I mean, James, when we were in it, it was hard to explain…or even describe.
So, it all becomes a myth somehow.

A living myth because we’re all still involved…drawn along with it.

And we talk about it because, in some sense, right now, that’s all we can do

Thanks for your comeback on my post.

I was trying to underlay the universality of the notion of King or perhaps master warrior would be a better phrase with my post. So here the actual King motif could apply to the many as the shambhala teachings tell us.

But to construct on top of these teachings having a King leading an actual theocratic government is I believe taking these teachings too far for the west. I tend to agree with James post in that we live in a very diverse world with many points of view and various allegiances and no-one absolute monarch could deem the exact path that people should take even if he had the most direct path to enlightenment possible.

In addition if we look at Rinpoches conversation with Gerald Red Elk on the Project we can see that the essence of the shambhala teachings can be found in many cultures so having one singular authority about governance in regard to this fact also seems curious to me.

One can also see from this interview too that Rinpoche was very much into sharing his teachings with other traditions –would he for example have given the whole of the shambhala teaching stream to him if he had lived longer –its something to think about. Likewise I think we have to begin to be much more engaged with other traditions and see what they make of the teachings.

Also too I want to explore my own culture in terms of connecting to the shambhala teachings and I dont see the present Art that SI is focussing on or its connection to their lineage stream as only exemplifying ‘the’ way to Shambhala – I feel we can explore this notion of Kingdom in many ways.

I am also beginning to think for myself it is more fruitful to see how power actually flows in an enlightened society –to see possibly how the ‘true communism’ works rather than focussing on the Sakyong principle…thats why Jim H’s writings on his interaction with Mertons teachings is of interest to me. Merton too for example was also willing to undertake Buddhist teachings from his connection to Rinpoches in India you can see this described in the Asian Journal –so we are talking of the cross-cultural exploration of what religion gives to people in society.

So yes I am thinking a lot now about how power or governance works in this sense and how it enables people to bring to fruition their own connection to their innate dignity. I am much more interested in the bottom-up approach to power/governance than seeing it emanating from a central space/hierarchy so I am more concerned with that flow of energy which is empowering for people.

Of course through their practice some do attain that epithet King such as Karmapa 16 but even he never claimed the idea that he could be a universal monarch as in the times of ancient India. I think he was much more concerned in just getting the basic teachings of Buddhism to people in the west, in establishing that ground for people, and from what I have read he seemed quite anxious to do that. Likewise I think that that should be the focus with the shambhala teachings and I also believe there should be no limits or barriers upheld in getting the teachings out there.

Well think that is all.

Best from the UK ….Rita Ashworth

So from that story I find the quote ironic. Not because he was born Tibetan royalty, more from the attempt at such a short epitaph.

In terms of enlightened society, I think enlightened society occurs whenever two people sit down together with openness and presence and compassion. Or in Shambhala jargon they meet with gentleness and daring to step out of cocoon. Then enlightened society arises on the spot. So we have glimpses of it already perhaps now and then. In terms of a larger, societal enlightened society, that feels somewhat like the star of bethlehem to me.

Rita, I don’t think the word King is necessarily a code for a whole load of spiritual metaphoria; that diffuses its bedrock meaning, which is that of a king, an actual king. The Sakyong ceremony is the same as the one done for actual kings in times of yore; I am not sure but I think the Bhutanese ceremonies originally were almost the same text. Point is: we are talking actual Kings and Queens not metaphorical/inner/secret ones only, though such levels also co-exist of course. Holography is ubiquitous in our holographic universe, with yang of spirit intertwined with yin of physical manifestation ad infinitum.

More importantly, James, such structures DO exist, just not solely within our tiny little church group. The basic structures are already there in contemporary society outside of which none of us can take one single breath, let alone build a new world; any fantasies to the contrary are just that, which is perhaps what you are (quite rightly) tired of. Maybe all we have to do is combine certain of the sacred architecture in our formats to existing societal formats. But in any case, the bubble mandala model is not only deadly boring, but also deadly. I think we all know that.

Look: we have governance and societal structures grounded in bedrock common sense all over the place, including your checks and balances. If we choose to tune into them. How to run Boards, the county, state/province, federal/national systems, military systems, commercial law including the UCC which is a multi-millenia work of collective human genius (amongst many such). Most ethnic or regional cultures have established, deeply informative social and family systems in place. All these things are part of the tartan of what we might call Shambhala or Enlightened Society. We just join those systems with shamatha-vipashana and a mindfully aware and dralafied society. So we take existing French, British, American, Canadian, Chinese, Native, local people and when they sit together in their local community halls within their existing cultural frameworks, the Great Eastern Sun will blaze on their already existing, already cleaned and polished altars of whatever, which doesn’t have to have anything to do with religion.

It’s all right here already. Our problem is that we keep treating the whole thing like a spiritual teaching, we think like church members and imagine Shambhala as a huge church that lots of other people have joined. So many people think that way they don’t even realise they are thinking that way. THAT is religious thinking right there, or church thinking. Shambhala is not about forming another church OR another secret society Lodge for that matter. It’s about interpenetrating with existing society which, by the way, has more to teach us in terms of sane models and good conduct etc, than we have to teach them. But we do have a lot to offer as well.

Perhaps we could say that a true warrior manifests the kingdom here and now wherever that here and now happens to be.

Or to put it another way: if Shambhala cannot operate on a local community level (which the deleg system and the new Sh. household initiative relates with somewhat) then it is entirely irrelevant in any meaningful, actual way. It has to work on a local, particular level otherwise it’s like a body with legs and feet which never touches the ground, or lungs which never encounter air. The local community level is the basis of all human society. This has nothing to do with belief. It is just fact.

Going in so many directions making statements so packed with hidden assumptions, there’s no way to respond directly. It sounds very religious and belief based. That is to say without a specific set of beliefs one can’t be a part of that. That is not how I have understood Buddhist teachings, nor Shambhala teachings as I first encountered them. If ‘enlightened society’ is as belief based as I’m reading it here, then it can only produce a theocratic form of government, with all the hierarchy and divisiveness people are willing to stomach to ensure some kind of ultimate happiness.

Having received and heard many very inspirational teachings, have nevertheless reluctantly and through a series of undeniable encounters, now think how that manifests in our community, a community lauding itself as one of the best if not only way to enlightened society, extremely weak and in some cases quite corrupt. Now, when I notice talk that seems to want to inspire me, I get suspicious. Especially when there’s little or nothing that relates to how things are.

There’s enough inspirational talk already. I think we can safely say at this point, if that’s what it takes to create enlightened society, we should have arrived there long long ago.

My tolerance for ‘riding the imagination train to higher and higher glimpses of what could be if only we believed [your version here], is perhaps burnt out. I could follow you essay and answer it blow by blow, but the gist altogether is that if the basics are not taken care of properly, the logistics of how power is handled and people treated, much more extensively than in the context of maintaining good image and garnering more members, if we lack the requisite checks and balances and transparency that simply must exist in anything pretending towards enlightened society, then all the talk, all the flag waving, all the confidence of view, begins to look more like a system of denial than it does the basis for compassionate society.

I come back again to the seemingly obvious loop that a path of realization is not a system of government, and a path of realization will not be an apt model for any form of government for a society larger than students of any given teacher. And yet…

In the inspiration that Buddhadharma is a path of realization, not a mood generator.

Yes born a monk-that seems to be in this world…the King aspect seems to me to be reflecting the experience of when he received the shambhala teachings notice its not King ‘of’ as in actual country – just King – one hardly needs to mention the parallels with Christ and his experience of the motif of King, but it is similar I think.

I also think it connects to the Cosmic Mirror and if that is the case –everyone can partake of this experience of royalty – so yes who is the King really –quite complex to discern? The phrase also seems to be reflective of a journey –O so once I was in this world as a humble monk but now I am the King of the Universe – of All that is.

I dont see how you can look at the phrase in a pragmatic sense –it is too religious for that in our western sense also – it has to be a supra-universal and instanteous statement. So too to even to start to limit it to this world seems rather mundane to me. It is a statement of what he reached through his realisation and I dont think it can be defined until we ourselves touch that same ‘level’ –whenever we clue in to it with basic goodness that is and thus is ‘his/our’ Mind. It is only then that I believe enlightened society fully is but of course through practice and taking care of others we do connect with it more so that seems to be the societal aspect of it in ‘our’ world.

Myself re government in a more formal sense I am exploring some ways of where the notion of parallel non-structure methods might work which would by a tad fit into the shambhala way of being, the ‘true communism’ that he wrote about in the poem -so at the moment thats why I am interested in the Merton/Marxist debate and now Holloway because they are emphasising a kind bottom-up, free-flowing, unobstructed network of connections….yes I am beginning to feel that we could experiment with what they are exemplifying with their apprehensions. So the non-structural aspect could flower the notion of Kingship in its universal aspect in this world. So yes it is in this sense that ‘politics’ is very important because of its non-structure and mirror-like quality.

I may be sounding a bit obtuse but these things are quite hard to be so defined about, as many I believe have also experienced in other religions too especially in terms of ones relationship with Christ.

Well best from the UK

Rita Ashworth

Whoah, Dude,
I gotta sort that one out….
not that I don’t get the first fresh
blast in the face of it, but, c’mon,
Dude…

I love ya…

Holy crap….

I mean, you leave me in the dust,
I can’t even keep up to agree with you,
So cheers!

And, only the best.

Additionally, contemplate how the Chinese get it right again. Five major organs each of which as outer, inner, sister, brother etc. etc. of which one element is preferred activity of which that of the Heart is, stripping away the ancient lingo, ‘people watching’. Are people enamored of Ravel, or basically people watching? Or does Ravel do a great job as composer by making music that facilitates people watching, is harmonious with that activity or even evokes it?

Well, one cannot say, can one? It’s chicken and egg, Sakyong and subjects. Trying to define which one causes the other is, as the Buddha would say, a question which leads not towards edification.

Just as trying to define whether it’s a Buddhist first breath in a Shambhalian lung or vice versa tends not towards edification.

Just as trying to contain all sacred experience within a tantric mandala versus profane/mundane reality and from there define the difference tends not towards edification/realisation.

We go from confusion to wisdom, from conception / birth to formlessness/death. We think there is a path, then there isn’t. Poetry is treading the ever-present arising middle ground of here-and-nowhere. You are a genius at understanding this. Your problem is being too religious.

Throw it out and be the Poet (Creator) you truly are!

About the other stuff. It shouldn’t be a puzzle but it is because we are all too religious.

Religio = I bind. Samaya principle. Or following a particular path, taking oath, being committed etc. Straight and narrow. Discipline. We attach to (heightened) experiences of sacredness particular doctrines and time frames but forget that such experiences, stripped of conceptual and contextual overlay, happen during moments of birth, death, battle etc. (Good old ordinary mind stuff.) Monty Python’s Meaning of Life film gets this ‘how we miss it because of thinking’ better than any other articulation in the 20th century, possibly including VCTR. Seriously, they have some incredible moments in that film sandwiched between excruciating samsaric irrelevancies – which is the point.

My point? About your puzzlement: ‘when the student is ready the teacher will appear.’ Very old. Possibly Asvaghosa = 200 BC. In any case, its true. Teacher and student are mutual creations but poverty mind of student tends to create a God out of the teacher which God the teacher has to break down. Like husband putting wife on pedestal as Primordial Goddess. It’s fun, but wife ultimately can’t handle being Primordial Goddess and Mother and Wife and Worker and bla bla bla and resents being put on Pedestal and runs away. So also we resent Reality not conforming to our Ideal Shambhala Utopia, or even more painful, a Sakyong not being a full-blown super sexy Mahasiddha like Sakyong 1.

Life’s not fair.

But then again: maybe Sakyong 1 put US on a pedestal and we believed him, like any devoted and flattered wife (continuing from above), but now that he is no longer there to praise us and thus keep us on that pedestal, our view of things has mouldered, dustified, and so we blame the current Seat Holder for our own inevitable (and most valuable and precious and enlightening) disillusionment. Isn’t disillusionment what we signed up for, after all?
!

Wow….I got it…my question was exactly about this very point.

You know, I totally agree with you….at the same time, I don’t have any idea how that’s possible…how it manifests or works….other than in as much as VCTR’s students are manifesting his/ our dharmic minds. That’s a, or maybe the, real puzzle to me.

Eloquent post by the way…