and our cynicism.
Cooks from Nepal, claiming to be Rinpoches. Jumping on the gullible West band-wagon.
We were never taught to “blindly follow ” someone, and if it doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. That is also what became so crazy making for older CTR students. Never, were we taught to blindly follow some teacher, not even if he was the son of our teacher. The teachings say to question and examine for up to 12 years before you take someone as you teacher and commit. To try and stop us from “examining” and questioning flies in the face of Buddism and what we were taught.
Dear Rita
You stated “…the best way to go to really propagate these teachings as much as we can is for the teachings to be really given in toto to westerners – I don’t think the Sakyong is going to do this…”
I can only say it has been my experience that like his father before him the Sakyong has not held back from transmitting “in toto” the hart essence of the linage to his western students. He continues to reveal the vast treasure of oral instructions and practices and works tirelessly to bring to fruition the vision of the Kingdom of Shambhala.
While not perfect the Shambhala governance continues to improve though the congress of members, working groups and councils. As far as financial transparency the organization of Shambhala is probably more transparent today than it was years ago. Can Shambhala do thing better no doubt it can. While it is always easier to sit on the sidelines of a origination and find faults it is much harder work with in it and work to improve the situation. I have watch Richard Reoch work to expand Shambhala and improve the organization, while at the same time continuing his efforts to broker peace which began when he was with Amnesty International. Richard still works to bring genuine peace to world risking his life traveling to such war torn places on the planet as Srilanka trying to use constructive dialogue to resolve conflict. Richard has not always been successful but I have never seen him stop trying.
I am sure there is a vast diversity of interests among the people contributing to this site. I hope that all would want the vision of VCTR that the Kingdom of Shambhala be fully realized. With all of the critical intellect gathered here please let us use it as constructively as we can to try to improve the situation and not to delight in the faults of others. There remains life times of work to complete the vision of VCTR those whom believe that the Sakyong was appointed by VCTR to cary out his vision then help the Sakyong and Shambhala to do so, those whom have doubts and are interested then find a Shambhala Center take a class or go online and study with Shambhala online, and those who are not interested then move on.
James
James:
I appreciate your posting on RFS.
You wrote:
…”those whom believe that the Sakyong was appointed by VCTR to cary out his vision then help the Sakyong and Shambhala to do so…”
VCTR’s vision of Shambhala as a separate path has been lost. It’s difficult to see how mixing Shambhala and Buddhism together could result in carrying out that same vision.
I believe that people who are questioning what’s going on, and who may be critical of the direction the Shambhala community is heading in, ARE “helping the Sakyong and Shambhala” to carry out CTR’s vision. That’s the whole point!
You wrote:
“those whom have doubts and are interested then find a Shambhala Center take a class or go online and study with Shambhala online, and those who are not interested then move on. ”
I think you’re suggesting that those who are not buying into the current direction of this community could benefit from some form of indoctrination. And if that doesn’t work, they should “move on.” …go softly into the night.
That reminds me of George W. Bush’s famous line: “You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”
I don’t think that approach is going to work here. I haven’t “moved on” so far, and it’s clear that a lot of others haven’t either, judging from the interest expressed on RFS by people in Canada, US, UK, Brazil, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and parts unknown.
More realistically, I think we’re all in this soup together, and it’s just going to keep cooking.
I could perhaps have said it a little differently than Andrew, but I agree with what he is saying. “Get with the program or move on.” Does seem to be a consistent message from those invested in the current direction of Shambhala. Luckily, such statements won’t stop the debate.
Suzanne
You asked “Are the Kalapa Assembly transcripts still available?”
Yes as a matter of fact they truly are, Vajradhatu Publications (still a part of the Shambhala) has just published “Collected Kalapa Assemblies Book 1978-1984″ and are available to those who have taken the Kalapa Shambhala Vow (formerly the Shambhala Lodge transmission)
As to the question of the Sakyong being the linage holder of not just the Kingdom of Shambhala but his fathers Buddhist linage, I can say having been present at the Surmang monastery in 2001 where in the presents of the 12th Trungpa the Sakyong was not just recognized as the linage holder of the 11 Trungpa but also the head of the Surmang kagyu.
As regards to “So, Jim, I find your market logic to be at least simplistic, if not a distortion of dharmic logic.”
I am not sure what “market logic” your are referring to. I had no intention of using any “market logic” I only wanted to point that there have always been cost involved in receiving the teachings a point that I must say you expanded better than myself in reminding us of how hard Milarapa worked and the costs that he payed to hear the teachings of Marpa.
As for ‘work-study’ to my knowledge it still exist today. I do know that some Centres build into the cost of their programs money to cover scholarships.
Your truly
James Hoagland
Dear Mr Hoagland,
Thank you for your reply – I have moved on.
In toto I meant there should be western lineage holders -that is an intuition about the way things should progress, and as the Sakyong is going to have a family lineage and pass the whole thing down to a lineage of Sakyongs that does not allow for the possibility of others in the world manifesting the shambhala and Buddhist teachings completely. I think there will be crazy wisdom holders in the west and all other kinds of dharma teachers – it is up to the individual to choose who to follow in this regard.
I was not aware in my previous post that I was fault-finding – I was perhaps suggesting ways that the dharma could be carried forward in a cohesive and inclusive mannner with a politcal structure that includes the input of every member from the highest to the lowest. I think all dharma organisations that are evolving in the stream of VCTR’s teachings should embody these principles as much as they can.
I too, like Richard, have been involved in political action by going on marches with CND, and at Greenham Common, I have also organised a group for unwaged people in the UK and helped to publish a magazine on unemployment here. I also have been in the past a volunteer for many events at the London Shambhala centre and now events in Manchester So we all do our politics as much as we can like Richard but as he was employed by Amnesty obviously he can do much more.
Finance wise I still think the teachings are too dear for a lot of people.
When I was working in Nova Scotia in the 1990s the minimum wage was $6.25 and alot of the people in the province were on this minimum. I have also read in the past over the web that some in the province could not afford to pay their fuel bills and that they were freezing in their appartments in the depths of winter.
In addition for a weekend price for a level I for one person I think I could run a six week course on the shambhala teachings for many people – in the UK you could do it at an Adult education centre and it would be free for unwaged people -paid for by the government. I think there are adult education centres in Nova Scotia why not run the courses where people are at. I think everyone should consider the possibility of making these teachings as free as can be the case for the low-waged. For example just run a level 1 for free -try it out -SI can afford to do it now and again.
I think I have covered most of your points and provided a more thorough
explanation of my position.
I would welcome your further insights on how it is possible to get these teachings out to people much quicker than is done at present because
that is the task that I have now set myself for the near future.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Andrew and John
As far as I know the Shambhala training still exists
http://shambhala.org/shambhala-training.php
“I believe that people who are questioning what’s going on, and who may be critical of the direction the Shambhala community is heading in, ARE “helping the Sakyong and Shambhala” to carry out CTR’s vision. That’s the whole point!” I have no problem with questions I have only been trying to share some of my experiences in a small attempt to respond to a few issues that were presented here.
“I think you’re suggesting that those who are not buying into the current direction of this community could benefit from some form of indoctrination. And if that doesn’t work, they should “move on.” …go softly into the night.”
No that was not my intent in any way rather just the opposite, what I tried to convey was that if one was interested in seeing VCTRs vision realized with in the Shambhala Mandala please join in the hard work and if on the other hand one was not interested in working with the Shambhala Mandala then move on with no regret.
I am in no way suggesting that one should give up their critical intelligence
I am NOT saying “Get with the program or move on.” just that I think as during the time of VCTR change was all ways happing and nothing was solid. I know that when Karma Dzong moved from 1111 pearl st. to the “pick building” some were upset at how the change was taking place but most found it “workable” If anyone thinks that Shambhala is no longer workable for them I am truly saddened but that persons experience is not the same as mine.
Yours in the Dharma
James
Pick a nit! It was the “PIC” (Physicians’ Investment Club) building.
A couple of years ago, I ran the rates for the basic tent-dweller rates at SMC through the inflation calculator — http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ — and it seemed that adjusted rates were pretty much the same as they were in 1980. Of course, this doesn’t apply to the various lodges and more up-scale accomidations, which didn’t exist then.
What did the Scorpion Seal retreat cost?
Rita
Yes I agree that there should be western lineage holders and there are no doubt some already. Yes the Sakyong lineage is a family linage which started when His Holiness Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche empowered VCTR as the 1st Sakyong of Shambhala. I am sure some day the Sakyong of shambhala will be a “westerner”. Right now though we have the Sakyong who is nether of the east or the west.
I am glad you are able to help others less fortunate than your self, I remember that when the Sakyong introduced volunteer service as part of the Shambhala path some took offense because the path was being changed from how it “had always been”. Also I am not sure that you are aware that for years the Sakyong has given free or nearly free public Friday night talks before many of his weekend workshops.
I do recall VCTR saying how if one pays for the Darrma then one is more likely to value it than if it is given away. And many “old dogs” will testify on how expensive many of VCTRs teaching were perceived at the time. I for one knows that it will take many many life times to repay debt I owe for receiving his priceless teachings.
Rita please keep up your good works and if you have time or inclination I am sure your local Shambhala Centre could use some of your wisdom and experience.
Best to you
James
Martin
I believe the cost for the Scorpion Seal retreat in Nova Scotia at DDL are
Full Cost: $995 CAD
Low-Income: $840 CAD
plus teaching gift
James
“Are the Kalapa Assembly transcripts still available? [yes] Does anybody read them? [Of course.] Has Richard Reoch read them? [This is mean-spirited] Or are they now regarded as old hat? [what are you implying about the intelligence of those who don't feel and think the way you do? That we don't study?] What a shame – in fact, a tragedy – that would be. [Look at these last four sentences--they are a shame and tragedy]
Having just taught a Kalapa Assembly class in Milwaukee based on SI’s Werma Practice & Study curriculum I can assure you that the KA transcripts are studied and greatly appreciated. How could it be otherwise? (I can also tell you that the curriculum is 90% CTR’s and 10% SMR’s.)
As I am signing off (at least for a while) from any further postings. I want to present a possible scenario that may seem nearly impossible for some to accept:
There are students who love CTR & SMR;
A great many of these study both these teachers intently;
A great many, based on intelligence and devotion, are carrying forth this powerful lineage forward in the best way possible. They have concluded that this is a powerful lineage, and it is of the utmost importance to benefit the world this way.
They are genuine—they are not just following blindly.
Their ability to gather intelligence, history, etc. and come to an intelligent conclusion is no less than yours.
They have no less evidence than you have to conclude that the Sakyong IS following his father’s instructions
Some of you can make a great case for speculating that there is no lineage here. I can make a great case speculating that Trungpa Rinpoche is the Padmasambhava of our time and he is changing the Buddhist world as we know it into a Shambhala world and that will be his legacy and lineage for centuries—and that the Sakyong is doing exactly what he father wanted him to do.*
In truth, neither conclusion can be verified. Anyhow, the point I’m suggesting is that “Don’t Know Mind” would be much more appropriate than mudslinging or the audacity of suggesting that the Sakyong is deluded; Reoch is a sycophant; and that the rest of us Lineage of the Sakyongs folks just don’t get it due to a major prajna deficit which causes us to simply jump on a convenient bandwagon.
There is great intelligence across the aisle, so-to-speak, and there is a lot of pain and suffering there. Nevertheless, it is pure delusion to think that the “others” are so sadly mistaken and ignorant for not seeing what we see. It’s a conundrum, so we can all let the subtle war-making and degrading of others subside and sit for a while with our sad and breaking heart.
Au Revoir,
Alan A
*From today’s CTR Ocean of Dharma quote: “…Christ, came from the Jewish tradition, and one, the Buddha, came from the Hindu tradition. Both were stepping out of their traditions and beginning to teach a new kind of truth, or an old truth in a new way…”
And next, Trungpa moving beyond traditional Buddhist format to teach old truth in new (Shambhala) way?
I think Alan and James are very intelligent people and thank you for your contributions here. Maybe it does seem to some that there is some kind of “warfare” going on here, but I think that there are those that would agree that
most are moved to post here exactly because of their sad and breaking hearts, as Alan referred to it. I have “moved on” too, but after putting thirty
years into helping build Vajradhatu/Shambhala, I’m still interested in what
happens to it, not about to say “oh well…whatever” and turn my back on it.
I wonder if anyone really thinks that if we all stopped being critical and/or observant if that would really help?
John
Thank you for your post.
I do not want you to stop using your critical intellect nor stop observing. Having invested so manny years of this life helping build the foundation of our mandala if you have any energy or desire left please if you can with your tender open hart find a way to share your wisdom and compassion to help fix the problems you see. The situation is still workable. If we are to create an enlighten society then it should be one that is able to contain many points of view and many different experiences.
James
Dear Chris
Thank you for the clear response to my request, I do appreciate it.
Dear all
My name is Susanne and I am known as Susie. This is maybe helpful to differentiate me from Suzanne, despite any positive reflection that may accrue to me from that error.
Thank you
Susie
Alan (and James), from how you present the CTR Ocean of Dharma quote (”Christ came from the Jewish tradition … Buddha, came from the Hindu tradition. Both were stepping out of their traditions and beginning to teach a new kind of truth, or an old truth in a new way…”), you seem to have not hit on the essential point that some of us have been trying so valiantly to communicate.
Put simply: Christ presented Christianity not just for Jews (even though he and his early followers all were Jewish), Buddha presented Buddhism not just for Hindus (even though he & his early followers were Hindu), and Chögyam Trungpa presented Shambhala not just for Buddhists (even though he and 99% of this early followers were Buddhist).
To offer Shambhala teachings and practices to all who need it and can respond to it means that there cannot be a buddhist gate blocking access to the practices and teachings of the Scorpion Seal text, Werma sadhana, and so on.
To many of us it was and is clear that the Druk Sakyong’s vision of Shambhala was of a secular/sacred society that did not give preferential status to one religion. That’s a leap he took, and we take with him; and some of us leap from traditions other than buddhism. Such a vision and intention is clearly evident to and resonates today with 19 year olds and 90 year olds, and to anybody who reads the key buddhist and shambhala books and texts, and across that age spectrum there is disappointment at not finding that vision resonating in the halls of Shambhala International.
There is, however, great interest in having it resonate further, and hopefully those within the Shambhala Buddhist organization (Alan, James, Davee, …) can help us do so in an unimpeded way.
Cheers,
Mark
Thanks, James…
I think RFS is one way interested parties can express themselves openly….in that way it is what you suggest. Anyone can read what’s here and find out what people are thinking…even the powers that be, if they are interested.
The Vidyadhara said something to the effect that if there is an obstacle…go around it. This site seems to be an expression of that. Many of us old doggies, certainly myself, have not been around Shambhala for a while….so we do tend to loose touch with what’s actually happening.
That’s why. for me, it was heartening to hear Edward’s description of his
experience of Shambhala Training. There are other voices that say other thngs…Chris for example…who are also valuable to hear from.
If there wasn’t a need for RFS, I doubt that it would have ever come to be.
The best to all,
J. T.
Thank you, Chris and Suzanne particularly, for your arguments. I feel an opening into a clear field of insight through many of your words.
I think that to continue to debate the differences in view here and to reach the heart of what is being seen and said by all is very important and not just for the benefit of those in this small zone of interaction.
Suzanne’s thread around Deception, Corruption and Lies points to the unequivocal need for truthfulness – in all the Courts – because otherwise we are just thrashing about in some bardo where investment in personal gain and loss, hope and fear underpins all standpoints. When this happens, words get weasly and loaded, and accusations get personal. It is invariably so obvious that one might as well put up a sign saying, “Attempting to solidify ground here!”
I need to comment on a number of statements or implications, and hope you will forgive me for not attributing each to its author. I invite comments on whether what I say is true or not.
As far as I am aware, having researched this not infallibly, but with all the determination of an Earth Rat:
- The question of whether VCTR empowered his son as the lineage holder is not answered by a ceremony carried out in 2001 at Surmang.
- The fact of the 12th Trungpa being present doesn’t imply an act of ‘delegation’ of any kind by the 12th Trungpa to the Sakyong unless the 12th Trungpa says it does.
- Comprehensive feedback to the centre is essential for the health of any mandala. If the ruler doesn’t know what is happening in all corners of the mandala, there is avoidable risk to the mandala, and that is not acceptable for a ruler. (Options for ‘mandala’ could be: body, motor car, farm, mind, school, community, computer system, Shambhala, etc.)
- Nobody has said the Sakyong does not work tirelessly; the issue is indeed bringing to fruition the vision of the Kingdom of Shambhala.
- The extent of career effort or moral standing of Richard Reoch is not in question.
- The on-site cost of a programme for some students is only a fraction of the cost of attendance. With the cheapest accommodation at e.g. SMC and travel, a two-week programme would cost me around NZ$10,000, and partly because my dollar is worth about US65c. It’s not a matter of blaming the organisation for not making programmes cheaper, but of working out how to make the most profound and brilliant teachings available to the largest number of receptive people, using all the available resources to the absolute maximum, as indeed the Vidyadhara did in his life, and then building the whole system around that.
- It is legitimate in any non-authoritarian state to criticise the strategy and tactics of any leader who doesn’t have a complete view of the context and particularly the opportunities, risks, threats or potentialities present. The extent to which this is heard and addressed by leadership is often directly correlated with the success of that organisation’s mission, whether the organisation is a family, corporate or state.
- Richard Reoch’s ability to use constructive dialogue in peacebuilding missions is to be applauded! Like all of us, he is welcome to join this one at any stage.
- The fact of the number of people who love both SMR and CTR, their moral standing, intelligence or personal qualities, or the extent they are deserving of love and respect do not affect in any way the ability of a student to accept the Sakyong as their teacher. Chris has commented incisively on this. It is a vast commitment, greater than marriage and unbreakable over successive incarnations, purportedly. People do not go along with it in order to fit in with the community, and this applies both to those who have done it and those who haven’t. Other students’ integrity is not the issue.
But who was it who said something like: if I come with you – so you can die happy and go to your heaven for following your conscience, and I go to hell for betraying mine – will you come with me?
With love, Susie
Rita: you said
‘ Trungpa also said that there should be a National Assembly with voting powers in his will . . .’
and
‘ . . . my intuition, feelings, call it what you will is that the shambhala teachings will have to be propagated by western lineage holders . . .’
In the spirit of good brainstorming, although you haven’t filled in details on ‘how’, I’d like to invite people to discuss both these statements as opportunities, radical though they may seem.
Cheers,
Susie
James, your reply to John T and I think by implication to others was:
“I do not want you to stop using your critical intellect nor stop observing. Having invested so manny years of this life helping build the foundation of our mandala if you have any energy or desire left please if you can with your tender open heart find a way to share your wisdom and compassion to help fix the problems you see. The situation is still workable. If we are to create an enlighten society then it should be one that is able to contain many points of view and many different experiences.”
James, you are seeing indeed what one would devoutly wish. If you include (and presumably you do) those who don’t see the Sakyong as their vajra master, and take into account the access to decisiontaking forums that is available to them, please would you propose how this could be done?
Regards, Susie
I like the word “truthiness”….
Alan, thank you for your last post. I can’t imagine how anyone could express the feelings of (some) of the Sakyong’s students with any more clarity and genuineness than that.
The Kalapa Assembly transcripts are not only still available, they have been compiled into a beautiful blue and gold bound volume. I travel with it.
Grains of sand in the Ganges, as they say.
James thank you for your reply – I might return to some shambhala centres for arts programmes but otherwise I do not have any plans to re-engage with the organisation.
A level 1 in London now costs £115 that is too much by far for the growing
army of unemployed people in the UK and for people on low incomes. Even at a reduced price the charge would approximate to £75 -its just not on! I plan with the help of others to make the shambhala teachings as free as is possible -perhaps even only covering the cost of hiring a building – I can do this because another Buddhist facility in my locality will only charge to cover expenses.
Are there not other halls/rooms in Nova Scotia where the teachings could
also be given at a lower price I would say do it if you have the inclination- a Shambhala level I is a Shambhala level I wherever you do it. Do we really need a central organisation that wont play a compassionate ball on these matters – the most important thing is to get the teachings out there in what ever way possible. Just look at the fee for the Scorpion Seal Retreat in Nova Scotia $840 -when I was living in NS that was some peoples income for a month. I well remember giving people dollars just so they could get home on the bus.
Governance
Re the National Assembly -some time ago I got a brief email from Richard saying that he and the Sakyong had discussed that the Congress
and the National Assembly were the same thing-well such discussions may be fine for them as an academic exercise but as for the great unwashed out there who really want to debate enlightened society politics such a brief discourse wont do especially as the Vidyadhara said there should be voting in such an assembly in his will.
Re my intuition about other western lineage holders for the Shambhala and Buddhist teachings Robin Kornman said it most succinctly in his broadcast on google -he stated that he and others were the lineage holders of CTR. Of course he did also state that people should remain in SI and not split like Ray and Midal but he died before all the present revisions in the curriculum occurred so he could have possibly changed his mind about staying.
I took refuge with Dilgo Khyentse in 1976 -and others have been practicing these teachings more diligently than I for years – are we saying that there are no people around at the level of being vajra masters in the west? Are there no more Regents out there? The teachings are in the west I hope the older students will rise to the challenge of really spreading CTRs unadulterated teachings to millions of people for that is now what has to be done.
I will keep posting on rfs forever and forever to put my points across. I say to you all out there keep posting even if you dont like what you are reading. For example I hate the Daily Telegraph as a tory paper but they sure did a good job on the expenses scandal in the government. Lets have more discussion – tho I cant always make a computer as its in libray (another financial problemo!)
Well again best Rita
Susie
To your question as to how do those do not see the Sakyong as their vajra master take part in decision taking forums?
By becoming a member
http://shambhala.org/community/membership.php
I am not aware of any requirement that a member needs to take the Sakyong as their vajra master. The new head of Shambhala’s finance office is not even a Buddhist, as well there are many members who have other vajra masters.
best
James
Mark wrote:
“Put simply: Christ presented Christianity not just for Jews (even though he and his early followers all were Jewish), Buddha presented Buddhism not just for Hindus (even though he & his early followers were Hindu), and Chögyam Trungpa presented Shambhala not just for Buddhists (even though he and 99% of this early followers were Buddhist).”
Sounds like a new religion on the block. I don’t doubt it, but I don’t think it’s complete yet or truly stands alone without additional terma being uncovered when the time is right. Sure DKR claimed it was complete, but I would guess that was in the context of Buddhist terma not a whole new thing separate from Buddhism.
It is bold of me to claim that the terma is not finished if it were to really present a complete form of non-Buddhist dzogchen path or equivalent without additional Buddhist practices. The Scorpion Seal retreat is described in the terma but what I’m suggesting is that the full path to get to it might not be detailed enough without using Buddhist methods still (that require Buddhist samaya).
I’m surmising this is also the view of the Sakyong, because these Scorpion Seal assemblies are organized around teaching four years worth of preparatory practices corresponding to each week of the Scorpion Seal. Arguably four years is not enough, but we’re trusted with this short preparatory work. And the sense I get is that most of the new material necessarily comes from the Buddhist dzogchen lineage, eg. trekchö, tsa lung. And that these additional practices are pre-requisites for any dark retreat worth its metal. Therefore, the Vidhyadhara spelled out the full range but didn’t create a completely non-Buddhist path before he died, even if that was his ultimate vision.
This doesn’t preclude of course a terton of the future receiving further terma that provides a fully non-Buddhist form of trekchö, tsa lung, etc. – that would empower a path to the Scorpion Seal without having to leverage the Buddhist lineage nor therefore require Buddhist samaya. But i’m not sure it is even possible to supplicate for terma, one just has to wait until the proper time yes? Maybe in a generation or two or maybe next year?
I guess one could argue that inner yoga like tsa lung is not necessary for the Shambhala path to the Scorpion Seal, that the Shambhala path of the Vidyadhara includes enough practices to be complete already without leveraging anything further. My sense though is that the Sakyong does not believe that to be the case. So currently in order to unlock the Scorpion Seal, one will have to study these various additional practices first like tsa lung and the only pure transmission of them available to us currently is through Buddhism still – though I too would rejoice if a future terton were to unlock non-Buddhist equivalents someday of the various pre-requisite practices.
A Poem
(found near the teapots at the Seattle
Shambhala Center)
Hold the sadness and pain
of samsara in our heart
and at the same time
the power and vision of the
Great Eastern Sun.
Then the warrior can
make a proper cup of tea.
[VCTR, date unknown, from KiKiSoSo,
issue 11, Summer 1997]
Re the path to the dark retreats instituted by CTR is it possible for Mark to
lay out the whole thing in an ordered fashion as was done by CTR so that the general reader will have a good overview of the whole thing.
From briefly talking to others I believe it was at one time possible in the
shambhala tradition to do these dark retreat practices without reference to Buddhism and I think Mark posted something on this but I can not now locate it on this site.
I think I also vaguely remember that CTR stopped people going further with some shambhala practices because they were not being careful about relating to the teachings.
I have also heard but dont quote me on this that at some point there were other practices that the Vidyadhara envisaged people doing before they
did these dark retreats.
So although I understand some of Davee’s ideas on possible ways forward with dark retreats in the future it would good if some one could be quite linear in explaining the whole process according to CTR only.
As regards terma I think Davee has made some interesting comments
which might indeed subvert the way a Buddhist persay would see the
whole thing going. I was thinking about terma myself recently what various
forms it took in relation to my own experiences -perhaps we could have a discussion on terma in all its facets. I feel the concept of terma relates to my feeling, intuition that westerners will take the whole thing forward because I have just got a hunch that there are people out there that will discover terma if they are introduced to the shambhala teachings without the Buddhist context. I think it is something about the timing of the shambhala teachings coming to the west at this time and peoples attraction for them – the attraction is almost instantaneous and that to me that is kind of magical and weird thats why in some respects I really want to get these teachings out there quickly.
Many thanks Davee for your thoughts and I hope Mark can fill us in with his thoughts on terma and dark retreats in the shambhala context only.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Maybe someone else can help me out here. To my knowledge, the only tertons are Tibetian lamas, specific ones, not that many and mainly from the Nyingma lineages (VCTR was Kagu/Nyingma). Will there be western tertons? Well, I’ll bet there will be people that claim they are, (Reggie and Perks are getting pretty close), but I think it all goes back to lineage…without that, who’s to say? And, personally, I shy away from anyone that declares they are a teacher without the blessing of their own teacher, their own lineage. The danger seems to me to be that words like “terma” and “terton” slip out of context and just become more fuel for the marketplace., watered down and meaningless. “if Joe Schmidt can do it, so can I, the great Joe Blow.” It’s already happening, it seems.
There’s a fake Shaman down here that’s got the local Shambhalians in his thrall…claims to channel the god of fire, to be infallible and know everything. And these people can’t see through that. If there’s an audience, someone’s bound to be selling tickets.
Davee, RE “Sounds like a new religion on the block” – well that analogy (previously discussed here) is just that, an analogy, and only goes so far. Shambhala in the vision of CTR is not yet another religion, but a rethinking and rediscovery of the sacred in the heart of the secular. It’s an attempt at a new radical understanding, and a process on the way to creating that – because that’s exactly what this 21st century, as well as the next millenium, needs. Of course it’s a challenge: there’s no guarantee it can be accomplished: it could become a religion (
, it could become embroiled in internal and external politics, but – the world needs a new ratio of the secular and the sacred in the guts of all its institutionst. It’s not just for, or owned by, a small cultural/religious minority. This has to be tangible and expressable by people of all cultures and traditions, because that’s what populates the world we’re in. (Again, the very last chapter of Shambhala The Sacred Path of the Warrior says it all.)
I find the use of the word “terma” here a bit odd – it’s wrapping a very direct experience in layers of approvals and myth and power. Terma is a lot simpler than that. The truth of your vision does not come from someone else giving you an okay, or from people agreeing that the latest holograms of Hari Seldon were in fact authentic (viz. Foundation Trilogy). That stuff is after the fact. If something is true it’s not because it’s terma, but because _you_ recognize it as the truth. That’s what validates Shambhala vision. That’s why people connect with it – they find the terma was in them all along! My experience is that people, including myself, connect with CTR because he speaks the simple and direct truth, and connects with that part of you. He was a deeply truthful person, and was able to pull truth out of situations and objects and people – because it was already there. That intention is what enables what we can sometimes after-the-fact bless as terma or whatever, but frankly doing so is unnecessary and too easily becomes both kind of ersatz mystical and controlling.
CTR certainly never emphasized that. Re the Sakyong empowerment of CTR, here’s how it worked. First, CTR empowered Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. Then, DKR empowered him right back. Someone’s got to make the first move
We’re all invited to do so.
“I will turn you into terma.”
– Chögyam Trungpa at a meeting of the Standing Committee in Halifax, November, 1981.
I’m also beginning to realize the extent to which so much of this is already out there – people, individually and in groups, are starting to act from our global heritage of depth traditions of many times and places, and using those as starting points for meeting each other, mutually waking up and seeing how to be in a more aware world together. We can contribute to that, and share its non-ownership.
Ah! Samsara….the immaculate deception!
Mark–beautiful. Thank you.
Mark Szpakowski writes:
Shambhala in the vision of CTR is not yet another religion, but a rethinking and rediscovery of the sacred in the heart of the secular.
Well put Mark.
You know, up until recently, there was no such thing as separate religions, or multiple religions. There was just religion, what the locals in your valley practiced. Every now and then you might hear strange tales from travelers about weird stuff folks in foreign lands practiced, but generally those things were not available to you.
If you took birth in Tibet, you probably had Buddhism or Bon as your local religion. If you incarnated in Africa, you had a different religion. (I bet there are people reading this who feel they have only taken birth on earth since the time of the Buddha and only as Buddhists!)
If you were a realized person, a mahasiddha, then whatever place you found yourself in, whatever religion you were surrounded by as you grew up, you found a way to be of service there as an adult. Even if you were a fisherman or a farmer.
The Buddha didn’t say “all this Hinduism is a bunch of crap, what could these people possibly teach me, they basically suck.”. Instead he went and studied with the local wise-men, who happened to be Hindus, and found some goodness there. Eventually, he discovered his own view of things, which has now become a fancy and famous religion, just like Hinduism was back then.
I’m kind of rambling, but my point is that everyone has basic goodness, and people recognize it and express it to varying degrees, no matter what religion they practice.
Thanks again Mark for your excellent comments.
It’s not just for, or owned by, a small cultural/religious minority.
Yes.
If we think we own something like basic goodness or bravery, we might ask a good friend to let us know if we are engaging in cocoon behavior.
Mark you’re reminding me of this essay by Brother Steindl-Rast, and his views on a tension between the origins and direct experience of spirituality and resulting religious institutions:
http://csp.org/experience/docs/steindl-mystical.html
And I laud your sense of non-ownership; very fruitional. I just think there’s also a room for more path oriented approaches, that we don’t have to reject the path and structural details to value the fruition.
In general I find most of the debates about curriculum and organizational approach to be issues of path instead of fruition, of how things are relatively organized and presented more so than their ultimate view. And within those relative details of path a relative trustworthiness.
Trust seems to come in many forms though. Direct experience or direct transmission seems best, sure, and if that’s available who needs the texts to be stamped with labels of authenticity from authorities? But is that kind of trust possible or sufficient for everyone, especially beginners? I think many people still need to see the stamp in order to enter the path and some kind of relative world quality control for teachers and all kinds of similar institutional things, including the sense of pure transmission and being in good standing with Tibetan lamas with funny hats. That results in power dynamics and institutional structures, which not everyone likes.
At least those structures are for the benefit of beings, so that more can enter who do not have the trust of direct experience yet or a close experience of a transmitting teacher. I would also really wonder if it’s possible to scale this big vision without such institutional dynamics or relative labels like terma. Therefore, whether something is stamped as terma or not might seem ‘after the fact’ from the point of fruition, but the label might be quite important to the rest of us. And the folks well on the path are already in good shape, so we mostly have to shape the path for the benefit of the rest of us in less good shape, practically speaking.
So I don’t disagree that the Vidhyadhara’s teachings transcend the validity or relative authority of a terma stamp. I just see some merit in the relative forms and labels that the path and structures take as well. And I mostly see those forms as enabling more people to enter, who won’t have the benefit of meeting him in person or like myself who have trouble getting any stability of direct experience. People like me have to relate to all the relative forms and practices mostly, I need something to do still.
There must be an analogy here also comparing Milarepa’s approach and Gampopa’s more institutional approach, but I’m too tired and foggy to draw the dots.
So I agree that the world needs more connection to the direct experience of the ground, to basic goodness, however each tradition and culture connects to that. And to support that we might best present specific paths, things we can focus together on and do well.
Mark your reply re terma was stunning! Very much food for thought.
I am printing it out to read it thoroughly.
And the quote from Trungpa was also mind-blowing aswell.
I think I am making first moves in my own way aswell – this really opens
up the question of whether we need the ‘validating’ institution of SI to do
things in the world. Perhaps if SI was just some huge resource institution like a University that might at the present time serve the whole thing better and leave people on their own to create their visions of ‘enlightened society’
Maybe we just need older students to just come in and say this is the
vision of CTR what do you think – what do you want to know about -do- besides meditation? Maybe sociologically this is again turning the whole applecart upside down.
So maybe the thing with dark retreats is seeing the path too goal-orientated perhaps the emphasis should be more on the vision. Perhaps the process of dark retreats we can come to when we want too and see the whole thing as just another practice not some standard way that everyone within and without of SI has to follow. This is may be more a wholesome way of seeing the matter.
Myself I am seeing SI now more as an ethics body like maybe it stating that the people who are on our list follow this basic morality in the way they give out the shambhala and Buddhists teachings – I think we could all sign up to some ethical basis for the teachings after some discussion. SI could be like an Ecumenical Council that various Christian churches belong to in the UK.
Re the quote from Trungpa were you there when he made these comments – it would be good to hear about the situation there if you were. Could you tell us more of your direct encounters with Trungpa when he taught on Shambhala vision that would be great.
I look forward to your further posts.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Davee, like James and Alan and other defenders of Shambhala Buddhism and Shambhala International, keeps missing a point that is so often made here on RFS, over and over again. And that point is that Shambhala Buddhism cannot manifest the Kingdom of Shambhala that was envisioned by the Dorje Dradul, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.
VCTR’s Shambhala vision was of a society of people who are all empowered with their own direct connection with their own lungta, their own spirituality, and their own experience of sacredness. It is a vision of a secular society that is uplifted and rich in the diversity of different traditions that all express their own ways of experiencing the goodness and sacredness of humanity and the Earth, in which the citizens can appreciate each others’ traditions and experiences without feeling the need to corral others into their own spiritual tradition. It is a society that openly recognizes that no tradition or ethnicity “owns” the direct connection to spirituality, sacredness and lungta, and that we can each cultivate that direct connection in ourselves – and can maintain it once we’ve found it – without needing to be ‘refueled’ by some authority figure or other. That is what the Shambhala practices that VCTR gave us are intended to do for us – to empower us with our own confidence, courage and integrity, so that we are not corralled into somebody else’s power trip, so that we can stand on our own two feet as a “naked man or woman sandwiched between Heaven and Earth,” with our own connection with the dralas and all the energies of the cosmos.
That empowerment is supposed to be what the enlightened monarch of Shambhala, the “Universal Monarch,” is supposed to give to the citizens of Shambhala. It is the empowerment that VCTR gave his students in Kalapa Assemblies and all his Shambhala teachings, so that we could go out and spread the good news of Shambhala through Shambhala Training. Shambhala Training was supposed to – and did, in the old days at least, and maybe sometimes now – manifest a mini-version of the Kingdom of Shambhala. We were all empowered to become the kings and queens of our own mandalas under the beneficent rulership of a Universal Monarch who had no need to protect his own territory, but wanted only to empower more and more people to find their own lungta, their own sacred outlook, so they could join the Kingdom of Shambhala in benefitting this world, this Earth.
What many of us have objected to is the narrowing of the path to Shambhala, the subsuming of Shambhala into Buddhism, the removal of Shambhala’s independent secular existence. Some of us, which I have gathered from private conversations, feel that both Shambhala and Buddhism have been weakened in Shambhala Buddhism, especially in its new curriculum. But for lovers of the original vision of Shambhala, what may be most alarming is the narrowing of access to that vision and that experience of an uplifted secular path to the Kingdom of Shambhala, a kingdom that exists nowhere but in our own hearts.
Thank you , Suzanne, for your clear articulation of what Shambhala is all about, that it’s not for “us”.
I can’t help but wonder how it is that in a relatively short period of time–22 years since VCTR’s death–this vision of Shambhala has gotten so submerged. It has become radical to talk about it, to surface it.
For people who are both Shambhala and Buddhist practitioners, it’s easy to lose sight of this bigger view, which calls to mind the tagline of Radio Free Shambhala: “Think Bigger”.
Suzanne
you said “…And that point is that Shambhala Buddhism cannot manifest the Kingdom of Shambhala that was envisioned by the Dorje Dradul, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.”
As this thread is titled “On differing views and paths” I thought that I might share some of my views based on my own direct experiences which I have done on my prevues posts. The term use on this site “Think Bigger” I guess does not apply if the thought presented does not concur with your belief that “Shambhala Buddhism cannot manifest the Kingdom of Shambhala”. While it is plainly clear that many here hold to the view which you have expressed, many other old and new students have a alternate view. I have no interest in participating in a family feud, or participating in the creation of a Shambhala/ Vajradhatu fundamentalism. The world has too many fundamentalists already.
If any of my post have helped in any way it is do to the kindness of others,
If I have offended any one in any way, it was not my intention, but I accept responsibility.
James
Dear Suzanne, you’re missing my point. We need earth principle as much as heaven, and emphasizing earth for a generation or two does not mean that heaven is gone. I can certainly see that once you get down to pragmatic path, one gets concerned that the big vision is lost. But this path has always been about being tremendously pragmatic with path (like sesame seeds, and holding samaya and all kinds of institutional structures) while holding a big vision. I don’t see anyone expunging the big vision from the record, just getting down to practical reality for this generation.
It’s not saying much to criticize earth principle for lacking vision or for being narrow.
In other words, I seriously doubt the Vidhyadhara’s vision of KoS would be realized if we did not focus and work within our means. You may disagree. The quakers, considered fringe, have 50 times as many practitioners. Yes we have very big vision. But this vision of a kingdom on a practical level (beyond the inner kingdom that you mention) is more of a 700 year plan realistically. And I really don’t think marginalizing our Buddhist core and centering the sacred secular as our new core identity is going to work nor is it going to get us there. I really don’t. Maybe in a few generations that will be more of a possibility, in my opinion, for the core to begin to shift. Maybe my opinion will change on this, or maybe the current or the next Sakyong will shift it all of a sudden. But just looking around, I see the Buddhist emphasis organizationally as earth principle not as a new heaven principle. Do you really see it as a new heaven principle supplanting the Vidhyadhara’s vision? I don’t see that.
Dear Davee, I don’t know what you are talking about here: “I see the Buddhist emphasis organizationally as earth principle not as a new heaven principle. Do you really see it as a new heaven principle supplanting the Vidhyadhara’s vision?”
“A new heaven principle supplanting the Vidyadhara’s vision?” Where on Earth did you get that?
Who is criticizing earth principle for lacking vision or for being narrow? Who said anything about marginalizing the Buddhist core? Is that the current propaganda: that what SI is doing is pragmatic earth principle, as if the paths laid out by the Vidyadhara were not pragmatic, as if his vision of KOS was all heaven and no earth? Is that the way people in SI are rationalizing the changes?
Well, thanks for the inside dope, but I think it’s a ridiculous way to frame the debate. If SI thinks that appealing to the current popularity of Tibetan Buddhism is how it can increase its market share and that it can afford to marginalize Shambhala Training as a secular path, and that it is doing so for ‘pragmatic’ reasons, why doesn’t it come out and say so? That might provide more ground for honest debate.
We could debate, for example, whether marginalizing Shambhala Training and channeling people who are attracted to CTR’s Shambhala teachings into SMR’s Shambhala Buddhism is actually losing people who want a Shambhala path without Buddhism. Has anybody tried to calculate how much market share SI is losing by doing that? We could also argue, using your terms, that SI is “supplanting the Vidyadhara’s vision” with a ‘new earth principle.’ Then we could begin to unravel the opaque finances of SI.
Thank you for introducing this intriguing way to look at the discomfort many of us feel about the changes in SI. We now find ourselves accused of some very strange things. It’s almost Orwellian. This helps me understand the groupthink on the “other side of the aise,” as Alan Anderson put it.
Meanwhile, Davee, please do not put words in my mouth. It sounds like gobbledegook to me.
Suzanne
Well Suzanne you brought up heaven and earth and I’m asking if you see Shambhala Buddhism is the new vision and the new heaven principle at SI, and if that is why you were concluding that it cannot realize the vision of the Kingdom of Shambhala. I see a greater emphasis on earth principle, without the loss of vision.
And please stop calling me a shill for SI, these are my reasoned opinions (for what that’s worth). Is the idea that people would disagree with your assessment so hard to swallow that it must be propaganda?
FUNDAPHOBIA
Mind bedevils itself
What it calls reality
Is reality within its
Own naivete only
Like schizophrenia
It’s stressful to box
In one’s intellect
Like a tight corset
It forces complexes
Oedipal in nature
Squeezed by truth
One’s mind starts
To persecute mind
Through paranoiac
Self-martyrdom
So original mind is
Stifled by righteous
Hearsay that sucks
Out all the oxygen
With its zealotry
[from Aspiration Highway, 2007]
Davee, I was quoting the Vidyadhara when I referred to “a naked man or woman sandwiched between Heaven and Earth.” I believe he said this in reference to warriorship at a Kalapa Assembly. I used this quote in a paragraph describing what I understand to be the Vidyadhara’s vision of Shambhala or enlightened society. This quote was the only thing I said about Heaven and Earth in my post on July 29th at 10:00 am. To be naked and sandwiched between Heaven and Earth implies that one is able to be without masks and to balance vision and practicality or Heaven and Earth. Presumably this would be the spiritual state of the warrior citizens of an enlightened society.
The reason I do not think that Shambhala Buddhism can manifest the Kingdom of Shambhala that was envisioned by the Vidyadhara – and that I described – is that Shambhala Buddhism has narrowed the path to Shambhala, subsumed Shambhala into Buddhism, and removed Shambhala’s independent secular existence. Shambhala Buddhism apparently now restricts access to the highest Shambhala teachings to people who are willing to become Buddhists and to accept Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche as a vajra master.
This is what I refer to as narrowing the path to Shambhala: the vision and experience of an uplifted secular path to the Kingdom of Shambhala – which is for the benefit of the entire world – is no longer available to people who do not want to become Buddhists or to have a vajra master. This is not what the Vidyadhara had in mind.
How do I know? Because in 1985 he told me directly in a private interview: “We need more Shambhalians. They don’t have to become Buddhists.” He seemed quite definite, and I believed him.
Davee, I sincerely hope that whatever practice(s) you are doing will transform confusion into wisdom.
All the best,
Suzanne
Davee, I could see someone saying things like “I can only do so much, so I’ll only do a buddhist version of the whole thing”, or, “I can’t express or teach or practice this Shambhala stuff without using buddhist language”, as long as they also said, and acted on, “in principle, Shambhala vision can be studied and practiced and manifested using its own language and forms, all the way.”
I don’t hear this message coming from the top of the mandala. I do hear some of that in what you’ve just said, and I’ve also been in conversations with acharyas and others who admit that yes, there is this greater Shambhala, and that yes, in principle people should be able to prepare for advanced Shambhala practices using the language and practices of Shambhala itself, but that they themselves only know or can conceive of doing this through buddhism. It’s not a problem per se that a Shambhala Buddhist branch is developing. It is a problem that that branch sees itself as the whole deal, and in control, or would-be control, of the root and any other branches.
That’s a kind of pandita schematization, which can start out a bit abstractly, but that can probably lead to intention/action emerging from its contemplation.
Walking the walk here is to acknowledge that even a non-buddhist could become king of themselves (rigden king), and Sakyong of Shambhala kingdom. That would fully express the confidence of Shambhala. That’s where it gets nitty-gritty, but also where it touches the earth.
I don’t see so much a shift in view as a shift in method and path, basically, and perhaps that’s just how my experience of the changes differ.
The path seems to narrow out of practical considerations – like we only know how to transmit tsa lung in a Buddhist context still – without the view being tarnished in anyway or omitted. For example, nothing posted on this thread so far about KoS or Rigden Principle has been news to me in any way, so it must be getting passed on still: I’m a relatively new student compared to most here. I do have all the Kalapa transcripts and have studied them in Werma programs and in solitary retreat, etc. yet I cannot think of one single teaching of the Vidhyadhara’s that has been explicitly critiqued or remanded in any teaching I’ve received.
We have to guess somewhat because he chose not to unlock the Scorpion Seal, but I’m not sure the Vidhyadhara wanted a secular form of tsa lung presented yet, for example. Maybe he was ready but we never were?
And we have plenty of members of Shambhala centers I frequent that have not taken refuge, do not plan to, and have no pressure to do so, and are quite happy and inspired. I don’t see that changing nor should it. Similarly I don’t think there generally is nor should be pressure for Buddhist folks to enter the Vajrayana, even though we offer a cornucopia of practices for those who do. Similarly I don’t see any reason why over time more non-Buddhist practices and path components won’t evolve beyond the Gesar Sadhana (the current terminal) and that we similarly would offer more Bodhisattvayana path practices as well (like debate and madhyamaka.) So I hear the concern that with a more clearly articulated “core” of the organization as Vajrayana might then cause less of a secular path or less of a non-Vajrayana path but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case nor that the ultimate view has fundamentally changed. But yes I agree that’s not as explicitly articulated in official communications. Of course I also think the “official” organization is about the size of a coffee shop so there’s not much official really anyway, much much easier to hear what’s going on at retreats than on the fringe and that could be better.
And thank you Suzanne, I also sincerely hope that whatever practice(s) you are doing will transform confusion into wisdom.
There has been a lot of talk about “Shambhala Buddhism” here.
Will someone please tell us if there is any basis for “Shambhala Buddhism” in the work of Chogyam Trungpa, the person who introduced the Shambhala teachings to the world in modern times?
“But this vision of a kingdom on a practical level (beyond the inner kingdom that you mention) is more of a 700 year plan realistically. And I really don’t think marginalizing our Buddhist core and centering the sacred secular as our new core identity is going to work nor is it going to get us there. I really don’t. Maybe in a few generations that will be more of a possibility” Davee
Yes nobody knows about how shambhala will evolve not even the older
students – I think possibly when people of all religions and none just
having a hit on basic goodness, just studying the Vidyadhara’s books
and meditating that possibly many religious experiences may happen. I dont know what kind of karmic links people have out there to the whole thing perhaps some one will just receive the teachings in a revelation of sorts – people in groups meditating and taking retreats within and without of Shambhala is a relatively new thing for the west – so the whole thing is up in the air. I dont think even your highest lama knows what is going to happen.
But I think the main thing to start this all off is just people contemplating
basic goodness and meditating together.
For example re Marks last post on terma -there maybe people out there
who because of their life experiences and some meditation experience
might receive terma – I think anything is possible. Thats why myself
I am moving away from structured paths just to get the most basic teachings out there such as the teachings that are given in the book the Sacred Path of the Warrior – I will leave it up to the great multitudes out there to do what they want to do. A top-down approach now is not working as well as it could be – we need to turn the whole thing around and go from below -the emphasis has to be from the grassroots as has happened in history with the development of all main religions such as Christianity, and Islam.
Best
Rita Ashworth
I agree, Ms. Ashworth, in that it’s entirely up to us really. And when I think about people entering in a secular way, it seems straight forward. Probably similar for the other lineages, people aren’t coming to meditation retreats and programs to become Buddhist particularly. And most practice lineages I’ve seen like zen and theravada are similarly quite happy to share their practice with people without any demand of or even encouragement particularly to become Buddhist. But there’s the question of how far one can go secularly into advanced practices in each lineage, but I don’t know to what degree those other lineages also have a sense that the highest ultimate truth is beyond religion. I suspect it’s not that foreign a concept really – that Buddhism doesn’t have the only full path – even if they don’t propose an explicitly non-Buddhist path toward that.
There probably are more resources, Mr. Safer, but Vajradhatu Pubs at least has this sourcebook with that question in mind:
http://www.shambhalashop.com/pubsonline/asp/product.asp?product=709&cat=141&ph=&keywords=&recor=&SearchFor=&PT_ID=
It must have some restricted material though, perhaps from Vajra Assemblies or Kalapa Assemblies, since there are some requirements for ordering it (being an MI it seems basically). I just ordered a copy. It’s described as “Teachings by the Dorje Dradül on the inseparability of Shambhala and Buddhism taken from a wide variety of situations over a span of 18 years, and arranged in both topical and chronological order. Included is the essay by Sakyong Mipham on Shambhala Buddhism. An invaluable resource for both teachers and students of Shambhala Buddhism”
Teachings by the Dorje Dradül on the inseparability of Shambhala and Buddhism
It would be hard to separate bravery and basic goodness from any religion and still feel you’ve got a true understanding of that religion, I suspect. It’s my belief that VCTR had a decent understanding of Buddhism, in that sense.
Anyway… if people feel that Buddhists such as themselves have a monopoly on goodness and bravery, and that this kind of ownership is the goal of Buddhism and the best way to honor VCTR, or the best way to develop calm minds, then good luck to you.
Sometimes all you can do is do what you feel is best, and see what happens.
re: Teachings by the Dorje Dradül on the inseparability of Shambhala and Buddhism
Hmm. If that was his intent, why did he go to the trouble of setting up separate entities and mentioning over and over Shambhala as a secular, non – Buddhist approach? On the surface at least, it is easy to get the impression – even by just the description – that the document cherry-picks quotes to forward an agenda or rationalize a decision in light of subsequent blowback.
Low humor example: ” International House of Pancakes debuts new line of blue pancakes with incredible spiritual qualities, endorsed by VCTR as proven by these quotations…….”
I’m jus sayin’….
A local Center’s diversity of vajrayana practice report: We have a small ngondro study group that has been meeting weekly for three months. Some of the group are doing Kagyu Ngondro by numbers, some are doing the Rigden Ngondro by time, and some are doing Rigden Ngondro by time after having done the Kagyu Ngondro by numbers. We practice for 2-3 hours and then meet and discuss readings for an hour. After 9 classes, reading two or three talks for each class, from a curriculum offered in 2005, we have just read one talk by the Sakyong. Next week it’s back to VCTR. It is a lot of material, mostly ngondro basics, samaya, some advanced theory, lots of co-emergence. The first couple dozen talks came from Vajrayana transcripts and the Vajra Assemblies. All intend to go to the Rigden Abhisheka eventually so as to be able to practice Werma, some still have not been to Warrior’s Assembly due to scheduling snafus, all are looking forward to studying the Kalapa Assembly transcripts. We are also reading Gaylon Ferguson’s new book, the Sakyong’s new book on Ashe, and the Dorje Loppon’s teachings on Vajrayogini, and dabbling in those fat books by Ponlop Rinpoche’s translators. Some plan to eventually go to the Scorpion Seal Assemblies, and eventually do the Scorpion Seal retreat while some would like to follow the Fire Puja – Chakrasamvara route if they can come up with the time. Some have done only a week’s solitary retreat, while others have done months and months. Some have staffed Sutrayana Seminary as MI’s recently, most AD and Coordinate for Shambhala Training. Some are Kasung, some are involved in Shambhala Arts. It’s difficult, the weekly meetings, amazingly hard to get the reading done, especially when attending or coordinating a practice program all weekend, as has happened at least once to some of us and most of us twice. Oh, and monthly we practice all weekend. Double Vajrayana nyinthun with the Padmasambhava Feast this weekend for example.
Toby that sounds wonderful in a lot of ways!
I’m also going to sneak in my own idea mostly unrelated: the possibility of forming Shambhala study and practice groups at some point in near future led by well trained folks who don’t set themselves up as guru, and THEN maybe reaching out to other sanghas and churches. Isn’t this one of the promises of Shambhala- its secular approach, and abiliity to connect to many traditions and nonreligious folk?
This is a dream of mine. Thoughts? Anyone already doing this?
Toby it is great to hear that you are hard at it. It is easy for us old farts to say “they don’t practice / study like we did, we walked uphill both ways to Dharmadhatu, and ran home for Oryoki lunch!”
I don’t think anyone here questions the devotion of the newer students. At least I don’t.
Maybe Shambhala is not evolving. Maybe it’s mutating. Maybe there is
nothing to explain what’s happening. Maybe it’s a process
completely new that has no reference to anything else. The myths and
mysteries of the past have never been analyzed with
any certainty. Yet peoples, civilizations have built themselves on
some sort of esoteric knowledge. The Etruscan civilization knew how
long it would last and dissolved exactly when it’s time was up. We are so
fixed to the scientific paradigm that we try to justify what’s
happening with SI using a rational model. We seek understanding when
all understanding has done is brought the roof down on our heads. Most
people are alienated from their senses. That’s why most Americans stay
in their homes, watching football on television. Something is going to
have to clear the air….and something will. Thank goodness.
Davee -Advanced practices? What really are advanced practices – I dont know I have a feeling that they will just develop organically from people
meditating together. I did read once of a zen practitioner who had a
vision of a dharma protector so all the talk of advanced practices seems
to be too goal-orientated to me. I think I will work with what happens from my own mind, other traditions, or maybe other Buddhist teachers…….I think my mind is opening up to the world, perhaps in a small way from certain practices I have done with Vajradhatu/Shambhala but I am an individual I take what works for me and what doesn’t work for me – and at the present time shambhala buddhism doesn’t work for me. I feel SI could be as eclectic as me -thats how I see an ‘enlightened society’ panning out – for example why not have acharyas from all religious traditions besides the Buddhist tradition, I think I am pretty sure that CTR would have allowed this to happen as he could really clue into peoples state of mind. What is SI to do when it engages with other religious traditions say you will never get it because you are not in the SI club or could it be more adventurousness and see where those traditions slide into each other – I think a true Sakyong would work with all religious traditions to make such an enlightened society happen and I think the world needs a Sakyong to strike across religious divisions and empower everyone that is capable with his/her authority.
So I suppose you could say I am going the Sikhs way because a Sikh
sees the holy book Gurū Granth Sāhib as his guru and I guess that
is what might be happening with CTRS published books if we cant get
access to ‘advanced(?!) teachings’ we will have to use these and with
the help of other lamas possibly and our own inherent basic goodness
forge ahead. I think it is possible to do this. I think it will be wonderful and liberating for people to go this way.
Well best again
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Chris mentioned a couple of things I would like her to expand on. Who has been calling Shambhala International the fascist branch of Buddhism? Was it small talk gossip or a meaningful statement? Please give some examples that a message like Richard’s coming from within a power structure presages a collapse. Curious.
Whether it’s that dire, Richard was not simply assuaging the people of RFS. He was also sending a message back home, and one has to wonder who the target is and why this venue.
I now know a few people referred to by Mr. Karelis as receiving official letters which said they had abandoned samaya by not paying dues and should herewith return all their practice materials and texts.
One of those people had this threat revoked after communicating with the central office, but it still had an effect, and I don’t think everyone made that effort. The people who received those letters don’t have to imagine, as Richard suggests, “several generations ahead” to know what it’s like to be called not just a dissenter, but as having abandoned samaya. Richard was clearly not addressing RFS when asking for that much empathy, which, by the way, is still failing in responses defending current policy. If responses do not consider results of said policy, then it’s ungrounded ideology.
Whether that was policy that will be reconsidered or a renegade official is unclear because I have now heard both versions. Richard sounds a little circumspect here because he doesn’t say ‘that’s not policy’, but rather “That’s not what I feel Shambhala vision is about”. Great, but I think it’s weak to blame Western culture for not having a tradition of lineage. If officials given implied temporal and spiritual responsibility don’t have basic understanding about these kinds of principles, universal in Buddhism, that failing has nothing to do with a greater Western culture.
It is equally questionable that “we seemed to have inherited an incredible atmosphere of fear”. I can’t speak for others, but I am not acting out of traumatized fear when for only one example a letter like that shows up and I develop mistrust. It is not trauma from a past event that expands that mistrust to include an impersonal administration, when in spite of communications no one with responsibility does anything tangible to correct obvious wrongs. The Regent debacle is to be sure a high profile example, but laying blame there is a poor substitute for taking care of things as they arise.
Better than worrying about cultural tendencies, and suggesting a glacially slow process of changing individual views in private conversation, Richard would do well to openly stop appointed officials involved in detrimental behavior and respond in ways that show concern not primarily for the official or the image and reputation of Shambhala International, but above all for the people affected.
Lasting impressions develop not from protected or projected images, or PR which in certain contexts may be justified, but from how things are actually dealt with when they arise.
Thank you, James Elliot, for your very incisive response to Mr. Reoch’s interview. You bring up excellent points. Thank you.
Suzanne
James Elliott wrote:
“I now know a few people referred to by Mr. Karelis as receiving official letters which said they had abandoned samaya by not paying dues and should herewith return all their practice materials and texts. ”
I always thought that samaya was between teacher and student, and student and vajra brethren. I have never heard of it being between a student and the accounting branch of an organization, or the ongoing sustenance of samaya being conditional on regular payment to an organization.
Or maybe I’m wrong.
Davee, here’s the quote, complements of Ocean of Dharma Quotes of the Week, August 1, 2009:
THE HEAVEN AND EARTH SANDWICH
Imagine that you are sitting naked on the ground, with your bare bottom touching the earth. Since you are not wearing a scarf or hat, you are also exposed to heaven above. You are sandwiched between heaven and earth: a naked man or woman, sitting between heaven and earth. Earth is always earth. The earth will let anyone sit on it, and earth never gives way. It never lets you go — you don’t drop off this earth and go flying through outer space. Likewise, sky is always sky; heaven is always heaven above you. Whether it is snowing or raining or the sun is shining, whether it is daytime or nighttime, the sky is always there. In that sense, we know that heaven and earth are trustworthy.
From “The Genuine Heart of Sadness,” in SHAMBHALA: THE SACRED PATH OF THE WARRIOR, Shambhala Library Edition, page 28.
What a coincidence that the exact quote should show up – straight from the Shambhala book! Heaven and Earth are trustworthy. Therefore, we can afford to be naked and have a direct relationship with them.
Yes, I think I’ve read that somewhere.
And to the question of advanced practices, or rather practices that require some kind of permission or prerequisite – possibly including a refuge vow or samaya – I agree one’s path need not include anything like that. There is a long tradition that predates us of having these kinds of things and structuring a path that way, but I’ve never been told that I necessarily had to nor does anyone have to follow that kind of path or enter into those vows. Just that they’re required to receive certain things.
This has me wonder how much is a refuge vow really what we mean when we say that a program is non-secular. I would expect any philosophic system to be relatively compatible or not with other tenet systems, and in the case of Shambhala Training I suspect ashe principle is not really that compatible with all other religious tenet systems. It’s likely compatible with buddhist tenet systems (though not all even maybe). Which is not to say that one has to adopt *any* tenet system no matter what religion or philosophic view one self-identifies as. I just still question the degree to which something like Warrior’s Assembly – an advanced program with prerequisites – can really be called secular to begin with.
This is of course separate from the larger question of whether or not the Shambhala teachings and Shambhala vision is secular. I think that is a separate question. But when we talk about path, instead of vision, then it seems more questionable to me that the particular tenet systems that we present is truly secular or non-religious. But again I’d like to bring in the view/vision versus path distinction when we’re talking about curriculum.
[VCTR, Boston, MA, 27 March 1980,
from Rinpoche's unpublished poetry:]
THINKING OF YOU
While declaring the dharma of Shambhala
My mind is constantly flashing on the sangha at the Chateau -
Faint spring and harsh winter are an interesting contrast.
Please keep sitting -
I miss you all.
Blessings,
The Vajracarya
Davee, thanks for your thoughtful, as always, post. I think this word “secular” causes some miscommunication sometimes. It’s used in two quite distinct ways, isn’t it?: as a contrast to “sacred” / “spiritual”, and as a contrast to “religious” / “churchly”.
The first way tends to be used by people who believe that Science tells us all we need to know / can know about reality. They tend to be strict materialists who scoff at anything that even smells “spiritual”. Obviously no one here considers Shambhala to be “secular” in this respect. The idea of the sacred and sacred world of course permeates the Shambhala view. So we can all agree on that.
The second way is used by a great many people who are not at all antithetical to the idea of “sacredness” or “the spiritual”. These are a natural audience for the Shambhala teachings–people who have no desire to join another religion, who indeed would never dream of doing so, but who also recognize that a materialist view of reality doesn’t answer their questions, doesn’t speak to their heart.
They come along to the first few levels and are inspired by these extraordinarily direct, positive, powerful teachings. They want nothing to do with a Church, with a denomination, with sectarianism of any variety. And they seem to have found what they’ve been looking for. Over time however they find themselves in a Church… (Or a Sect even, increasingly not answerable to anyone else.)
They discover that the culmination of what they have been exploring involves various loyalty oaths to a King, and that they may receive these culminating practices literally only from him. They might discover other ways too in which the organization they’ve joined seems to diverge from the vision they first contacted in “Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior” and the early levels. And many will and do wonder just what they are beginning to subscribe to, when all they sought was a genuine path free from Church.
It is with regard to all these people–potentially a very great number–that we bring up Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings on a “secular” path complete in itself.
“…Richard would do well to openly stop appointed officials involved in detrimental behavior and respond in ways that show concern not primarily for the official or the image and reputation of Shambhala International, but above all for the people affected.”
James, yes, many thanks. Is it cheesy to say that a Buddhist community must aim always to put the dharma first? That is, above its self-image and “success,” even ultimately above its own organizational survival?
I think that if we can embody it, the dharma will flow and prosper regardless of “market share” or worldly power. And if we can’t, if agenda and strategy become too embedded and unquestionable, then I think ultimately it’s all for naught.
Michael,
Of course you’re right. Samaya as well as other principles are well defined and universal within the Buddhist tradition.
The samaya principle is not in any meaningful way a method to garner dues, organize groups or maintain common goals. Those things are not irrelevant. I don’t see that PR or advertising is always negative, it can sometimes be very inspiring and meaningful, and community activities like Mid-Summers Day, community meetings, the deleg system, Harvest of Peace and so on that help bolster group identity are probably essential, but samaya is simply not about that.
That’s why it was so disturbing. I think those letters are a good example of ways in which politics and religious cosmologies cause confusion when jumbled together, and it may be worth considering whether such a dynamic is in some way encouraged within the Shambhala Buddhist matrix causing further marginalization, of which the letters referred to are only an example.
For equanimity’s sake, I have heard that Richard Reoch in talking with people has emphatically said that relating samaya to dues is not a policy of Shambhala International. I believe he really said that. I believe he meant it. But I can’t myself imagine taking such an approach without having it approved at some level. Given Richard’s outspokenness on the issue I doubt he would sanction that approach… but sent they were.
All kudos and respect to Mr. Reoch for expressing his concerns openly. And now having heard different versions along with his circumspect way of saying that’s not what Shambhala vision is about, I have to wonder whether he is the only one pushing agenda in the Star Chamber. Maybe that’s the room he was actually addressing.
Again, those letters are only an example and should not be confused with the issues raised of marginalization and dissent. Generally, whether misunderstandings or real problems, approaches can be taken that bespeak concern for the organization and those officials involved, or ways that show tangible concern for those affected. (Concern for both ought to be possible, but let’s not get too complicated.)
In my perhaps limited experience the latter has received short shrift if any at all, and in my opinion that – above any ideological assertions about the Vidyadhara, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s or Sakyong Mipham’s views – is why these issues have become a sore point that won’t just go away. Whether speaking of politics or religion, humans create these institutions for the well being of humans, not the other way around, as important as those institutions may be. When that is lost sight of, dissent in one form or another is a fairly predictable result.
(Dissent, just in case, is not a call to riots or traitorous attempts to fall a regime. It only means disagreement. It can happen in a mutually supportive environment… or not. Some philosophers have argued that a healthy society needs not only to protect, but also to encourage dissent.)
In the inspiration that “In every land, Hamlet’s question sounds different.”
(S. J. Lec)
.
.
.
[Untitled]
Thoughts like elephants leap into the sky.
The bird of impulse is trapped in a net.
The horse of energy is saddled.
The song of the cuckoo arrives from the north.
Wisdom shines in the realm of non-duality.
The dance of discriminating wisdom takes place.
When the sun and moon are imprisoned,
The castle of sectarian bitterness crumbles –
Listen, hear the flute of eternal joy?
[from VCTR's unpublished poetry, 20 March 1972]
Damchö,
No it’s not cheesy, but it’s also not that simple.
What does always putting dharma first mean?
First before what?
Can it be a problem when dharma takes precedent over absolutely everything?
Which principles are maintained always?
Which can be applied selectively?
And so on…
I’m sure you grok this but please understand that some people, for example in sending the letters referred to, or in marginalizing members into irrelevance, or lying, bullying, manipulating or conning people, believe themselves to be putting the dharma above all else; above the people they are harming, the principles they corrupt, above social norms and justice, above honesty, all in order to serve dharma and the ‘bigger picture’ of establishing enlightened society or Shambhala.
They can genuinely believe they are putting dharma first.
Inside a Buddhist religious school, I suppose one relies on the vajra master and his senior students to reign in students when they have strayed. That hasn’t worked out very well for us so far.
If we expand a little into social structures and politics rather than a narrow religious school, which some of us believe the vision of Shambhala is about, then in complex modern cultures we also rely on rules, laws, checks and balances, evidence, a justice system, cultural norms, and so on. As a religious school with a vajrayana core those things seem to be generally scoffed at as politically correct mamsy pansy stuff. We either trust the enlightened mandala of the master as it is or we are not worthy in some way.
However, at an address given by Trungpa Rinpoche’s at I believe his last birthday party at the Elk’s Lodge in East Boulder, given veeeery slooowly and not primarily about this theme, he mentioned “we shouldn’t be so naive; we need rules and laws for society to function.” (I remember wondering why he had interjected a comment like that.) I think this is also discussed in “Great Eastern Sun” his posthumously published book.
I agree absolutely that when embodied, dharma attracts people automatically, no sales pitch, agenda, or complicated strategies necessary, and it would be best to focus on that. But given that’s not where we are yet; the concern is about what happens in the interim. I bet even an enlightened society would in any case have social structures, rules, laws and so forth, which can be relied on.
Do we have any?
In this regard, what are we? Some say a school, some say a fledgling society. And what do we have to protect the well being of the community, not only from obvious abuses, (for that we can call the police) but also from those who do harm because they believe they are putting dharma above the well being of members?
In the inspiration that “Sometimes the crime is the alibi itself”
(S. J. Lec)
Thanks James, lots of good points.
I think all I meant by my comment was something quite basic, directed towards the specific quote of yours. Namely, that when someone has been harmed, this must be dealt with properly, fully, completely. Period. Even if it makes a teacher or Shambhala look bad. Shambhala looks really, *really* bad when it strategizes over how to protect itself from any real criticism–at the expense even of someone’s health and well-being.
One would hope that such letters are merely overzealousness on the part of a few people. On the other hand, they seem to reflect a real misunderstanding of a basic principle of the dharma.
hello damchö, thank you for that distinction. it did seem surprising to me how much the initial vision that’s so wide becomes a more specific path with lots of ritual, chanting, etc. at the level of the graduate levels and warrior’s assembly and beyond. bait and switch? feels less churchy in some sense, but not in another. the loyalty oath seems very much like refuge, and that was in that path formulation from fairly early on right? (maybe first kalapa assembly?)
i think there is another definition that’s been used here for secular too, which is whether or not one has to renounce their existing faith be it christianity or something else to engage in the full measure of the shambhala teachings. At least that is a litmus test I’ve seen mentioned on this site.
taking refuge in buddhism may not explicitly require renouncing another faiths, but i’ve heard it described as ‘becoming buddhist’. so then does the loyalty oath in the shambhala teachings avoid that sense of becoming? perhaps less so, i just don’t think it’s so black and white when you look in detail at the shambhala teachings. the ultimate view is certainly of a society that holds many paths, but then the specific shambhala training path details are more particular and i doubt they really now nor twenty years ago fit the definition of a truly secular path. so there’s some distinction between a wide view and a specific path.
but i also don’t see a problem when the path is more narrow / less wide than the ultimate view. that’s perhaps a feature of all paths. buddhism claims the fruition of the path is beyond buddhism, especially in dzogchen. so the same sense is even there that the path is more narrow. the first mipham rinpoche explained in the 19th century that specificity or narrowing was so more students would have practical things to work with than just sitting contemplating the big view (or direct experience/transmission) which is not enough for most folks he argued. Then of course we can argue endlessly about ‘how much’ specificity or how narrow a path to offer.
that doesn’t preclude many paths to the same fruition, or trying to create a path that has fewer handholds or have handholds that look less like buddhism but i think it does suggest that trying to avoid all hand holds doesn’t work. And if you have some hand holds (practices, rituals, tenet systems to contemplate) then you have a religion in a real sense. is your request is to have less ritual and structure and churchiness generally? we already have much less for a lineage from tibet even in our buddhist forms, and i appreciate that bias personally too. but maybe it’s more aesthetic than philosophic (as in more about the shape of a path than about the ultimate view)?
And to Ms. Ashworth, I was thinking more about this notion of advanced practices that require pre-requisites (or even refuge) and encountered a distinction by designer Derek Powazek on barriers for entry in community. He drew three distinctions:
- Informal: for example aesthetic, like you really want a Tibetan-styled meditation center or you really dislike a Tibetan-styled meditation center, and you join a community based upon the aesthetic at that particular one. Something implicit basically about the community.
- Formal: for example pre-requisites, like having to complete a certain amount of sutrayana training and curriculum before you enter into the vajrayana practice path. or a certain number of mantras before an abhisheka.
- Extreme: for example invitation-only or interpersonal situations. mmm, being asked to be an acharya. or a continuity kusung. not sure how many of these we really have.
He posits that any community will have informal barriers of entry, and you may also have formal ones. And shambhala seems to traditionally have lots of formal ones (from mantras to oaths) in both the buddhist and non-buddhist paths.
But I agree the ultimate view is beyond specific paths or specific communities, and it may be possible to just practice with basic goodness and what’s offered without overcoming a specific paths’ barriers of entry, more pratyeka style. For someone like me, it’s probably harder. I need the busyness of the so-called “advanced” stuff because i’m such a restless person maybe. I also need community of some sort.
Taking refuge does specifically mean renouncing other faiths.
No, it doesn’t.
Yes, it does. If I’m mistaken then all the refuge vows that VCTR gave, including my own, as well as many I’ve seen from the Regent, Pema Chodren, the Loppon, and many others are mistaken….are false.
I’m sorry, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Try to find reality, my dear. Don’t be an idiot here.
Davee to tell you the truth re my own feelings re the shambhala teachings
I dont think we know where we at present with ‘advanced practices’ because the shambhala teachings are so revolutionary.
Re Mark’s comment that CTR would make people become themselves terma anything could happen – the concept of basic goodness in itself is so opposite to any conceptions of goodness in western religions that people just connecting with it over sustained period of time might just clue into ‘advanced practices’ and here we can equate this with ‘revelation’in the Christian ideal of religious thought.
There might be other practices that develop over time re the present ‘advanced practices’ in SI and this is where spreading the ‘good news’ of just ‘basic goodness’ might result in a lot of religions in the world focusing in on it – I dont know for example what allied practices they might evolve for themselves in this period of time. So this is why I dont believe that SI has the handle on the way the shambhala teachings will develop-I think it has one approach with many attributes but as the concept of basic goodness is and was prevalent in many cultures the whole thing could just go mega in a totally separate culture from that evolving within SI.
I think this is why people are debating the shambhala teachings so much on this site because they have the possiblity of overpowering a lot of established thought in philosophy and other branches of western knowledge.
As to the figure of the Sakyong principle being at the head of the whole thing I also believe this will mutate over time. If one fully embodies the sakyong principle oneself how could you yourself not be the sakyong. Maybe we will have several or several thousand sakyongs – I dont know for sure its all so revolutionary and all up in the air. Its a bit like the beginning of Christianity and Christs concept of the Kingdom of God within you -here we need more discussions with Christians about this. But with CTR’s thing we have meditation that we can access that the Christian church has not accessed as much recently – so that is why again the whole thing is just dynamite.
Re more pratical issues on the vrot.org site they have put up a talk that the Regent gave on shambhala -its very good – I hope you can listen to it. Maybe some one could transcribe it as well.
Again best
Rita Ashworth
I think the real issue underlying all the discussions centers on CONTROL. So, while the Shambhala teachings have this extremely vast, pan – religious notion of Basic Goodness (kadag, IMHO….), which is very appealing ( and eminently marketable!), it appears to this outsider that SI really focuses on the hierarchical stuff – the King and Queen and court. I don’t think that has any where near the resonance with the average person, who tends to view royalty as a quaint anachronism, or as a sort of sentimental historical re-enactment.
I would venture that it also appears to outsiders that SI takes the power / control aspect of kingship VERY seriously. While the books talk about each practitioner becoming a king or queen — in effect, democratizing it, the center of the mandala seems to manifest the top-down, classic control mechanisms of pre-Magna Carta royalty, mixed with the limited liability / tax shelter aspects of multinational corporate structure.
Which explains why this site seems threatening.
Perhaps what our card carrying, anonymous Buddhist friend is suggesting
is, now that it’s “Shambhala Buddhism”, it changes the meaning of taking refuge…that one could be a “Shambhala Buddhist “and still be a Christian.
That was the point of Shambhala, wasn’t it, to create a secular path? This is one of the primary criticisms, isn’t it, of the idea of “Shambahla Buddhism”….
that it muddies the water so that whatever “Shambhala Buddhism” is, it is neither Buddhism or Shambhala?
Hi Davee,
For the most part I don’t disagree with your reply to mine. But I was contemplating it yesterday evening and considered the phrase you offered–”bait and switch”. Now, to describe anything like this is a tricky business, because it implies knowledge of someone’s motivations. If someone were to use this phrase for real they would be saying that Shambhala intentionally draws people into itself via these wide-open, immediately attractive, radically inclusive teachings with the hope that ultimately, step by step, they will end up pledging themselves fully and completely to the organization / Church / Monarchy via an unbreakable samaya vow. (This would be opposed, of course, to the simple hope that all may become fully awake beings, each via whatever specific pathway is most suited to them.)
Applying that analysis (”bait and switch”) is something I’m not comfortable doing. My view is that the basic motivations of the Shambhala hierarchy remain bodhisattvic–and therefore undeceptive. But here is where James’ post (a few before yours) and Michael’s (a few after) come in. James well and rightly points out that all kinds of highly undharmic actions can be committed by those who sincerely believe that the dharma is precisely what they are serving and propagating. And Michael I think highlights the other crucial aspect of this possibility: the very human desire for control, for ever more secure territory. The mechanisms for maintaining power which end up compromising all manner of things. Often subtly, sometimes not.
I was already a Buddhist before discovering the Shambhala path. But I’m guessing that phrase “bait and switch” has passed through the minds of many who begin the levels believing Shambhala to be a truly secular approach, and then discover that its culmination involves exclusive samaya vows to Church–and King…and Family!
It’s undeniable (isn’t it?) that the vast majority of Westerners are not going to become Buddhists. For decades they have been deserting the established churches in droves, and tend to be highly suspicious of organized religion in general…for excellent reasons! (Fundamentalist and evangelical groups are growing, but of course those who belong to them are even less likely to touch anything Buddhist with a ten-foot pole.) Add hereditary monarchy into the mix and you have something that much less palatable to the average Westerner.
The fact remains that the culmination of the Shambhala path does now involve a samaya vow to a King-Guru. And it requires accepting all kinds of churchly elements and structures. I believe this realization in the mind of someone whose introduction to Shambhala came via a reading of “Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior” (the founding text, after all) will tend to create some major cognit