Dissent in the Shambhala Community
July 30, 2009 by Mark Szpakowski 
Print This Post
Article in The Coast, Volume 17, Number 10 (July 30 – August 5, 2009)
The Coast, Halifax’s what’s-happening-around-town free weekly, just published a short article on Radio Free Shambhala. In paper it was titled Sham. dissent (probably for width reasons), while on the web it’s Dissent in the Shambhala Community.
Here’s the text of the article.
Dissent in the Shambhala community
New website Radio Free Shambhala illuminates a disagreement over the relationship between Buddhism and Shambhala.
An unusually public display of dissent and controversy among the Halifax-based Shambhala community is playing out on a provocative website that questions the present leadership direction of the organization.
RadioFreeShambhala.org was started about a year ago, says Mark Szpakowski, a web developer who came up with the idea for the site with fellow Shambhalan Ed Michalik. “It came about because there wasn’t a venue for discussion, and there were a whole lot of topics that some people thought weren’t being talked about at all,” explains Szpakowski.
The heart of the issue is a disagreement over the relationship between Buddhism and Shambhala.
“Shambhala” is a collection of teachings from Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a charismatic Buddhist scholar who, at the age of 20, fled Tibet as Chinese armies were moving into that country in 1959. Trungpa went on to become the leading figure bringing Tibetan meditation practices to the west, and became established among the 1960s counterculture—Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs, for example, taught at Trungpa’s Naropa University in Boulder, Colorado.
In 1986, Trungpa moved his operation to Halifax, and many of his supporters followed him here, establishing the local Shambhala community.
Trungpa died the following year, and after a mostly behind-the-scenes power struggle lasting two years, his son, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, took control of the organization.
“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,” comments dissident Andrew Safer on the Radio Free Shambhala site.
“Chögyam Trungpa had done the Buddhist thing, and he was an absolute master of them, and took a very rigorous approach to that,” explains Szpakowski. “But he saw that for the next long period of time, what the world needs is some kind of relationship that brings the sacred and the secular together.
“There was a whole stream of teachings that were presented that were independent of Buddhism, which were the Shambhala teachings, even though of course Chögyam Trungpa obviously came from Tibet and he himself was a Tibetan Buddhist.”
Trungpa taught that anyone at all, from any religion, or an atheist, could use Shambhala practices. And, in fact, many of Trungpa’s followers don’t consider themselves Buddhist; Michalik, for example, describes himself as a devout Roman Catholic.
But, say commenters on the Radio Free Shambhala site, Sakyong Mipham has insisted on re-asserting the traditional Tibetan Buddhist lineages, and generally bringing religion back into the organization.
That kernel of disagreement has widened into broader disagreements, including over organizational finances.
The Shambhala organization did not respond to a request to be interviewed for this article. –Tim Bousquet
Permanent Friendship
The internal affairs are as good as the internal guts.
When you have guts, your guts begin to shine like the Great Eastern Sun.
Slippery past and solid present are one in the mahamudra experience.
Don’t flinch.
Don’t panic.
You will be loved and remembered throughout the history of Shambhala.
Love, C.T.
[Boulder, Colorado, 8 January 79]
Thats great – I wonder if anyone generally in SI will put out a reply to this
article – I am all for debate about this issue happening in Halifax. In
fact you could debate the whole thing at Dalhousie. Who could you ring
at Dalhousie to organise that?
Re secrecy generally I found the political scene in NS in the 1990s to be so unutterably corrupt and riven with patronage like it was still operating from some 19th century political practices from the UK – you need in a possible debate you might have to show the people of the province how people can have disagreements and yet still remain friendly even though they go for different paths.
Get a bigger article in the Coast next time perhaps with more pictures and more divergent opinions – perhaps you could get a ‘leak’ from SI as we invariably get from government in the UK press!? Or what is the phrase ‘off the record’ – well best for future articles.
Rita Ashworth
Rita’s suggestion shouldn’t be dismissed too quickly.
I have recommended this before, but can’t recommend it highly enough, a study about the kind of debate we see developing here. It’s a well written accessible book by Peter Novick called “The Holocaust and Collective Memory”.
It is NOT about the holocaust, but rather a study of how collective memory or group identity is built, to a large extent steered by the ruling elite, but also shaped by open and lively debate, in which anyone with a coherent view could be heard.
What is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this study is how open the debates within the Jewish community were, as they struggled with the issues their international community faced after WWII. Those issues were of course very different than what we face, I don’t mean to make any comparisons on that level.
But their debates did in fact happen sometimes on the pages of national newspapers, or papers like the New York Times. It was in such archives that Peter Novick could retrieve much of what happened. There was very little secret about it, as they came to conclusions about how the Jewish community should relate to what had happened.
For the Jewish community those debates had far reaching effects on how education was structured, on how political ventures were approached, on how power was collected and used, and on key aspects of how Jewish people saw and still do see themselves.
I don’t mean to draw any comparisons on the themes or even the conclusions, but it may be that we could learn something from how open their process was, as the Jewish community struggled with those issues, and thereby built and developed group identity or collective memory. Theirs was a very open and lively process of debate that involved lots of people from all over, in terms of experience and view, not a handful of elite who felt no need to relate openly with those their decisions effected.
In the inspiration that openness isn’t a liability.
For the record, here is a letter to the editor published by the Coast (Vol 17, No13-19, 2009), from Cecilia Driscoll:
The Shambhala Buddhist community under Sakyong Mipham’s direction continues to make meditation practice available to people of all faiths
I still don’t understand why someone who wants to make meditation instruction available to people of all faiths would rename Shambhala as “Shambhala Buddhism”.
There are Christian churches that will give meditation instruction to people of all faiths, so long as you don’t mind being called a Christian from then on.
Folks, this joke has gotten so stale now that I feel I must be insane to still be talking about it.
After hearing about this controversy a year ago I blogged at length about it, as an interested (Dharma-practicing, Shambhala-appreciating) outsider. That blog has since been deleted, but my thought in essence was this: The conflation of Buddhism and the Shambhala teachings that has occurred reflects something more mundane than, for instance, a conservative (if not reactionary) maneuver on the part of the Sakyong.
Perhaps this controversy has something to do with the need for corporate consolidation and rebranding in times of economic hardship and increased competition i in the Buddhist spiritual marketplace. Consider the following. It costs more to maintain two shrine rooms, two separate curriculums, to certify teachers in two different lineages, etc., all under one roof. Plus, two lineages under one roof confuses newcomers. So why not rebrand the parent organization — along with its curriculum and philosophy — with the name of the more accessible curriculum (Shambhala) while making the less accessible (religious) curriculum (Buddhism) the predominant curriculum?
This, and the Sakyong’s decision
to marry a Tibetan wife, makes the Shambhala organization much more like other run-of-the mill Sanghas, at least for marketing purposes.
I realize there is more to it than only this, but as a sympathetic outsider who is intimate with the economic razor’s edge of maintaining Western Dharma, I can’t help but think of all of this in business terms. If what I am saying is only partially correct, I think this is a great loss for Dharma in America. We need less Tibetan Buddhism and more genuine, localized Dharmas. Shambhala teachings provide for that need. Why should those teachings be confined to a Buddhist hierarchical organization, if not for economic expediency?
Mr. Pettit
I am in agreement with much of what you say, however I think that the amalgam of the name was much more about branding strategy than cost containment. With so many other Tibetan Buddhist / Zen Buddhist / Mindfulness organizations out there, the name “Shambhala Buddhism” (is it a registered trademark / service mark??) creates a distinctive brand while still leveraging the “Buddhist” cachet.
But you are right on the mark that it is all about a business model. Various shell organizations, interlocking directorates etc. Max out the fiscal possibilities of nonprofit status while consolidating control and sheltering the assets.
21st century accounting meets 14th century politics!
I recently learned that the Druk Sakyong (CTR) wanted Shambhala Training to happen in completely separate buildings from the Buddhist studies.
That adds on a huge extra cost (though the same could be said for any business expansion), but it would eliminate some of the confusion about having multiple lineages / teachings occur in the same spaces.
Anyway, I personally have a hard time believing that the merger will be good for business.
What is the business advantage of trying to appear “much more like other run-of-the-mill Sanghas”? That sounds like the way generic medications are sold. Their business model is that they’re exactly the same as their competitors, only cheaper, and with less personality.
I also can’t help but wondering if, from a business perspective, this change didn’t alienate many of the existing “customers” at the time. That’s a daring thing for a business to do. Many businesses spend enormous, vast sums of money trying to placate their customers any time they make a change that could ruffle feathers.
By the way, as a newcomer, I find it confusing today when they say “we offer two forms of Buddhism: Tibetan Buddhism and Shambhala Buddhism.” To me that sounds odd, as though two competing Buddhist groups couldn’t afford their own building and are temporarily shacking up together.
It would be less confusing to me if they said “We offer two forms of training: Buddhism and Shambhala, a path of mindfulness and bravery for people of all faiths.” To me, that sounds sexy, and suggests that these people might be extremely generous and warm. It would also indicate that the Buddhists have an unusually high degree of humility, if they could pull it off.
I think the bottom line is that we can’t help expressing our own nature in all our actions, no matter how much we try to be strategic or goal-oriented about it all.
I think that only a very few cities ever had separate Shambhala and Buddhist buildings – the exception rather than the rule, and so for most centers the change was in name only rather than in facilities. There often were separate Shambhala shrine rooms though, IIRC
I do see a bit of irony in differentiating Tibetan Buddhism and Shambhala Buddhism at a time when the founder / head of this Shambhala Buddhist amalgam seems to dress like a Tibetan aristocrat! BTW, before I get flamed, I don’t view CTR as the founder / head of Shambhala Buddhism – IMO he was a Buddhist who founded Shambhala Training as a separate entity — and wore a wide/wild variety of western clothing far more often than chubas!
But the chubas probably work better from a marketing perspective…
“Perhaps this controversy has something to do with the need for corporate consolidation and rebranding in times of economic hardship and increased competition i in the Buddhist spiritual marketplace”
Shambhala Inc has already entered the arena of lawsuits over it’s “brand name.” a probably little known and not published in shambhala news action taken in September 2008:
Shambhala International (Vajradhatu) v. Church of Shambhala Vajradhara Maitrey Sangha
Plaintiff: Shambhala International (Vajradhatu)
Defendant: Church of Shambhala Vajradhara Maitrey Sangha
Case Number: 1:2008cv01936
Filed: September 10, 2008
Court: Colorado District Court
Office: Trademark Office [ Court Info ]
County: Boulder
Presiding Judge: Judge Lewis T. Babcock
Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property – Trademark
Cause: Federal Question
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
>Plaintiff: Shambhala International (Vajradhatu)
>Defendant: Church of Shambhala Vajradhara Maitrey Sangha
Well in that case they better sue Shambala: The Roar Foundation and its founder, Tippi Hedren, that is, before Tippi Hedren sues Shambhala on grounds of prior art. I believe she has been using the moniker ‘Shambala’ [sic] longer than Vajradhatu/Shambhala International/Shambhala has.
I wonder if anyone claims copyright of the expression “Lion’s Roar” yet.
<>
Agreed. Corporate litigation and intellectual property ownership disputes have never before existed in Buddhist traditions. It used to be that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery, for instance, when Nyingma monasteries in eastern Tibet used Gelugpa texts in their curriculums. Some Nyingmapas had problems with that but AFAIK the Gelugpas never did.
All the same I understand the need to protect the name “Shambhala” from usage by self-anointed gurus with questionable Tulku certificates on their websites. It seems everyone concerned by these issues is, in the final analysis, inspired by whatever is good in the Shambhala vision.
“All the same I understand the need to protect the name “Shambhala” from usage by self-anointed gurus with questionable Tulku certificates on their websites”
Sounds like Shambhala Inc should protect itself from itself.
>But the chubas probably work better from a marketing perspective…
Perhaps, but I don’t think anyone can wear both a suit AND a chuba as well as CTR did. Doesn’t that say it all?
[VCTR, translation “from Milarepa’s
song to Dharma Bodhi in Nepal”, ca.
1974, from the unpublished poetry.]
The man who can watch his mind without distraction
Does not need to gabble or chat.
The man who can be absorbed in self-awareness
Does not need to sit still like a corpse.
If he knows the nature of all forms,
The eight worldly longings disappear by themselves.
If a man has no desire or hatred in his heart,
He doesn’t need to show off or pretend.
The great awakening of the Bodhi mind
That goes beyond samsara and nirvana both
Can never be achieved by searching and by wanting.
And the man who quotes trancendent dharma poetry
still has an agenda.
[VCTR, Dorje Dzong, 7 March 1979,
from First Thought Best Thought,
Shambhala Pubs., 1983, p. 156]
FOR ANNE WALDMAN
When your blood boils,
Relax with the wind;
The wind always blows.
Play with a blade of grass;
The truth will always be told.
Mr. Castlebury writes:
The man who can watch his mind without distraction
Does not need to gabble or chat.
Mr. Castlebury,
I appreciate your efforts to share Trungpa Rinpoche’s poetry with us. But I’m also curious, what do you yourself have to say about the discussions on this website? What brings you here? I suspect you have something valuable to contribute in your own words, but I don’t know what that is yet.
I don’t know if this relates, but when I was younger, I sometimes quoted dharma to my friends in an effort to control their behavior and make them feel criticized. It seemed fantastic to me, since nobody could argue with the dharma I was quoting– it was like wearing a suit of armour covered in sacred mantras. Nobody could touch me without defacing the sacred.
Eventually my friends were kind enough to point out that I was being a jerk. They said they’d prefer me to communicate more plainly, rather than hitting them over the head with dharma as if it were my personal weapon.
What was most shocking of all was to discover that my friends actually cared what I had to say, which deep down I had trouble believing.
I have been away on retreat and so am getting caught up on some of what’s been written here. An excellent exchange of ideas and information! I had no idea a “Shambhala” IP/copyright lawsuits was underway. Interesting!
Edward wrote:
I recently learned that the Druk Sakyong (CTR) wanted Shambhala Training to happen in completely separate buildings from the Buddhist studies.
That adds on a huge extra cost (though the same could be said for any business expansion), but it would eliminate some of the confusion about having multiple lineages / teachings occur in the same spaces.
Anyway, I personally have a hard time believing that the merger will be good for business.
- -
In Halifax in the early 90′s (and maybe before–not sure when this started), Shambhala Training was located in the Cornwallis Building in the city’s north end. The Buddhist programs, meditation and study took place on Tower Road, in the building that is now interestingly enough called the “Halifax Shambhala Centre”. There was no confusing Buddhism with Shambhala then. It was brilliant to have the two activities physically separate.
It wasn’t long after Shambhala Training moved into the “Shambhala Centre”, as I recall, that the two began to blur. I used to staff and Assistant Direct a bit back then and recall it became more of a challenge remembering to call the sitting space “the meditation hall” rather than “the shrine room”. The difference may seem subtle, but it’s not.
When my wife, who is Christian, did Shambhala Training Level 4 there–sometime in the mid- to later 90′s–she overheard a conversation in which Buddhists participating in the level were making fun of people who believe in God. That bit of Buddhist chauvinism marked the end of her involvement with Shambhala Training.
Locating the two in separate buildings was, IMHO, definitely a skillful means. Combining them, the opposite.
John Whitney Pettit wrote:
Perhaps this controversy has something to do with the need for corporate consolidation and rebranding in times of economic hardship and increased competition in the Buddhist spiritual marketplace. Consider the following. It costs more to maintain two shrine rooms, two separate curriculums, to certify teachers in two different lineages, etc., all under one roof.
-
I have felt all along that it’s got to be easier to manage one thing (“Shambhala Buddhism”) than two. The idea that it makes more sense from a business perspective is also interesting. However, applying conventional business logic to the propagation of Buddhism and Shambhala in the West is questionable, at best.
A recollection from the Tibetan Book of the Dead seminar at Rocky Mountain Dharma Centre in 1973 comes to mind. A wealthy Texan was in the audience at one of the talks. He said something that was typical of what a lot of us said to Rinpoche in those days (although I don’t recall the details)–It’s when you’re asking him a question, you try to ingratiate yourself to him, or prove to him that you know what you’re talking about, or any one of ego’s countless tricks to make a mark for yourself in the guru’s eyes. Rinpoche didn’t bite. Not only that, I recall that he insulted the guy. I was later told that he had been planning on making a substantial donation, and that this fact had been known. Needless to say, no donation was forthcoming. I think the guy hightailed it out of there, pronto.
The Dharma was not for sale then. Rinpoche was a “penniless millionaire”, in true Kagyu style.
When Naropa was trying to get into Tilopa ‘s good graces by offering him gold, Tilopa scattered it to the winds, saying, “What need have I for gold? The whole world is gold to me.”
[Dear Damcho, Tischer, Chris and Edward,
from Aspiration Highway, Samurai Press, 2007]
REGRETS ONLY
Seeing the ever-
Skittish minds of
Fearful souls who
Dart and twitch
Like squirrels
Seeing the blind
Speed and unquiet
Seeing the ever-
Present jewel-like
Nature of beings
I about burst into
Tears of sadness
I about burst into
Sympathetic joy
And the iron hook
Of kind ancestors
Tears my nascent
Heart so clouds of
Offerings arise for
All the suffering
Andrew Safer writes:
I have felt all along that it’s got to be easier to manage one thing (”Shambhala Buddhism”) than two.
I think this is absolutely true, from ego’s point of view.
My old teacher was always creating new organizations and distinct management structures to deal with different aspects of his work. Some of the students, the “management types” resisted this mightily. They said it was impractical and inefficient.
My teacher responded and said that’s not the reason they were resisting it. They were resisting it because they wanted to model everything on the ego, with one centralized bureaucracy, which everyone can “fit” themselves into and feel justified in not being creative.
He said that enlightened mind doesn’t work that way, and when enlightened mind expresses itself in organizational structures, it is not rigidly centralized. There is complexity and complementarity and even apparently contradiction. People might rub up against each other’s egos and maybe that would be good.
He said we just wanted to control everything and minimize what he was trying to do, because we were terrified of encountering vast energy that is not under ego’s control.
So yes, merging Shambhala and Buddhism makes perfect sense from that point of view.
A Party
It would have been ok if we hadn’t invited our landlady, H__, to watch a movie with us. Surrounded by intoxicated men, H__didn’t stand much of a chance. After I knocked over a glass, I retreated to my casita, but the damage had been done. A case of irresistible chaos meets fixed mind. Chaos always wins. The minds wonder what went wrong and
who to blame. A broken glass and the evening turned from the designated entertainment to the evolving spectacle. It could have gone so smoothly, but it didn’t, so blame is cast and the fixed minds can re-fix themselves with blame to feel better about themselves and move forward into the illusion of certainty. Not much of a party, really.
Of course, civilization can’t happen without rules and a certain decency of behavior….but whose rules? That’s bad logic. I’m a drunk and shit’s bound to happen. It happened…
I knocked over a glass.
It wasn’t the first glass, and it won’t be the last. The question is, if I knock over a glass and no one sees it, am I still an asshole?
We talked about waiting till H__ left for England till we had a party, then we went against our best judgement. Is it any wonder shit happened? Well, she found out something we didn’t want her to see. Good. Let the truth be exposed. Whatever happens will be a positive outcome. It’s a nice house to live in, but not something worth holding onto. Maybe it’s a lesson in too good to be true. No regrets for this one. Just another turn on the cosmic dance floor.
The survival mechanism was powerful in my life. My father offered to pay for grad school, but I knew if I took him up on it I would have killed myself half way through.I knew I needed a way to work with my mind and I found it in meditation. I knew I needed a way to make a living not with my mind, and I found it in plumbing. Now is the time when I find out if what I did was the right thing. Of course it was. Now survival is not so important. Life is more beautiful than ever it was. It’s also obvious that it’s not going to last forever. A broken glass just doesn’t carry much weight.
What people think is about the same.
My heart is broken, but I’m not bitter. I trust in my broken, sad heart…the only thing I rely on. It is true. It does not deceive. It is not affected by the vicissitudes of life. Sympathy for all of us confused beings comes out of it. It is symbolized by a broken glass. It is symbolized by the sparrow that somehow finds a way to live, by children playing in the rubble of Beruit, by the Tibetian people who practice their culture in spite of not having a country, by the young people that demonstrate against the WTO, by the artist that starves rather than getting a job.
John C.–beautiful. Likewise, John T. Thank you for posting.
CORRECTION! I got the lineage gurus mixed up in my last post…
When Naropa was trying to get into Tilopa ’s good graces by offering him gold, Tilopa scattered it to the winds, saying, “What need have I for gold? The whole world is gold to me.”
That should read: When Marpa was trying to get into Naropa’s good graces…
Dear Edward,
Yesterday you told us about your “friends” at whom you used to “quote” so-called “dharma” “in an effort to control their behavior and make them feel criticised”.
You told us those friends were “kind enough to point out” that you were being a “jerk” bullying them with so-called “dharma” using it as both weapon and shield.
Now we’re intrigued. Tell us about that pointing-out instruction your friends told you – how did it happen, tell us!
When exactly did you stop wielding so-called “dharma” against people “in an effort to control their behavior and make them feel criticised”?
Was there a single moment when it dawned on you that bullying other people was not “fantastic”?
Did your friends all get together and do an intervention and you had an epiphany? How did it happen, tell us!
I have a sad hunch that your invisible friend My Old Teacher may be being wielded as a present-day weapon and shield by that bully you alluded to.
It’s very rude to paraphrase hearsay into someone else’s mouth especially if that someone else happens to be My Old Teacher.
That’s why Trungpa Rinpoche’s poems are here so at least Rinpoche has a chance to speak to us all in his own undoctored words.
Dear John C.,
Personally, VCTR is more-or-less my favourite poet anywhere and I’m always grateful to see him quoted. “First Thought, Best Thought” was the first volume of his I read in fact. It connected me instantly to the dharma and I still experience the poetry most directly of all his teachings. I’ve also really appreciated each of the poems of your own you have posted.
So I hope you continue to post from each. At the same time I also think I understand what Edward was saying.
You write: “Trungpa Rinpoche’s poems are here so at least Rinpoche has a chance to speak to us all in his own undoctored words.” But I would say they aren’t completely undoctored. Because you are choosing what he gets to say at every point.
None of us can know what Trungpa Rinpoche would say in response to any of the threads here. We just can’t know. Maybe he would post poems just as you have done, maybe even the very same poems! Maybe he would post something very harsh. Maybe he would post something very sweet and encouraging. Maybe he might praise the site for manifesting warriorship. Or tell us all to go on retreat instead, or listen to some excellent music over a fine glass of sake or two…or three… Most likely he would never intervene at all. We can’t know.
I definitely wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from posting VCTR’s poetry, something I wish the whole world could know. But I guess I feel that quoting from dharma masters–especially in this sangha VCTR–needs to be done sensitively and as part of a larger engagement with the group. Otherwise, as Edward said, it can give the impression that someone might be trying to control or even silence the ongoing conversation of that thread. Can you see this? Because, after all, who among us can answer back to Trungpa Rinpoche’s poems? They all exist on this extraordinary level, and we’re really mostly relating to kitchen sink stuff here.
Maybe even just one line might help occasionally. Something like: I was thinking through what so-and-so said here and this poem came to mind and helped clarify such-and-such for me, or whatever. At least that way it’s a more personal statement rather than at times seeming to be a deus ex machina descending to end the play / conversation. Just a thought.
Possibly no one else agrees with that, but felt it might be worth trying to express.
Dear Damcho,
Of course, let me explain: as one of the stewards of Rinpoche’s poetry all the published and unpublished poetry is at my fingertips – but especially the unpublished poems have been a delight to share, since it seems unlikely any new collection will be appearing any time soon. Which means that some of these poems might not have otherwise seen the light of day in our lifetimes.
When I first saw RFS, it just felt like so much klesha activity and so much heartbreak; it was sort of breath-taking. I wanted to somehow offer a bit of relief to the pent-up unhappiness, but not with yet another futile opinion of my own.
Really I don’t have a dog in this fight; I’m neither a Shark nor a Jet. Okay but if you want to know my opinion in plain words, here is my opinion – my opinion is compassion.
And it can’t be helped, someone has to select if a poem is to be offered; the only other choice would be to select poems at random, but that would be silly. Why not select a poem on the basis of spontaneous insight as we were taught to select our dekyongs?
Of course it’s possible the selector may select poems on the basis of some bias of having taken one side or another. What to do? How to disprove a negative?
Here is how it seems to work: when I select a poem of Rinpoche’s it’s not to make a point, it’s intuitive, it’s illustrative; but when I have personal remarks to make such as about groupthink and selfthink with Tischer, or about My Old Teacher with Edward, I rely on my own words. Does this answer?
Because I have no skin in this game, my prejudice is compassion; compassion is my agenda. Just as the prejudice and agenda of most of us here must also be compassion. I mean, aren’t most or all of us aspiring Bodhisattvas on this RFS bus?
Since you have a lot of enthusiasm towards Rinpoche’s poetry, let me say farewell by offering this excerpt especially for you, Damcho, which is like a lion’s roar. These are the final 12 lines of “Abhisheka Poem” [VCTR, Mill Village, NS, 10 November 1984, from the poem for Lady Diana on the occasion of receiving the abhisheka of Vajrayogini:]
…
There are states made up of views and opinions.
There are also other states free from views and opinions –
Shunyata is free from opinion and concept, as we know.
Vajrayogini herself represents non-thought.
There are ways to experience such freedom from skandhas and fixed opinions and reach universal freedom –
That is why some arhats died of heart attacks when Buddha first proclaimed the teachings of shunyata.
Nagarjuna once said, “I have no axioms; therefore, what I present is without dichotomy.”
Welcome to this enlightened world –
You remain my greatest inspiration and companion.
Dear John:
I would have known your bias, just because of how much you talk about Compassion. ” I offer this in compassion”, “compassion is my bias”, and so on and so on.
The current scene around SMR, is always talking sententiously about “compassion” etc etc. Compassion as romantic, morally righteous, etc. etc, and most often, compassion delivered as an admonition. And the more it is “talked about” the less it seems to be occurring in its natural , spontaneous form.
Here’s a poem about “compassion.” from The “Eye of the Storm” highly recommended translation of Vairotsana’s Five Original Tranmissions this one from “The Eternal Victory Banner:
Loving Kindness is already consummate
so compassion is not pursued;
supremely vast and deep
no quality exists to acclaim.
CTR’s transmission of “compassion” was vast, was not conceptual, did not have a bias, was not about morally good against “bad”. Whatever poem you chose, if you have conceptual compassion, do- gooder compassion as your intention, it will always be off the mark, no matter how many poems you quote.
Basic goodness = compassion arising without a moral glitch
Dear John C.,
You may say you have no skin in this game, but since you have access
to all of VCTR’s poetry, did that come with the blessings of Diana, or some other way? Even thinking that what happens here as merely “klesha activity”, is indeed taking a position…one which other’s have taken as well..
I appreciate the poetry and when you do contribute your opinion. I just question whether you’re really above it all. Best, J.
Dear John C., thanks for your reply. And please don’t stop sharing poetry. Truly that wasn’t my intent in saying the above. It just has to do with presentation, context.
Here’s a concrete example. In the above you very kindly sent a poem my way. And I tried to read it as a pure gesture of generosity, which it may well be. (I believe you, by the way, when you say “my opinion is compassion”. I have no doubt about that; that’s never been an issue for me.) But as I say very possibly due to my own fault, I wasn’t able to read the poem fully that way.
Trying to explain why might help illustrate a certain minefield that exists in the sangha these days. Just above the poem you expressed your view of RFS as “breath-taking … klesha activity”. Now, since I contribute here, this view includes me also. In itself, “no blame,” as the I Ching would say–your view is your view.
But then the theme of the poem, or at least the portion you extracted, concerns “opinion” and “fixed opinions”: “There are ways to experience such freedom from skandhas and fixed opinions…” And you see, the context just makes it hard for me to avoid connecting your choice of it with your earlier comment about RFS being fundamentally kleshic. It’s hard for me not to think that what you are really saying is: stop expressing these neurotic mere “opinions,” and join me in pledging your full support for the current program.
A minefield of distrust has developed and unfortunately we can’t wish it away. It’s hugely sad to me, but there it is. And what I’ve also observed is that those who are very devoted to Shambhala in its present incarnation just don’t seem able to fathom the depths of heartbreak, pain, frustration that many do in fact feel. Calling it all “kleshic” simply adds fuel to the fire. Likewise suggesting, however indirectly, that those critical in one way or another of Shambhala today have “fixed” opinions, while those fully supportive do not.
But again, there’s space for the poetry. I just think the current climate needs to be remembered in when and how it is posted. There’s also a place set up specifically for poetry here, I think. All best.
Hi John,
FYI, I spent 5 winter months (finishing up on Parinirvana Day 2000) as a volunteer for Archives. The poetry was in a bad state; I knew because I had worked earlier in 1999 to update the existing binders and found them in a basically disorganised, ungathered, unfound and unarchived state.
As a perq, Carolyn [Gimian] let me photocopy the binders, so that was how I happened to have a copy. Then by the end I had typed 200 published and 500 unpublished poems along with tables of contents with notes, and first line and title indexes onto an archive CD called “Complete Poetry of Chögyam Trungpa”.
Now John, you know you made up “merely” klesha activity – that extra “merely” is your way of slanting what I honestly said into a distorted light. What agenda of yours do “merely” and “above it all” serve?
“Merely” was purely your own invention – to serve your agenda you are willing to bend the truth.
The same way you bend the truth to serve your agenda by disputing whether I’m “really above it all” as if I ever asserted such a thing – but again, that’s purely your own invention, that “above it all” bit, isn’t it?
The truth I told you was that my naked first impression of RFS broke my heart. But what you heard instead – with your extra words “merely” and “above it all” inserted – was condescension and conceit; it’s sort of deranged, isn’t it?
Hi Chris,
Are you saying that you are not an aspiring Bodhisattva – or that you already are an accomplished Bodhisattva? I’m not clear what you mean. Are you saying that compassion is a cliché?
We have no choice but to practice with a motivation of kindness at this stage, do we? (Although of course we have all heard about ultimately there is no motivation and no kindness: there is spontaneity…)
Otherwise we could end up telling ourselves that our bad temper for example is a “fantastic” sign of our genuine strength and progress as a Bodhisattva – holding us back and hurting others in the process.
First we develop path compassion like random acts of kindness toward Chris and everyone else and having some fun, isn’t it? And then that kindness attitude one day ripens as ultimate compassion.
Dear John:
From my intuitive inspiration
again I quote:
Loving kindness is already consummate
no compassion is pursued;
supremly vast and deep
no quality exists to acclaim.
Commentary:
Compassion is then the nature of reality, as buddha affirms, and it is futile to focus and direct to any being what is already present as his or her nature. It is impossible to cultivate what is naturally, already fully present…”, From commentary, “Eye of the Storm” The Eternal Victory Banner of Vajrasattva
P.S. I don’t think you need to worry about us poor kelsha filled souls, John, really.
Chris.
Well, John C., That was a pretty good response. Let’s just call it even. What do you say?
After reading this most recent thread, here’s the poem of Rinpoche’s that came to mind (also because it’s fresh on my mind following my recent re-reading of First Thought Best Thought.)
Drunken elephant
Dunken elephant–
Catching mirage by net;
In the mirror of my mind I comb my hair
With the brush of samsaric absurdity.
As much as I crave belonging to a Buddhist community, I always come back to wanting to just practice Vipassana on my own, rather than become involved in organizations that own property, hold assets, etc.
I intend to start a sitting group, and offer instruction, locally sometime in the future, but I won’t call myself anything and I won’t accept or seek money beyond maybe what renting a space in a local church will cost.
The dharma doesn’t seem to be able to withstand being turned into a livelihood, by anyone, for any reason, in any way.
My friend wanted me to go to the Shambhala center with her this year, but I am going to pass, and recommend she do so, too.
“The dharma doesn’t seem to be able to withstand being turned into a livelihood, by anyone, for any reason, in any way”.
hitting the nail on the head.
So much unbelievable pain on this website and in some of these voices.
Many of these articles and comments just seem to run in circles of negativity. Whatever sadness you feel, I am sorry. Whatever you long for, I hope you find it.
If you don’t want to participate in Shambhala, no one said you have to. Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche has been such a deep inspiration to me personally, but I of course understand if others feel differently. Nobody’s making you do anything at all or buy anything you don’t want to buy.
What do you want to do with the present moment and the future? Is this really the most constructive way to use your extensive years of practice and training? Piles of negative comments and poetic fragments on a website not many people read? Is it helping you in a way I can’t see?
Whatever inspires you in this world – go toward it and do it wholeheartedly, always maintaining a joyful mind. You’ll live longer and prosper that way. If Shambhala’s worth it to you, then dive into the current groundlessness and help us. If it’s something else, do that. Do it fully, and say no more of Shambhala.
But please, do something positive for someone. In my humble opinion, this website isn’t it.
May you find what inspires you, may you be happy,
A Shambhala Student.
Student writes:
Piles of negative comments on a website not many people read?
A friend of mine once pointed out that when I point my finger at someone, three of my fingers are pointing back at me.
I didn’t know what he was talking about, so he gave me a demonstration with his hand. (Try it.)
Dear Student, if you would like to see this website go away, perhaps you could help address some of the questions that have been raised here, or help provide a better forum for such discussions. I don’t think the people who post here (such as yourself) are evil people, or enemies. I think you people care very deeply about something and want to discuss those things a bit.
Rather than just criticizing, why not join in the discussion and see if we can resolve some confusions or misunderstandings together? What is there to fear?
Or if discussing the dharma is wrong, you could lead by your example and not discuss it.
Personally, I think it’s utterly fantastic if SMR has inspired his students. I’m just curious why he’s done what he’s done to CTR’s students. They are no longer able to do some of the things CTR asked them to do, it seems to me. Isn’t it possible that some people could feel legitimately disappointed about that? How would you feel if SMR died and someone else took over and said you could no longer do some of the things that SMR asked you to do?
If you were not disappointed by that, a person might question your loyalty and your devotion to SMR.
By the way, what is wrong with negativity? I think the more we reject negative feedback, the more it tends to get bigger and more noticeable. Trying to fight negativity as something external to us is a losing battle, I think, but what do I know.
Dear Student,
You say: “If you don’t want to participate in Shambhala, no one said you have to.” I’m afraid this comment reminds me of the sentiment: “America, love it or leave it”. Can you see that? There are people contributing to this website who are amongst the earliest members of Shambhala. They are devoted to their teacher, who instituted the Shambhala teachings. They are as devoted to the vision of Shambhala as you are, or anybody else.
“If Shambhala’s worth it to you, then dive into the current groundlessness and help us. If it’s something else, do that. Do it fully, and say no more of Shambhala.”
Echoing Edward, this seems to assume that the only way an organization can be helped involves not criticizing it, not objecting to anything it is doing. I don’t necessarily agree with everything said here. But as far as “helping us [Shambhala]“, well, yes, this is precisely the point! What you find negative I find quite positive and healthy.
Also, please remember that more-or-less everybody who has contributed here is a Shambhala practitioner, so to tell the people you disagree with to “say no more of Shambhala” is simply off the mark. They are just as much Shambhalians as you are.
Also, as far as how many people read this website: do you actually happen to know how many do? More importantly, does it matter? The membership of Shambhala, in the scheme of things, is quite miniscule. Is that a reason not to participate in it?
I am genuinely glad, however, that you are inspired by your participation in Shambhala. May it continue to nourish and inspire you along the path.
Boooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg.
Five of Trungpas old students bitch here. plus one guy who has no business talking about anything. Very important stuff. Maybe it was good advice. Stop Beating your heads against the fucking wall. If the transmission you recieved was so pure. . . why do you spend so much time yelling at the TV that talks back? serious waste of time. Might as well jerk off watching porn.
Hey Student,
I think your observations are valid. But understand that you’re talking with some clever folks who can criticize and pass judgement with the best of them and concurrently give a verbal thrashing to anyone who dares to appear critical of them. Just look at the reaction to the fellow who uses verse in response to postings on this site – condescension, sarcasm, and holier than thou nonsense, often accompanied by “my teacher once told me…”? Judge others and fight back when a challenge is thrown your way. It’s just ego, not rocket science. Edward spends much of his response firmly rejecting what he sees as negative feedback, then concludes by explaining the dangers of rejecting negative feedback. Huh?!? But that’s cool. We’re all in this together. And I recognize that I’m being an a–hole right now. No big deal but I’ll try to move past it.
Danny G, thank you so very much for teaching me how I ought to spend my time. I never actually realized that the half-hour I spend every day or two trying to engage politely in questions which are deeply important to me and others is in fact inferior to masturbation. That it is no different than “beating my head against a fucking wall.” However, now I see the light! Truly, your compassion abounds and astounds…
Sarcasm aside (but how else can one respond to a post like the above?), I must say that your manner and message are *precisely* the reason I post here. It’s in part because I come across this kind of thing more and more frequently that I realize something has really changed for the worse within Shambhala.
The only things I might suggest are: 1) if you’re so immensely bored here that you need to take a whole line spelling out the word, why on earth do you keep, as you put it, “yelling at the tv”? And 2) if you’re going to tell certain people they have “no business talking about anything,” it would be more honest of you to name names. Just who precisely ought to be completely silenced in the enlightened society you hope to build?
The title of this thread is dissent in the Shambhala community -the perceived dissent is around primarily I think the conception of SMRs creation of Shambhala Buddhism. However I am not going to go into this
in great detail as it has been discussed elsewhere on this site but I will discuss the principle of dissent for example a lot of knowledge both political and social in western history has been accomplished by disagreeing with the established status quo.
Take for example the enlightenment in France and subsequently its influence on the creation of the US. I still think the process of dissent can happen in Buddhist and Shambhalian contexts otherwise I would not be contributing to this site. To me both camps in this the debate have their valid viewpoints it would be a measure of a ruler if he/she could encompass these viewpoints within a Kingdom. Does there have to be one way of giving the teachings on Shambhala to the world or could there be several ways? Could we not all be ruled by a King/Queen but treated as different clans of that monarch or then again is the whole thing dissolving, in transition or marking time till something else takes its place. Shifts in the historical process dont come about to plan, anyones plan – it is a question of relationship and perhaps even friendliness. I know people in my locality want these teachings but I am not prepared to not dissent merely to give them out in the way SI has presently evolved. Dissent perhaps like the principle of the Sakyong him/herself must be protected.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
[VCTR, Kalapa Manor, 31 October 1984]
.
.
NEVER FLINCHING
It is not expensive to be handsome
To build a rainbow is very cheap
Peonies compete with chrysanthemums
Blue sky has never been painted
Gold is golden by its own dignity
Giving is as satisfying as biting a melon
Loneliness is satisfying because it doesn’t compete with anything
Pine trees have never been built
Tiger lilies and spider chrysanthemums dance together
We are not afraid
If we were so, we wouldn’t be here together
Achievement is not a product of ostentatiousness
Never get tired of drinking jasmine tea
Longing makes you so satisfied
Combing your hair makes you want to comb further
Let us be fearless like misty clouds arising on a beautiful mountain slope
Let us watch the crescent moon
Let us watch the golden rising sun
Come and join us
Come and dance together
Wicked is skinny
Virtuous is fat
As time goes on, let us grow up and not be insulted.
VCTR, from “Dixville Notch” (First Thought, Best Thought: 108 Poems])
When you are attacked by this and that,
You should hold the needle of nowness
Threaded with our mutual passion.
When you are hungry and fearful of the small big world,
You should look at the Great Eastern Sun
With the eye of our mutual passion.
When you are lonely,
You should beat the drum of sanity
With the stick of our mutual passion.
When you feel awkward,
You should drink the sake of confidence
With the lips of our mutual passion.
When you feel you are nobody,
You should hold the falcon of great humor
With the hand of our mutual passion.
When you feel spoiled,
You should fly the banner of genuineness
With the wind of our mutual passion.
…..
If I may go further:
We are not deaf, not dumb,
We are not mute.
We are the world’s best possible goodness–
Outspoken, exaggerated, understated fanfare,
With the goodness of goodness.
The wicked will tremble and the good will celebrate:
Impossibility is accomplished in the realm of possibility–
Fathomless space being measured,
Depth of passion being explored….
I wonder if it would be good to talk about this stuff at individual Shambhala centers (like mine). Sometimes I see the internet as unreal, and wonder how much change can happen through this medium.
Thoughts guys? Not big deleks or meetings, more informal discussions at actual centers, to see how people feel about the new curriculum, changes in recent years, etc.
“You fill the sky with clouds….”
You fill the sky with clouds
while I listen to the music…
shielding me gently from the sun,
drunk, half-assed poet….
that is so nice of you but why?
….or how…maybe a coincidence…
like the rest of my life….maybe
ecstasy is in short supply and
I’ve cornered the market…fat chance…
I’m only grateful my heart is still open…
I taste the sadness of others with every
sip of wine…oh, how long till we meet
for the first time? How long till the wheel
goes round, the sun comes up again, how
long till it all makes sense, not in the way
they tell us, but in our own way?
I wonder if it would be good to talk about this stuff at individual Shambhala centers (like mine).
Please, go ahead.
I did not surf this website until I already had conversations at my local center.
It’s better that way, you get the full experience of disappointment and hopelessness if you do things in their proper order.
Sometimes I see the internet as unreal, and wonder how much change can happen through this medium.
It’s as unreal as our minds in regular life are, but more obviously so.
No change will happen through this medium. That’s the beauty of it. It’s hopeless.
I think we will have enlightened society when every poet is a plumber or a farmer or a cabdriver and every plumber is a poet. Nice poem John.
Hey Jim,
I can’t be a plumber anymore….
I don’t got the legs….
All I can say is that I’m a “Poet”….
I feel that’s like saying
“I’m nothing.” which would be OK….
…. in fact, it is…..but, Jim,
is that still enough?
Dear Student, you say, “If Shambhala’s worth it to you, then dive into the current groundlessness and help us. If it’s something else, do that. Do it fully, and say no more of Shambhala.”
Thank you for making me laugh. Apparently you’ve bought into the ‘branding’ of Shambhala by Shambhala International and are unaware of the deep archetypal meaning and history of Shambhala, which Trungpa Rinpoche tapped into, but which goes way beyond its manifestation in our lifetimes. Did you ever read The Way to Shambhala by Edwin Bernbaum about “the search for the mythical kingdom”? Many of us old timers read it. This book helps to open up the view on what “Shambhala” really represents, which is far more universal than any corporate brand can trademark. So telling us, who helped to build the Kingdom of Shambhala during the Vidyadhara’s lifetime, to “say no more of Shambhala” if we won’t go along with Shambhala Buddhism is truly laughable, but also very sad, as it reveals that you may be receiving an insufficient education.
Sorry to be so blunt!
To: Student, Danny G. and anyone else who questions why Radio Free Shambhala exists, and why people post comments here.
You might want to read AURORA 7 (#2) from First Thought Best Thought by Chogyam Trungpa (p. 106, Shambhala Publications, 1983). I tried to type the whole poem here but for some reason, it didn’t work (too many characters?), so here’s an excerpt:
“Chogyam is alive;
No hope for the death of Chogyam–
Taking care of Chogyie
With hot warm towels
Breakfast in bed
Chamber pots in their proper places
Serving Chogyie as the precious jewel who may not stay with us–
All take part in the platitude of serving Chogyie as a dying person!
Oh what’s become of Chogyie?
He drinks too much,
He’s bound to die soon–
Taking care of Chogyie is no longer would-be mother’s pleasure?
Thriving strongly,
Existing powerfully,
Eternaly growing,
Stainless steel veins,
With diamond heart,
Even the most accomplished samurais’ swords can’t cut Chogyie’s veins,
Because his veins are vajra metal,
The blood is liquid ruby.
The indestructability of Chogyie is settled–
For foes very frightening:
Downfall of him never occurs;
For friends rejoicing:
Chogyie is made out of vajra nature.
Such good Chogyie makes people shed their tears;
Such good Chogyie makes people tremble before his vajra dignity.
Chogyie is going to be pain and pleasure for all of you,
Whether you hate or love him.
Chogyie’s indestructability could be venom as well as longevity-nectar…”
Nice poem, but posting here does What? All people are doing is perpetuating their own views. There is no dialouge, no progression. If you truly believe that then go practice Dharma Sagara. The internet will always be the lowest common denominator of human verbal communication(I suppose there could be something worse to come along). Go look at some other comment threads on news sites for example, then tell me that this serves a purpose in accord with the dharma. Come to my center and talk to me personally about your concerns, but really this site is a waste of time. Saying the second Farewell, G-man
Danny G and anyone who agrees with him: if you think this site is a waste of time and does not serve the dharma, that is for you to decide for yourself. But there are quite a few of us who do not feel that way. Some of us might argue that in exploring the truth, we are advancing the dharma – ie, the truth.
Do you think that coming to this site to put us down serves the dharma? Do you think that is dharmic speech? Look up the word dharma on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma. You might be surprised to learn how vast the meaning actually is.
wow suzanne, you have a PHd in condscending too. Congrats.
Actually, it isn’t condencending. It is patiently trying to communicate, over and over , despite the growing realization and inevitable conclusion that this is not possible.
You are insulting people that are holding a history and experience of CTR and his teachings, people who had an experience of him and his direct teachings, when he first planted the dharma in the West, and that will be lost forever, when these students pass on. You may think now, “good riddance” but when you grow up, you will realize that you tragically missed an opportunity to engage in something that will soon be lost to you forever.
Good luck.
Right. Someone giving me the wikipedia link to the definition of Dharma is indeed precious. You act like the people on this site are the only ones who studied with the Vidyadhara. You also assume that I don’t, or haven’t gotten extensive teachings, stories, etc. etc. from his students, and you also seem to forget that the current head of the lineage was one of his students. To suggest I need to read the definition(s) of Dharma, is similar to telling a longtime practicioner what the precepts are: Condescending.
As far as this site serving the Dharma(whichever definition you like) I hold that it is simply a small group reinforcing fixed views, swaying no one, and not even healing themsleves. As I said before the time would be better spent practicing the teachings that you have recieved.
In the current issue of the Econimist there is a brief piece about the town hall meetings regarding health care in th U.S. The point is that those making unsubstantaited claims about the policy hurt their own cause by making rational debate impossible. (death panels being the primary example) On this site, incorrect and unsubstatiated information has been sited numerous times(‘they don’t say the protector chants anymore”, as well as implications that the Ripa family is corrupt and that the Sakyong has missed the point of his father’s teachings) I have suggested over and over that this kind of extremism does not engender dialouge. And as I said the internet is a lousy meduium.
Yes, some current students respond angrily, usually to the fabrications being presented as truth. For my part I am guilty of being entertained by the screaming baby enegy of most of the posters here, but admitedly I have been touched deeply by the genuinness of a few. I stick around to hear them, though they are eventually drowned out by the same exact things being said over and over, like a wheel. If you go to Wikipedia you may find that the Sanskrit word for that is Samsara. If you truly cared about Dharma you would go off and pratice it.
Cheers. and good luck to you as wel.
Hello again Danny G,
You feel patronized by something someone said. Personally, I am sorry that is the case. However, are you even aware of the kinds of things you have been expressing here since your arrival? I don’t have the time to find some of your earlier posts from some months ago–which I seem to remember being even more extreme–so may I just quote you from a few days ago?:
“Boooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg. Five of Trungpas old students bitch here. plus one guy who has no business talking about anything. Very important stuff. Maybe it was good advice. Stop Beating your heads against the fucking wall. If the transmission you recieved was so pure. . . why do you spend so much time yelling at the TV that talks back? serious waste of time. Might as well jerk off watching porn.”
Now, would you care to revise your view of who behaves how on this site?… Your post is aggressive and offensive and also, yes, condescending. I don’t personally feel condescended to by this kind of thing, by the way. But it does seem to be part of your attitude there, no?
Also: you seem to have no problem with “current students responding angrily”, yet cannot allow the possibility of occasional strong feeling in those you disagree with, it seems. And that can be a problem.
The issues raised on this site bring up a fair amount of emotion, inevitably. More-or-less all of us writing have a love for this lineage as deep as anything else about us. And spiritual community is as intimate as family. A little imaginative sympathy here wouldn’t go amiss. Then perhaps we could have the *larger* dialogue that would help the most.
I hate to break it to you, but Shambhala does not happen to consist entirely of 10th-bhumi bodhisattvas. Please remember that people act unskillfully, are sometimes unkind, even cruel. Those in power have access to various means of controlling others on certain levels, of excluding, silencing, humiliating. Sometimes, believe it or not, they do these things. Again, they’re not 10th-bhumi bodhisattvas, not by a long, long, long way. People get hurt, harmed. People feel rejected, excluded, disposed of, erased. So again, a little imaginative effort might help.
Finally Danny, you have said this kind of thing a number of times: “As I said before the time would be better spent practicing the teachings that you have recieved.” “If you truly cared about Dharma you would go off and practice it.”
Well, none of us can really know how much–or how committedly–anyone else practices. Don’t you agree? So I don’t think this kind of comment serves any useful purpose here. Also, there needn’t be any dichotomy between “practice” and writing anyway, right? How can we practice in the 10 or 20 minutes we spend writing a post? There are lots of ways.
I partly share your pessimism about internet communication Danny, but not entirely. Because in the end it’s simply up to us.
Wow this has taken a decidedly nasty turn to the ugly.
I thought we were required to use our real name when posting on this site, Mark. ?
According to some, we should be inspired to go along with what is happening, or simply go away and shut up… forever. Anything else is solidifying an unsubstantiated view; that spiced with various vitriol and, well, bitter assumptions about the only five students of Trungpa Rinpoche who post on RFS (and the “one guy who has no business talking about anything” ?) I’m concerned this may also be the attitude of some of the people in the star chamber.
Regardless of what the curriculum may now be, in spite of whatever these students believe they have found, I see no sense of earth. They may have heard some stories from older students, but there’s no feeling for where things come from. No sense of lineage or history or culture, not only of Vajradhatu/Shambala, and no feeling of the decades of effort and inspiration and study and volunteer work, nor of the people who put in that effort, the older students, all of which are the reason that the newer students like himself have anything at all they believe they can defend from older students or anyone at all. No acknowledgement that what they believe they are protecting from older students, was something the older students under the guidance from Trungpa Rinpoche built. A king alone does not a lineage make.
A television scale of time and a feeling of entitlement to what ever it is one has or wants.
If this sort of bitter attitude or approach is no longer an obvious anathema to what dharma is about, then some of the claims on this site are thereby substantiated.
You know it isn’t entirely a student’s fault if their education about lineage and history is poor, or that territorial imperative, impulses to lash out, projecting negativity and other ego twitches, instincts we all have to work with, has never been called to question.
In the inspiration that “Life is the total sum of many moments, pretending to be constant and steadfast.”
(Stanstaw Jerzy Lec)
I see you can edit a response, but is it possible to cancel one? I pushed the button twice, and wanted to cancel this one, rather than posting same twice. Doesn’t seem possible. Mark?
Well this is nice. Now we are getting somwhere. Damcho, I will admit what I said was intentionally condescending, but you mistake what I say a bit. You have actually been fairly decent here, though I could see the spittle of rage flowing from your mouth in your last few posts. I don’t blame you. As far as the bit about how much people practice, that wasn’t really the point. I have no idea. I just think that when a bunch of people claim to have recieved a complete transmission, the time would be better spent realizing it.
James, I can understand why you might respond this way to what I have said. But you are deeply mistaken about the sense of earth, and the sense of history. You see, this attitude is what causes the divide. These young students with a TV sense of history have already put in decades, and this is not an exageration, of volunteer work rebuilding this community that would have died if it were not for the efforts of the Sakyong.
I like to stir things up. It is fun to see people freak out. But every time someone refutes, factually, one of the ridiculous claims made here, it is ignored. And you are right, there are about nine people bitching here, not just five. The one who doesn’t know shit is Edward. Since apparently that wasn’t obvious enough.
I respect deeply the students who created this mandala. I would literally have no home if it weren’t for them. Most of them are willing to share their experiences and teachings with those of us who were born in the seventies. They also admit their mistakes.
This site is a direct affront to the Sakyong as a genuine teacher. No one has been willing to admit that. It has been presented in the past, who the fuck are you. . . and the response was” I have Vajra nature, therefore I can question’ But not willing to admit that the question was whether the Sakyong was a charlatan. I would like for the MOD to admit it. then explain why he thinks that the one who was empowered by Trunpa Rinpoche is not a geniuine teacher, and then further explain why Trunpa Rinpoche was wrong. If you need proof that this is the nature of this site please read the comments on the first (only) podcast where mark clarifies that he does not want the community run by someone still’on the path’
This is a house of poison.
Have some courage and actually talk to people face to face, or have some courage and fulfill your bodhisattva vow. If you like you can waste time stroking one another on a silly website.
by the way. . . I like all things that are red. Green makes me uneasy.
also. when I get that feeling I need Mexican healing.
and one last thing. . .
to quote Karma Thinle Rinpoche “There are people in outer space”
I am done, completly done fucking with you silly people.
Danny, sorry man, but you lack basic courtesy and respect for others. Read your collected posts someday when you feel brokenhearted.
Periodically you seem to attempt to moderate your words, but they end up just as extreme. Telling someone he “doesn’t know shit”? I guess times really have changed a lot, but I suspect if you had said this about someone in front of Trungpa Rinpoche, there might have been a rude awakening.
There’s a lovely moment in the film “Words of My Perfect Teacher” where Luc–Dzongsar Khyentse’s personal assistant–asks one of Rinpoche’s other students who has just been talking about her devotion something like: but how does what you just said differ from the way the followers of Osama bin Laden feel? He’s being deliberately provocative, but there is also a very serious point underlying what he asks her.
You say: “This site is a direct affront to the Sakyong as a genuine teacher.” I happen to disagree. It’s true that one or more individuals posting here might not consider him as such, but last I heard, people are encouraged to think and evaluate for themselves within Buddhism. In fact, it’s required. And I again hate to break it to you Danny, but the overwhelming majority of the *world* would not consider SMR, and equally VCTR, a genuine master. Sorry to puncture that particular bubble. I would suggest serving your teacher, and allowing those who have various different views and concerns the freedom to fulfill *their own* bodhisattva vows.
Personally, what I find the most “poisonous” of all in this situation is the urge to silence others. And all the techniques that are employed in that aim.
It is so disingenuous of you to acknowledge your condescension at the beginning of your post, when you simply then go on in precisely the same vein. “Have some courage and actually talk to people face to face, or have some courage and fulfill your bodhisattva vow. If you like you can waste time stroking one another on a silly website.” Wow, I can’t even begin to respond to all the twistedness in that. I must correct one presumption though: some of us have, believe it or not, tried hard to “actually talk to people face to face”. Can you imagine that?
Your true, brilliant colours, of course, come out in your final line. I don’t know if it makes you a representative voice of the new Shambhala or not. You will have to decide that for yourself.
Dear dannyg:
I would like to answer your recent post here.
I have been reading, for several months, various reactions, by idiotic children, to people’s heart-felt comments.
The SAKYONG IS A CHARLATAN. He is called Mipham Rinpoche because he went to Asia and “demanded”the title. The first Mipham left a letter saying he would not return, except as a demon. Everyone in Asia knows this. Penor Rinpoche appointed him, just as he appointed Steven Segal. He is a dyslexic, Boulder H.S. drop-out who has had Acharyas write his speeches and his books. They are Acharyas because they provided this service.
He went on a week’s retreat, and came back with a terma, saying that it was a higher teaching than Maha Ati.
He has had no training that you can document, or any serious retreat time , that you can document. He literally put on the most expensive robes that he could find, and claimed that he was a lama. He is a true charlatan. He has put his brother in State CARE in VT, while building himself million dollar houses. He appointed the publicity flack from Amnesty International, as President, a person that had no experience with this community, and had no connection with CTR. He is the “mouthpiece” of the Sakyong, and the students talk to him and not the Sakyong.
So, I hope this is plain enough: He is a charlatan and you are an ingrate following a charlatan-, you do not deserve to even be allowed to have a conversation with the people you are denigrating. You and your ilk have done nothing, nothing for this community. The Sakyong, and his cultists have destroyed it with their arrogance and stupidity.
Sincerely,
Robert
dear danny.g I think rfs has turned into a teaching vehicle for a lot of us
contributing to this site – I particularly welcome Marks comments on his interactions with CTR -they are quite revelatory. In addition I find the historical basis of the shambhala training programme being founded in Boulder quite insightful aswell – so all in all I have found this site quite useful in my understanding of shambhala as an ideal, a teaching call it what you will.
As to the Sakyong I hope he briefly visits this site or is at least informed of its contents by others in authority-for a leader as it somewhat states in the Prince by Machiavelli has to have ears for all the politics/social issues being discussed in his principality.
As to posting further perhaps we could discuss dissent as a principle itself perhaps that would take some heat out of the arguement – is that possible?
Yes some of us will find our connection more to CTR and some more to
the Sakyong but all of us have some connection to SI even if it is tenuous ie that we attend some arts programme.
I hope we can all go forward with all the diverse paths that are emerging-that I believe is also something we can celebrate aswell -just think we are in an argument about creating an enlightened society something that many of your ordinary politicians just mouth about……so yes that is something to feel good about.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Rita, you are pretty cool. Robert, that terma you speak of was revealed by the Dorje Dradul. And thank you for illustrating the point.
Before passing judgement we must first consult the great Namkha Pyramid Rinpoche. What is the sound of a scorpion dancing on top of a pyramid?
[Apologies--I feel I'm dominating this thread a little, but keep wanting to respond to things...]
Dear Robert, your post has challenged me. Why is this? Well, on the one hand, I feel strongly that people ought to be able to express the basic message in your post. Leaving aside any particulars for the moment, we know that “charlatans” definitely do exist in the world, loads of them. Religion is the perennial, irresistible magnet for those who would prey on our deepest hopes and fears. And how would any ever be exposed if everyone was too timid to ever criticize any religious leader?
I also tend to give more latitude of expression to the underside of a power relationship. Some will disagree with that, but power by definition has certain advantages … and regularly misuses them.
And the other thing is that RFS is a space specifically created for open expression, including critical perspective. For many of us it’s the only place where we can voice our concerns together.
So that’s one side of the coin. *However* … I also find your post really distressing.
I know little about the Sakyong and have only spoken with him for a grand total of two minutes, but what you say seems quite inflammatory to me. It is full of judgmental assertions, extremely negative ones, presented as simple unambiguous fact. I can’t imagine, for example, that the Sakyong would ever proclaim any teaching of his own to be “higher than Maha Ati”. If he truly did, then please share this. Likewise, your assertion about the authorship of his books doesn’t make any sense to me. And judging others’ retreat time? I won’t even go there… (But perhaps he does have a number of expensive houses. I could well believe that.)
I haven’t connected strongly with the Sakyong’s formal teaching but I love the poetry of his I’ve seen. I vividly remember hearing “A Lightning Bolt of Wisdom” (from The Great Stupa CD) for the first time at a centre, unable to keep from crying at its beauty and gentleness. And that happens pretty much everytime I hear it. I have major, major problems with the organization of Shambhala, but try to stay open to the Sakyong himself as much as possible. I don’t think there’s a necessary contradiction there. Maybe I will learn more over time which could shift me one way or another, but that’s where I am.
Not every thought should be expressed here, even if it is sincerely held. I’m sure all of us have muttered words like “ingrate” or “idiot” to ourselves about someone else, or said them to a like-minded friend, but … this is a public forum. I think that’s crucial to remember. IMHO…
I’d like to reinforce damcho’s comments about civility here. This thread seems to be going the way of “Sangha Talk”, which in my experience led to some pretty harsh language. Let’s make a stand for dharmic speech.
Tibetan Buddhism, with its hierarchies and samayas, can have a really ugly effect on the western mind in my experience. I remember followers of the Regent calling opponents “samaya corrupters”, and vice versa. Witch burnings, anyone? How about religious warfare?
I’ve brooded for years over how the whole Regent situation happened, and waited for the Sakyong to “take his seat” until he did and I didn’t like what I saw. The very very uncomfortable bottom line for me is that these latter-day conflicts are the direct result of Trungpa Rinpoche’s preference for medieval political forms over modern democracy, which he found distasteful. One aspect of his political philosophy was a firm belief that democracy is messy and results in lowest common denominator thinking. With a properly trained enlightened leader, however, heaven and earth are joined, etc. I struggled a lot with this idea way back then, but essentially swallowed it because Trungpa Rinpoche was my guru and I viewed him as enlightened. But in retrospect, I don’t believe he created a good basis for the lineage to continue. His successors have resorted to declarations of their “legitimacy” as a method of stifling dissent, and it lowers the overall IQ of the organization. He often said that everything he did was an “experiment”. This experiment, IMHO, is not working.
Monarchy, whether supposedly enlightened or not, is just a bad idea for these times. No one person can apprehend the complexities of our world today sufficiently to make all the right decisions.
But don’t be surprised that the Kalapa Council is a family/crony network. It’s in the DNA of this organization.
I personally don’t expect the Shambhala Mandala to change for the better. I gave it a bit of try a few years ago, and concluded that my best option was to just let go of the past, follow my heart, and follow the practices and teachings that truly speak to me.
I’m probably most troubled by the old dogs who insist that they remember what Trungpa Rinpoche was talking about, that it’s all changed, that’s bad, that there’s some pure form to return to. I don’t think so. Trungpa said many things to many people, often contradictory. I still remember how upset people were when he introduced Shambhala Training back in 1977. He changed things all the time.
Take what you remember that inspired you and follow it to the end, but don’t judge someone else’s dharma. In my case, I heard a “command” to live in Nova Scotia, which I did, for a long time. Others who claim true fidelity to Trungpa’s teachings seemed to have conveniently never heard that one.
It is an aspect of the guru’s vast mind that we will never have a neat museum exhibit or textbook that sums it all up. I hope everyone who knew Trungpa writes a book about their experience – and none of them will be the whole truth.
Dan,
In spite of Robert’s outburst, the dissent, at least in my case and so I assume for others, is not ideologically based. It is only, really only, about accountability. This is due to events encountered in which I know relatively newer students were taken advantage of, lied to or manipulated in disingenuous ways, with horrible results. Some of them are still inspired by Buddhism and dharma but will have nothing to do with the Shambhala community, because they were handled so badly by people who were presented as having temporal and spiritual authority, something they can only scoff at now.
I’m of the mind that if those kinds of things did not happen, or if similar events had been handled in an open, responsible and sane way as problems became apparent, none of these forms of dissent would have arisen with as high a profile as they now have.
It is not the ideology or the dharmic content that gives rise to these disputes, but rather that people encounter something negative, and then start thinking about it, and then compare it to how Trungpa Rinpoche did certain things, which really ought to be expected as this is the community he founded. And only then give shape to their concerns based on things seen learned studied etc.
For example someone on this site if not this thread told how Trungpa Rinpoche related to someone’s letter of dissent by making it very high profile and openly discussing it at a community meeting, based on the points raised (not the neurosis of the author). I know of stories from other sanghas about how problems were successfully dealt with, and we don’t need to limit to dharma teachers.
It isn’t as simple minded that everything should be just as Trungpa Rinpoche did them. It is more that we are involved in the community that he created, and we have seen ways of relating to community, problems that arise, dissent, differences, ways of inspiring and organizing, how change can be introduced in a way that doesn’t fragment, and so on, ways that worked.
Whether it would be a good idea to take on Trungpa Rinpoche’s specific example or not is an open question, as you know there are a myriad of workable and inspiring examples, but the point is his example, worthy of books, poetry, web sites, philosophical discussions and more, make it rather obvious when something isn’t working, because we know it can.
So for me dissent is a prod for a sane response. It doesn’t have to be how Trungpa Rinpoche would do it, hell how would I know? I don’t care about the intellectual content, that’s all too often misdirection. But I have to say when I witness sane responses to all kinds of things, passion aggression and ignorance, and see someone’s kleshas dissolve; it is unmistakable and does remind me of himself, even when it has nothing to do with Buddhism as such.
In the inspiration that “The revision of history proves that everything was the way it was.” (Stanslaw Jerzy Lec)
James Elliot wrote:
“the dissent, at least in my case and so I assume for others, is not ideologically based. It is only, really only, about accountability. This is due to events encountered in which I know relatively newer students were taken advantage of, lied to or manipulated in disingenuous ways, with horrible results”
At what point are people contributing to this corruption, when they say nothing about these untruths and out and out lies? Or perpetrate these untruths to sangha, knowingly? How much responsibility do we have to the dharma, the truth, let alone CTR’s legacy, when we don’t question things, or worse we let people believe these untruths when we know of the lies and corruption?
Is this still the dharma? How can we say we are pepetuating the dharma or contributing to “enlightened society” when we go along with organizational deception? Is this even Buddhism any more?
I don’t know about coming back as a demon, but here are Mipham’s own words about not taking rebirth again in an unpure realm, interestingly because it would do no good, as he says on his death bed “in the future, people would then believe lies as truth, and would hear the truth as lies.” Interestingly both “recognitions of Mipham” ,( the father of the other Karmapa, and the Sakong), have resulted in a lineage of incredible upheaval, discord, and pain and confusion for their respective students.
One high lama communicated to me , echoing somewhat Dzogzar R’s “East West talk, how amazingly gullible Western students have been and are. They believe anything. That’s why we have been sheared like sheep. It’s time to start questioning things, and go back to the original Buddha’s teachings on this, before the monastic overlay. We must, if the dharma is to genuinely take root in the West. Anything less is staying in a trance and a cult-like idiocy, like sheep to the slaughter.
I guess people would rather debate the meaning of words, than question something that is the center of their lives, their spiritual journey, and Patrul Rinpoche has said “Not to examine the teacher is like drinking poison.”
We are admonished to question the teacher we are giving our lives, our labor and or money too, for up to 12 years. Just to accept someone, because he was the son of a great teacher, is a great mistake.
Three great posts in a row. A lot that is really well said. Thanks.
I’d like to just highlight something from James’ comments:
“The dissent … is only, really only, about accountability. This is due to events encountered in which I know relatively newer students were taken advantage of, lied to or manipulated in disingenuous ways, with horrible results. Some of them are still inspired by Buddhism and dharma but will have nothing to do with the Shambhala community, because they were handled so badly by people who were presented as having temporal and spiritual authority, something they can only scoff at now.
I’m of the mind that if those kinds of things did not happen, or if similar events had been handled in an open, responsible and sane way as problems became apparent, none of these forms of dissent would have arisen with as high a profile as they now have.”
It’s fascinating to me to read this James, because I am somewhat in the category you speak of. I have no way of knowing if your larger point is true–ie, that the accountability question is paramount in this overall situation. But I can say that it has been very important for me, and the source of all subsequent ponderings about what’s going on.
I cannot comment on the substance of Robert’s earlier, somewhat incendiary post, except to conjecture that his sentiments, correct or not, are probably shared by many.
In any case,
>> The first Mipham left a letter saying he would not return,
>>except as a demon.
This is news to me. And I literally wrote the book that translated the first Mipham Rinpoche’s biography.
What the first Mipham Rinpoche did say, to all good evidence, was to this effect:
“I do not have to/shall not take rebirth. However it is the nature of sublime beings to emanate continuously for the benefit of beings.”
Mipham Rinpoche also remarked, shortly before his death, that he had go to ‘jang shambhala’ or ‘Shambhala to the north’ . Shambhala is supposed to be a human realm of existence, not a pure land where one lives for countless aeons. So whatever Mipham Rinpoche meant by ‘Shambhala’, he meant to say that he would take human rebirth. Or rather, that he would emanate as a human being for a specific purpose.
That doesn’t mean he would only take rebirth or emanate as one individual. Mipham Rinpoche also said, right before he said that he would not take rebirth, that “I am not an ordinary person. I am a high bodhisattva”. In other words, he could manifest in just about any way.
Speaking not as someone that knows what is really the case, but only as a humble student of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and (by Khyentse Rinpoche’s graces) of the texts and traditions of the first Mipham, there is no question that there are many emanations of Mipham Rinpoche amongst us.
Generally there are Tulkus of many kinds — ones totally pure and perfect (like Shakyamuni Buddha or Guru Padmasambhava), ones slightly impure in appearance but perfect in terms of accomplishment (Milarepa, Drukpa Kunley, etc.), and those impure in appearance and imperfect in terms of outward conduct or accomplishment (could be anybody, even a butcher or prostitute, or an autistic adult under state care).
Just as not every Tulku looks like one, not everyone that has the name ‘Tulku’ is a real Tulku. Thus said the late Penor Rinpoche many times during his life, even to some personal friends of mine.
The quality of a Tulku’s manifestation is a product of the common denominator of disciples and general conditions of the world. The compassion and skill of enlightened beings is infinite, but the common perception of sentient beings is what determines how that compassion manifests in a public way. These days things are pretty fucked up, so even Tulkus will have problems and be imperfect. The Vimalakirti Sutra makes this point regarding physical illness in the chapter entitled, ‘Consolation of the Invalid’.
What is true at the subatomic level of quantum physics is also true also of the macroscopic level of Nirmanakaya. Whatever is “there” is an appearance determined by the observer(s); what really is there is unlimited by observers. If the bulk of the populace is crazy, a lot of what they see will look like only insanity.
So personally I can’t say who is the Tulku of Mipham Rinpoche or of anyone else. I do wish there were a Mipham Rinpoche equal in qualities to the first one, but if there is, I haven’t been able to meet him yet. In any case, wanting someone else to be perfect has never worked for me in this life, and I don’t expect that it will.
All the same I never heard that in Buddhism one should not call it like one sees it, so long as one is willing to be wrong sometimes.
Sincerely,
John P.
I think the thing with dissent is that it should empower people to tell it like it is, or perhaps the more slang term of doing the right thing.
Dissent in my social world particularly where I come from in the north
of the uk has been founded on politcal principles such as feminism, socialism, trade unionism and the co-operative movement and these organisations have been built in opposition to the prevailing status quo.
Now dissent in a religious area is quite complex -it relates to conscience,
loyalty – almost abstract terms-it also turns in this community on who you
think has the full take on the Buddhist and Shambhalian teachings. But
who does have the full switcheroo on how these teachings will develop-
I dont think we can see into the future with this.
In my own history I think I was a ‘Buddhist/shambhalian’ even before I knew the terms because of my take on life, my study on religious literature and my own experiences. And here I would disagree with Ashoka that you have to be a ‘Shambhala Buddhist’ to get the higher teachings of shambhala – I think they are open to everyone if you point your mind or focus it in certain manner.
Now as to teachers I have a sort of love-hate relationship with them – I do
not believe teachers are infallible, omnipotent or beyond going into debate with. I did briefly meet the last Karmapa (16) and he impressed me by his energy and openness to all people but I think even with him I would have discussed issues if I got the opportunity and perhaps not always have agreed with his take on things.
So yes I agree with Chris that deception should be looked at closely perhaps with the eyes of an objective looking journalist. And to do this you have to have some knowledge of the western art of deception historically thats why it is good for the kasung to study such arts so they know how to subvert them.
So yes the debate has gone to deception and turns on it so consequently dissent follows. May be seeing deception we could see it as a window to
examine our own thoughts and what is occuring and for that of course we need meditation and contemplation.
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport uk
This has developed into a very interesting thread. I appreciated hearing Dan Montgomery’s perspective and also John Whitney Pettit’s, two people from whom we’ve heard little, if anything, before on this site.
These questions come to mind: If Dan feels the way he says he does, why does he read RFS? I wonder whether he finds value in reading RFS, and if so, what value does it have for him?
Regarding John Pettit, if he is who he says he is – “I literally wrote the book that translated the first Mipham Rinpoche’s biography” – how did he come to post here on RFS? I can’t help wondering whether somebody got in touch with him and asked him to respond to Robert’s post to provide a somewhat authoritative opinion. If so, I wonder who that somebody was.
Regarding the legitimacy of the Mipham name in the case of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, I have heard from several sources that the Sawang Osel Mukpo chose that name (against the advice of some people) and that money changed hands in order to get it from Penor Rinpoche. In other words, according to the rumors, the name was bought. Whether this is true, I don’t know. But I do know that there has been considerable speculation about this, and it’s one of those secrets I may never learn the truth about. However, one has to wonder how somebody as dyslexic as Osel Mukpo could be the emanation, much less ‘tulku,’ of somebody as brilliant as Mipham Namgyal.
For those who haven’t seen it, this is an interesting account of the original Mipham, who from a young age exhibited extraordinary scholarly and psychic abilities:
Biographies: The Life of Mipham Jamyang Namgyal (1846–1912) – This biography has been compiled or copied from a number of sources, including Dudjom Rinpoche’s authoritative text, The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Some of our sources have come from oral accounts handed down by various Lamas who knew Mipham personally.
http://www.dharmafellowship.org/biographies/historicalsaints/mipham-namgyal.htm
Here are some passages from this document relating to what he said in the year of his death, 1912:
“Now, very soon, my mind-stream will be gathered up in the pure-land of Tusita, from whence many emanations [of myself] shall then come forth in future years. I shall not take rebirth in Tibet. In twenty years, seek me in the northern lands of distant Uttarakuru, and elsewhere, east, west, north and south. . . .
“Now, soon I shall depart. I shall not be reborn again in Tibet, therefore do not search for me. I have reason to go to Shambhala in the north.” . . .
“In the future, I am the one destined to be the Rigden King of Shambhala, known as the Wrathful One with Iron Wheel; the one who will conquer the great army of the Mlecchas in the final battle of the world, before the coming of the future saviour Maitreya.”
There are also some interesting prophesies about events in the world in this account.
I would like to believe that “the truth will out,” as Shakespeare said, but, in this Dark Age, I accept that some of the truths I seek may not be revealed in my remaining lifetime.
Mipham the Great was also a great proponent of the Rime movement, a movement that respects and encourages taking teachings from other lineages, it means not holding a bias, or being sectarian. Shambhala has now moved toward excluding all teachers, except those on an approved list that are in accord with the current Shambhala curriculum, or at least won’t threaten it. Not even great lamas, like Lama Wangdor can give “pointing out”. Great Lamas in the Rime tradition always gave pointing out and transmissions to each other.
Mipham the Great’s lineage was actually greatly represented on our shrine’s BEFORE SMR’s recognition. Jamgon Kontrol of Shechen, CTR’s root guru, and represented on our shrine, was the direct disciple of Jamgon Kontrol the Great, Mipham the Great’s teacher. Dilgo Khyentse R was a direct student of Mipham the Great, and considered him his root guru. Why on earth would you take your lineage OFF the shrine?
Here is the quote from Rigpa Wiki on Mipham the Great:
“Nowadays, if you speak the truth, there is nobody to listen; if you speak lies everyone thinks it is true. I have never said this before: I am not an ordinary person; I am a bodhisattva who has taken rebirth through aspiration. The suffering experienced in this body is just the residue of karma; but from now on I will never again have to experience karmic obscuration. … Now, in this final age, the barbarians beyond the frontier are close to undermining the teaching. [So] there is no point whatsoever in my taking rebirth here…I have no reason to take birth in impure realms ever again.”
When he says he will take rebirth in Shambhala to the North, it seems very clear that he is talking about a pure land, not a corporate/religious organization, that would need brand names and trademarks, and sue people in court for the exclusive use of the name Shambhala? I really don’t think Mipham the Great meant he was going to take birth in Shambhala International. I really think we must question these things, surely , at least know what the lineage actually is, whom we are claiming to represent?
Lineage is very important. It is one of those essential aspects of dharma that can’t be messed with. People should be using their intelligence and looking at these things. If they are discouraged to do so, then something is very very wrong .. Mipham the Great’s prediction about people preferring to not look at the truth resonants . The dharma is undermined by not looking at the truth.
Doing the opposite in many cases of your direct incarnation is not manifesting as just a weaker emanation. Sorry. I don’t buy it.
“Why on earth would you take your lineage OFF the shrine”?
Maybe because SMR Thinks that he is the head of this whole lineage now? So no one can be above him? His Shrine box is so tall now that it needs a ladder to get up on it. I remember Dilgo Khense R, in the Shambhala Shrineroom at KCL, an ordinary throne, for the King of the Dharma, totally accessible , all day, to students, and practicing all night. This is Mipham the Great’s lineage.
I would like to make a correction / clarification to one of Chris’s posts above. On his most recent trip to the west, Wangdor Rinpoche DID teach at the Shambhala Center in Milwaukee and I believe he did a program in NYC at the Shambhala Center there, although I don’t know about the particulars in that case, I do know about Milwaukee. Due to his long connection with teaching at the center (at least 6 times) we did ask if he could teach, and the people in charge allowed the event to happen in their space. It was not publicized by the local center either on outside walls or in newsletters or email – we (the sponsors) did all our own notification and limited “publicity” in the form of some posters in a few locations. Nothing to associate the Shambhala center with the event except location, and our poster had a disclaimer sayiing it was a privately sponsored event – which it was – that was open to the public. No advertising “pointing out” – just the text being taught – “The Flight of the Garuda” and that it was a Dzogchen teaching. Of course, he DID do pointing out – again and again – how could he not?? It was done in the context of the teaching and not in a formal ceremony.
I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the Milwaukee Shambhala Center for their openness in allowing Wangdor Rinpoche to teach at the center.
I was referring to a teaching on Garab Dorje’s Three Words that Strike the Vital Point, a teaching that Lama Wangdor was giving at the Boulder Shambhala Center, about 2 or 3 years ago.. There was a great deal of concern, expressed by the administration there, and the then Boulder Center Director, saying that he could teach, but not give direct pointing out at that center, because now , only the Sakyong was to give pointing out. In fact there were email exchanges I believe on sangha announce, regarding this: i.e. how could you teach this , without giving pointing out, etc. since the First Word that strikes the Vital Point, is the pointing out transmission. I believe that Lama Wangdor , of course did give pointing out and the “administration” didn’t know it. I heard that he was aware that he was being told NOT to give the pointing out, after he had been scheduled to give this teaching. After my posting an email on either sangha announce or one of those lists, I got a direct email from someone involved with that teaching, saying to the effect, well, Lama Wangdor was always giving “pointing out.” etc. so how could he not? that usual mystified , vague referral to pointing out. What was in discussion was that they had had Lama Wangdor scheduled for this Dzogchen teaching, and tried to block him from giving any direct pointing out. As you know Michael, the direct pointing out is very clearly being done, is not ambiguous, and you know that that is happening because a Dzogchen teacher says he is doing it. The First Word is about this very unambiguous direct pointing out, and the Dzogchen teacher sets up the synchronistic situation so that the students know it is happening, not some ambiguous, “he is always giving pointing out.” Of course whether it happens for the student depends on one’s openness to the Dzogchen teachings and proclivity.
This is what the Boulder Shambhala Center administration was upset about, and tried to block, once they realized this was going to happen.
Further, you make the point , better than I could that, despite this great Lama, whom Shambhala officially should be welcoming to teach, with open arms and gratitude, you had to go totally “off the radar” to have this event happening at even a “relatively open” Shambhala Center like , it seems, Milwaukee Center is. So if this is a description of a more “open” center, I shudder to think what must be happening now , in terms of other teachers teaching at the more central, party-line centers.
What you describe, in terms of how you had to get them to “allow” you to have Lama Wangdor teach there, i.e. do all the limited , advertising, and totally make sure that Shambhala International is not affiliated with this teaching, underlines that narrow, non-Rime focus of the organization now.
Lama Wangdor’s event should have been shouted from the rooftops, not surreptiously planned and disassociated from Shambhala. This should have been something Shambhala International would have been so happy to have sponsored.
Chris I just wanted to let people know that he was allowed to teach this time at the center – and also make it clear that his visit was not sponsored by the Center or SI.
I am very familiar with the events in Boulder, as Robin and I arranged the teaching in the first place, and when the invitation to teach was withdrawn (after Rinpoche declined to limit who could attend the teaching) we had to scramble to find an alternative location as well as a new place for Rinpoche and Lama Lena to stay when the person who had offered to have them stay at his house got cold feet. I flew out to Boulder to help with the logistics etc.
The venue was packed with mostly “old dogs” and everyone really loved the teachings. There also was a definite undercurrent of “Why wasn’t he allowed to teach at the Center?” After the teachings were done Lama Pegyal (sp.?) – the husband of the Sakyong’s mother – came to have lunch with Rinpoche and receive teachings from him – it turns out that Rinpoche is one of his root gurus!
Interestingly, it turns out that the Sakyong was giving a Dzogchen teaching at RMSC the week following Wangdor Rinpoche’s visit.
I have recently come across yet another incarnation of Mipham .Quoting from the website of the Dharma Fellowship of His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa :Leslie George Dawson ,born in Toronto, Canada, in 1931.At the age of 27, on 28th October 1958, George Dawson received the vows of a novice monk, In December of the same year he was raised to full ordination in the Buddhist Order and became a Mendicant Monk, or Bhikshu, in the Great Ordination Hall at the south gate of the great golden Shve Dagon Pagoda in Rangoon, Burma. He was given the ordination name of Anandabodhi.In the mid 1960′s Bhikkshu Anandabodhi was recognized by His Holiness the 16th Karmapa, the supreme head of the Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism, as the reincarnation of the famous Nyingma Lama, Ju Mipham Namgyal Rinpoche. In front of a gathering of several hundred monks, nuns, yogis, yoginis and leading Lamas of the Kagyu school, the Gyalwa Karmapa officially enthroned Anandabodhi and bestowed on him the name and title of “Karma Tenzin Dorje Namgyal Rinpoche”. His Holiness gave to Rinpoche, as a sign of this recognition, various precious items that had previously belonged to Mipham. He was responsible for assisting Trungpa in founding the first Tibetan Buddhist monastery in the West, to be known as Samye Ling, but he turned over Johnstone House to Trungpa Rinpoche as the property which became Samye Ling.
A search on google will bring up several biographies.It is a amazing story and I often wonder why it is not more well known
Best Wishes to all
Phil
Perhaps we could have a discussion of what an appropriate policy would be for visiting teachers.
Chris’ posts have very little to do with the issue of visiting teachers and a lot to do with finding “ammunition” for use in criticizing Shambhala International.
The visiting teacher issue is important. The current policy gives local centers a great deal of discretion to invite teachers who have taught anywhere else in the mandala in the past. However, the policy makes clear that invitations are invitations from SMR and not from local centers. There is a sensitivity concerning topics to be taught — except where audiences are restricted to tantrikas and sadhakas, vajrayana topics are generally not topics that visiting teachers are asked to teach.
My question is — what alternative visiting teacher policies would you think are appropriate? What policy would most benefit newer and older practioners?
Here are some possible choices:
1. Let local centers invite whomever they want with no guidance, direction or mandate from Shambhala International. This would permit local centers to invite Wandor R. It would also permit local centers to invite Eckhardt Tolle, a local Gelukpa lama or a prominent yoga teacher — all of which could be good but which also could generate controversy.
2. Let local centers invite whomever they want but with suggestions but not direction from SI. Same comment as above.
3. Let local teachers invite whomever they want within a subset of available teachers with no restrictions on topics to be taught. There is a lot to be said for this approach. It gives great deference to the visiting teachers — but at the expense of possibly not integrating well with the Shambhala curriculum. It also raises other questions. For example, a lama such as Wangdor R. might introduce practices that are not taught broadly in Shambhala Centers. Would we then have local centers with study groups for different practices? A Wangdor R. study and practice group in Milwaukee and a Traleg R. study and practice group in Boston? How would this affect our cohesiveness as a Shambhala community?
4. Let local centers invite whomever they want within a subset of available teachers and give some guidance or mandate as to the content of what is requested to be taught. This is basically the current policy (the subset being teachers who have taught somewhere in the mandala previously and the content restriction relating to audiences for vajrayana subjects). There are gradations with this approach based on how broad the subset of teachers might be and the extent of restrictions as to topics requested.
5. Have all teachers and/or topics be approved by SI. This would have the advantage of creating a very uniform curriculum across the mandala but would tend to stifle local inspiration and leadership.
Since I am on the visiting teacher committee in Boston, I tend to chafe at restrictions and think that I know best. But I vote for some version of #4.
I think I hear Nero fiddlin’.
Robert
Re various Mipham tulkus, there’s also Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche, who also has a wife in the Gesar lineage, and whose son is the other Karmapa XVII.
Relevant here is a post John Whitney Petit tried to make (replying to an emailed comment won’t post your comment):
- Mark
Dear John Petit:
Are you also Mipham?
Robert
Dear John:
Some of us are well aware of Tulkus that manifest “differently” since we took care of one for 6 years. He was Trungpa Rinpoche’s son.and was recognized by the 16th Karmapa as Surmang Tendzin Rinpoche, as one of his teachers. He was certainly “different” , and Osel put him in state care because this community couldn’t find a way to support him, despite millions spent on Osel that same year. The same year this community was “marketing themselves” as the poster child for “diversity” and “inclusivity” compassion and serving others, including the “handicapped”. The year that there was a social service component added to the practices.
Placing your brother and CTR’s son in state care, bloated with drugs to keep him mellow, (the State’s first line of intervention) is a lot more “ignorant” and has more far reaching consequences in the long run , than calling Osel “dyslexic”. So please don’t lecture people about things that you can’t even imagine have occured in this community, and is not “foolish gossip” for as you say, you are not an insider.
You are preaching to the choir.
Chris
Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, from the film “Tulku”, dir. Gesar Mukpo:
“If the Tibetans are not careful, this tulku system is going to ruin Buddhism. And at the end of the day Buddhism is more important than the tulku system. Who *cares* about tulkus, what happens to them?”
Lama Sarah Harding, in an article entitled “Won’t It Be Grand?”, Tricycle, Fall 2001, speculating on how vajarayana might unfold in the West:
“So many would-be Napoleons, actors, and relatives of important people will be recognized as tulkus that pretty soon everyone will be recognized. The tulku institution will become irrelevant in the West, and we will understand that everyone has Buddha-nature waiting to be discovered.”
I’ve heard that the word “tulku” strictly speaking means “emanation body”. So in one sense I don’t think I’ve met anyone who wasn’t walking around with an emanation body, or a body resulting from transmigration.
If we’re all tulkus, I think my favorite tulkus are the ones who don’t lean too heavily on their credentials, but simply say what they think is best, and take responsibility for their actions.
If we say “I was empowered by His Highness So-and-so, and therefore any mistakes I make are his fault, or you have to pretend not to see any mistakes I make because I’m a ‘made-man’”… that doesn’t seem like such a good way to operate. We could setup an entire bureaucracy on that logic, where each of us is empowered by someone else and none of us has to be responsible for anything.
By the way, Chris and Robert, I appreciate the information you’ve shared here. And I often love your straightforward way of communicating.
Sometimes I’m reminded of how I forget to honor the basic goodness in other people, even when I’m not impressed by their actions. A little tonglen would probably make me a better communicator.
I personally don’t have a problem with million dollar homes, per se, or with the principle of having a ruler. If someone is going to model ruling his or her world for the sake of others, as a master-warrior, then it seems a great idea to spend more resources on it, you know, to make his or her enlightened actions more readily apparent. So I appreciate CTR’s vision and lifestyle in that sense. If CTR had lived in a tiny apartment somewhere by himself, there would be far fewer stories and lessons that he could have passed on.
So CTR’s vision is beautiful. But how that vision is implemented by particular individuals is a completely different matter.
I think it’s important to discuss these things openly and simply, in the hope that CTR’s teachings could be understood properly, both by ourselves and future generations.
By the way, I’m looking forward to reading more books written by VCTR’s students.
I’ve recommended previous books to friends of mine, and they have been extremely grateful to have read them. As have I.
Even if the exact mechanism for publishing your book is not clear, just writing such a book could be a wonderful exercise, and other questions could get resolved in due course.
In response to Jim Wilton’s suggestions:
It sounds all orderly and well thought out, but how and why restrictions are made is rather vague. If it is not made clear, or if the reasons don’t make sense, then suspicion arises.
The stories given here about how Wangdor Rinpoche, a Dzogchen teacher, was generously allowed but explicitly not sponsored or was distanced by the Milwaukee Shambhala Center, and how he was invited and then disinvited by the Boulder Center; a teacher who we are told here is the root guru of the husband of the Sakyong Mipham’s mother, is at best odd.
It gives the impression of protectionism rather than an effort to make valuable teachings available, or a concern for the well being of the students/members and their progress along the path.
There are many examples from the before times of respected teachers coming and giving more than what was expected or conventionally allowed. Many were the time tantrikas and sadhakas talked afterwards discussing the fact that teachings given were, we had thought, restricted. Even Trungpa Rinpoche himself sometimes gave talks to public audiences, mentioning things he had told us were secret. The idea of ‘self-secret’ was often brought up, what it means and implies. And Tonglen is now much more available due to Pema Chodrin graciously breaking the rules and giving instruction to audiences who had not yet taken refuge never mind Bodhisattva vows.
When Trungpa Rinpoche restricted access to our sangha, the reasons given were broadly understood by the community. I never had any sense that it was a protection from higher teachings we weren’t yet ready for.
There was concern that some were charlatans or were trying to lure students, or teachings he thought a distraction at that time, like Chöd practice. I also heard it was rule that visiting teachers not give meditation instruction because of Trungpa Rinpoche’s unique approach, which most Tibetan teachers either didn’t understand or didn’t respect, but to restrict a genuine Dzogchen teacher who has familial ties? Why?
There are other ways to frame the issue, rather than the linear 1-5 list of possibilities. This list posits an implied linear scale from most liberal to most restrictive, most open to most closed, or of most risk to safest.
If one were to brainstorm in a wider more Shambhalian way about what is best for disseminating the idea of sacred world into all walks of life, how Shambhala could lead or at least facilitate that aim, I think we could come up with at least a couple of other ways to frame this that were not as restrictive as scales of risk or permissiveness, while nevertheless not threatening whatever it is Shambhala truly does need to have protected, ways that could demonstrate and even exalt the Shambhala vision.
The Buddhist Christian Conferences, while not exactly parallel, might be a place to look for examples or ways of dealing with ‘other’ teachings, or of thinking outside the box and off the scales.
In the inspiration that “Yes = No. The difference lies only in the question
“Placing your brother and CTR’s son in state care, bloated with drugs to keep him mellow, (the State’s first line of intervention) is a lot more “ignorant” and has more far reaching consequences in the long run , than calling Osel “dyslexic”. So please don’t lecture people about things that you can’t even imagine have occured in this community, and is not “foolish gossip” for as you say, you are not an insider.”
Chris, I will no longer allow you to spread your foolish lies around the community about Taggie and his care. Your desire to use his condition in your efforts to smear people and the community is disgusting, and speaks volumes to your character. More than once I have genuinely questioned whether have ever actually cared about him.
Taggie is extremely well cared for and in a very good place right now. There is a website that I encourage anyone with an interest to visit, taggiemukpo.org, where you can see for yourself the personality of his caretaker and the program that she has him on. I would never let you within thirty yards of Taggie ever again Chris; the consensus among the professionals is that your methods of “controlling” him (remember when you told me that you had to “show Taggie who’s boss”?), were borderline abusive. On the phone, you spoke to me of attacks and biting, and needing to spray him with water and force him to stand in the corner. There has been none of that since Erin took over, despite your predictions that he would terrorize her because she was not authoritative enough. What I see between those two is maturity, love, respect, and communication…and for their sake I am not going to let that comment fly.
“bloated with drugs to keep him mellow”
You have not so much as laid eyes on Taggie in years, Chris. You have spread rumors and innuendo about him since the day I first spoke to you, and your advice has been consistently wrong and borderline dangerous. Taggie is happy and well cared for, he has a group of people who care deeply about him (and are experienced professionals) who rotate shifts living with him at Bumi Phali Bhavan. The way you have viciously used him in your attempts to prove your point of view is repellent. I will not entertain conversation with you on this; that ship sailed a long time ago, but as his brother I won’t continue to allow you to spread more of your lies and falsehoods about how he is doing right now. The fact is that Taggie has been exposed to more stimulation, learning exercises, and new experiences in the past year than in the past twenty. He eats healthily and even visited New York last year, having left Vermont for the first time since he was a child. I cannot say what will happen when Erin eventually moves on, but I can tell you that based on your patterns of advice and the actions you suggested, I wouldn’t even entertain asking for your thoughts.
Stop talking about a situation you have no understanding of anymore. It is hurtful, and more importantly, harmful to Taggie. Have a little respect for him even if you cannot manage to respect anyone else.
http://taggiemukpo.org/index.php?page=current-caregivers
Edward, I enjoyed your latest post and your common sense logic, as usual. But I’d like to share my own impression or memory of CTR’s lifestyle. He didn’t build himself palaces, and did not have a lavish, ostentatious, or extravagant lifestyle. He had one large house at a time in Boulder, plus one modest dwelling at Karme-Chöling and one at RMDC (SMC). The houses at KCl and RMDC were not reserved for his exclusive use – visiting teachers stayed in them as well, when he wasn’t there. In the early years at RMDC he stayed in a funky little old-fashioned trailer (“mobile home”), where he seemed quite content. The large house in Boulder accommodated some of his staff (who were students, of course) as well as his family. There always seemed to be non-staff students rotating in and around his homes, performing different service functions. It was a privilege to serve the guru in whatever way was needed, on a volunteer basis, and there was an atmosphere of openness and trust.
Trungpa Rinpoche made a big point – to me at least – of the difference between elegance and extravagance. He taught that elegance did not require a lot of resources. His style was much more do-it-yourself ecological ‘Dharma Art’ than the excessive ostentation of the sheiks of Dubai, for example, with their gold and marble bathroom fixtures and disrespectful disregard for the limited resources of the Earth. CTR enjoyed simplicity, was very earthy, and everything he did was a teaching. That, at least, was my observation and experience of his lifestyle.
Thank you, James Elliott, for your questions about Jim Wilton’s post. I found myself pondering it as well. I appreciate your account of the restrictions on visiting teachers while CTR was alive and feel it is accurate. But I also had the impression that when high lamas, such as HH Karmapa, HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, and HH Dudjom Rinpoche visited the Vajradhatu sangha with their entourages, CTR directly invited them, with a great deal of Tibetan protocol observed, and then personally hosted them to a certain extent. Those visits were intense training sessions for us students, as you probably remember, in more ways than one.
What strikes me most about the difference between then and what I hear about now is the sense of territoriality that seems to characterize the current approach, which I never felt with CTR. As you say, James: “It gives the impression of protectionism rather than an effort to make valuable teachings available, or a concern for the well being of the students/members and their progress along the path.”
Of course, it’s true that there is a lot more ‘competition’ in the dharma field now than there was 30+ years ago. There are a lot more qualified Tibetan Buddhist teachers – both Tibetan and Western – available in the West now than there were when CTR took the stage. Is that why there is more protectionism and territoriality in SI?
But here’s an interesting question that you bring up: “If one were to brainstorm in a wider more Shambhalian way about what is best for disseminating the idea of sacred world into all walks of life, how Shambhala could lead or at least facilitate that aim, … while nevertheless not threatening whatever it is Shambhala truly does need to have protected, ways that could demonstrate and even exalt the Shambhala vision.”
If Shambhala were not mixed into and amalgamated into Tibetan Buddhism, and were simply presented on its own, would there be any competition, any need for territorial protectionism? Is the creation of “Shambhala Buddhism” – instead of letting Shambhala Training stand on its own – the reason that SI is so restrictive instead of open? Or . . .?
Hmmm?
Dear Ashoka Levy:
This is a reply to you shitty, scandalous attacks on my wife, Christine.:.
- We keep talking about Tagi being in state care, because he is in state care now, has been for several years, and no matter how you dress it up, and no matter how wonderful the caretaker/architects are,, he is still in state care.
-If anyone , you or anyone else, has any questions about the program that the Chandlers designed, and implemented for 6 years, please call Jeanine Hawkins at Northeast Kingdom Mental Health Center in St johnsbury Vt.
-Tagi has been paying rent to Karme Choling on the little house he is in for many years.The State pays for his care, pays his room and board and the salary of his caretakers.
-We have talked about Tagi being in state care in public, because it has always been our belief that Tagi would be much happier, living in his community, cared for by people who love him.
- You and your family, no matter how much you dress it up, have NEVER, and I mean NEVER been responsible for Tagi, financially or emotionally.-We have talked about Tagi being in state care, because unlike the Shambhala community, we felt that not keeping Tagi in the community , and building million dollar houses for the Sakyong, and millions on expansion, globally , runs counter to any sort of bodhisattva activity
.-To state it plainly, once more, we have mentioned Tagi being in state care, because he is in state care, and you and your family are pretending to the larger community that he is NOT in state care, with a website, to fundraise for extra respite monies to look like your are responsible, whenyou could easily afford to quietly do this yourselves. . . On a more personal note, you are obviously an ignorant meddler, who knows nothing about the history of Tagi’s caretaking.
You , yourself , have no standing in this community to talk about either mundane, or dharmic matters, as you have no training, or experience in any of these things. You are only tolerated because your mother was married to our teacher. It is sad that you are so thick that you have to be talked to this way.
To address your last paragraph: this is a response to your letter. We have great love and respect for Tagi, but none for you, your brother, or your family because of how you have neglected him over the years. You are a parasite, and parasites like you are what has ruined this community. You have dumped your brother on state care rather than be responsible for him, when your family could well afford it. You are promoting a CULT that is causing and has caused great pain and suffering, because you make no distinction betwen lies and truth and steal with both hands by your incessant fundraising, Yours in theTRUECommand,
Robert B. Chandler
Hi everyone.
In the past I have sometimes stirred up things a bit on this site when I felt people were being too polite to have a real conversation.
But the other extreme is being too certain of our judgments about others. If we tell someone “you are this, you are that” it’s like we’re trying to hurt someone with our labels. We’ve given up on the other party, and we’d rather relate to our labels than to the other person as they are.
In my old sangha we had a discipline about speech. If we were really upset with someone, we were supposed to say “I didn’t like it when you did X” or “I felt great pain when you did Y” and then be as specific and accurate as possible.
This makes us appear like a vulnerable human being with a soft spot, and avoids the seductive effort to imprison our enemy with concepts and labels.
But otherwise, in some settings conflict and disagreement could be very creative, I’ve found, with tremendous energy and accuracy.
[VCTR, March, 1971, from the unpublished poetry:]
.
.
.
There was a crescendo…
…of energy at the birth of Tagtrug.
Vajrapani flies in the space –
The action of tiger’s leap bridges the valley.
Richard Reoch Shambhala Day address 2003: “This weekend I was at Karme Choling, where they are also having a tough time. I have a special message for everyone in the shrine room there. I hope you can hear me Karme Choling! I’d just like to remind you all that in addition to your usual gift, whatever extra you can give today will go to help Karme Choling.
While I was there last weekend I asked if I could visit and honour Tagi Mukpo, whom I had not met before. I want everyone who is concerned about Tagi to know that despite whatever you may have heard, we are exploring options for his long-term care. We are doing this in conjunction with his family. Despite the huge pressures we face at the international level, we are committed to his care while we look together with his family at way to give him long-term support”.
Truth:
What is really happening at the planning level re: his care by 2005 at the Congress::
Summary of New Economic Model at 2005 Congress.
“This is a recommendation for a new approach to funding the core services provided by
Shambhala to its centers, groups and members.
A Key feature is::
Karme Choling: For many years Karme Choling bore a large financial burden in
providing support for the care of Tagi Mukpo. That burden has been relieved”.
By 2005, the “primary stakeholders”, have asured he he is in almost full state care. By 2007, that has been accomplished. He is in total state care.
What do the spinmeisters, and family do, however? The website continues to obfiscate this important fact, by stating they are in in “partnership with the state” even though the state now has full control over his programming, where he lives, who he lives with and the type of care that is provided and take care of all his expenses. When this caretaker goes, the state decides what is next. Adding insult to injury, you fundraise for a few thousand that would pay an extra caregiver, monies a loving family would pay for themselves,by the way, particularly one as rich as this one.This website keeps it looking like he is NOT iin state care. To add injury to insult, TAKES CREDIT FOR HIS STATE CARE. A brother, who hadn’t visited Tagi in 25 years, but is now, after biyearly visits an expert on his care.
There are no words to describe what you have done and your family have done over the years with Tagi, Ashoka, i.e. your abandonment, and your pretense regarding his care and your disregard and lack of respect for everyone that has picked up your familily’s burden, . A as I said to you , when you last wrote me, do not every ever contact me, until you take your lies off that website, and tell the truth. TAGI IS IN STATE CARE, IT is not that he is in State care, its the lies. Its all about the lying…. and the selfishness and the arrogance and ingratitude. Everytime you post on here,I hope you help newer students stay away from you and all of you, pretending to be something you are not. If I could, I wouln’t let anyone get near you all with a ten-foot pole. I would consider it my samaya to CTR and my bodhisattva activity
Edward I too would welcome more books by older students of CTR and his relationship with them in the US and Europe.
Also I would welcome more cds on the meditation process that just CTR taught. I bought a tape by Pema and the Sakyongs advice on his take on meditation was on it as well. I would prefer just the straight old teachings of CTR on meditation. I have just looked on the shambhala shop website and I cant find any stuff on CTR’s description of the meditation process. As it seems meditation cds are now in vogue -it would be great if an older student could put forward a literal take on CTR’s description of the
meditation process. Perhaps a two cd affair would suffice on this.
I welcome Pemas other cds on Tonglen and the one on being hooked but one just on Trungpa’s description of samatha and vipassana would be great aswell.
I suppose such a cd would be an issue of dissent aswell but then I believe you have to leave it up to history to decide on this aswell.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
I can recommend the books by Rigdzin Shikpo (Michael Hookham). “Never Turn Away” is easily available in the USA, and is excellent. An earlier one is perhaps a little more detailed on CTR’s formless practice – “Openness Clarity Sensitivity” but is currently difficult to get in the USA. The Longchen Foundation people are I believe working on setting up a paypal option on their website which should make US purchasing easier. His writing is excellent, and he holds CTR’s Maha-Ati lineage – with the blessing and encouragement of CTR, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso.
I’ve recently had some conversations with some old dogs who have become inspired by the Scorpion Seal retreat, and feel that SMR is truly beginning to manifest as the Sakyong. I’m glad to hear it. For me, the central questionthat manifests on this site….whether or not SMR is fulfilling the wishes of his father….how ever you want to phrase it…is beginning to become a moot point.
I thought recently that the whole controversy is similar to what happened with the Regent, in the sense that people have taken sides in this. A number of years ago, after the Regent had died and things had cooled down a bit, I had a conversation with Yeshe Fuchs. We agreed that during that time of turmoil, the ones that suffered the most were those that took a strong position on either side of the debate….and the ones that weathered that storm more successfully were those that concentrated on their practice at that time. Tho the circumstances are different, that message still rings true to me in regards to what is happening vis a vis our opinions about SMR. Albeit we have waited years for SMR to manifest, if that is in fact what’s happening, it takes the wind out of my sails personally. The students of SMR may be somewhat overly defensive and prideful…and the cynics, such as myself, may be overly all-knowing…but if my old dog friends are being inspired by SMR, who am I to dispute that?
Many of us “olders” had to move on to other teachers to continue our paths. Nothing wrong with that. My teacher, Khandro Rinpoche, has helped me a lot, and I am following her teaching thread to much benefit.
And I think it’s foolish to think that Shambhala is the only track that works at this time…that somehow the other traditions and paths are no longer
effective. But if SMR is manifesting in the way people are telling me that is indeed wonderful. It doesn’t mean I’ll drop what I’m doing and rush back
to the fold. I might not have the time or resources to pursue what the Sakyong is doing. as well as my work with H.E. V. K. R. That’s ok because my connection to VCTR is unwavering and I feel I’ve received the heart of the Shambhala teachings.
It also doesn’t mean that RFS no longer has a purpose. There are areas
that still need to be monitored…financial transparency, governance,
and the conduct of administrators and Acharyas all need the light still shining on them. But, as far as the core debate goes, for me, I feel there are more important concerns…such as preparing for death. I think, perhaps, much of our longing and hand wringing is because we really
do want SMR to be successful. If the signs are true, for me, it’s time to let go of that part of the debate.
Dear Michael
Thanks for the reference to the meditation teachings by CTR – I had not heard of the second one you quoted ie Openness, Clarity, Sensitivity -is that a book or an article? Does any one know how you can get hold of it in cyberspace?
Re John’s comment on the Sakyong -its interesting his take on things and referring it back to the Regent crisis as a comparison. Myself I really tried to investigate the Regent affair at the time and as I reported earlier on another post I think how it panned out badly is that people did not question what was going on enough in the establishment.
Re the present situation there are many different approaches emerging as to how the shambhala teachings are to be carried forward. There is
Marks version of Shambhala Vision and its being applicable to many religions for example and indeed for the Scorpion Seal Retreat to be open to them in perhaps another format. Reading Mark’s take on things I have found nothing on this site which would disprove this from happening as he reported and my own inclination and understanding of the Shambhala teachings would support this viewpoint aswell.
We are all practicing, I hope, and my viewpoints on the teachings have been based on this aswell. So yes the Sakyong is manifesting his way but I also think there can be other ways of getting to the nub of the Shambhala teachings. Also I have not just based this viewpoint just on Marks take on things but have been having conversations with a lot of other people aswell.
I just have the feeling that at this present time that people in the west have to create their own connections to these teachings somewhat free of the Tibetan tradition and hierarchy – I suppose one could use they often quoted phrase ‘paradigm shift ‘and surely this must have happened too when the teachings were transported from India to Tibet and the various countries in the East.
So we have lineage and a shift in consciousness in the west – I personally go with the second as this is how history processes forward – this path might not be so structured as that envisaged by SI but it is a good way to go as well I believe.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
O yes and I had a poem for danny g……..
In Honour of the Holy Clown Allen Ginsberg
All Praise to the Holy Trinity Ginsberg, Kerouac, Burroughs!
Playing the stones record
I opened the door
And slipped into the cave of non-thought
Where the monster looked in the mirror
Transported to the heavenly mountain
Where the Angels kissed
I sang the song of dissolution.
Whoops…….whoops!
Eaten by the ferocious jaws
I came into the bedroom.
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
There are times when there is a window of opportunity to end corruption, to call corruption for what it is. That can be compassionate action.
Or, one can indirectly serve as a vehicle for “discussion”, “letting off steam” a disempowered arm of the very corrupted entity, that continues to enable and serve the corruption, by talking around it, endlessly discussing all its permutations, etc because one wants to be a “good buddhist”, civil and all that. Indirectly supporting the very thing one is trying to change.
It is true that things “are perfect as they are” in all their permutations, and why not relax about it? So what, that the so-called “models of virture” fall far, far from the ideal. The important thing is the delusion, that people are content and happy. We can take our happy pills and let the powers that be, carry on as usual, fool us, strip us of our monies, our energies and time.We will good peasants. We will bring up the issues, only to titulate our intellectual prowesses, our poetic urges. We don’t really want to “rock the boat.” It’s just too painful. Of course we are ignoring our wrathful aspects of bodhisattva activity, and we have been just too conditioned over the decades as good little servants. Some of us feel that it is not alright to fool people over and over and so we just go away. As 85% of this community of older students have done. We have been surprised to learn, when we go outside this mandala, that other lamas are well aware of the deceptions and corruption and even say “what took you so long” when we start seeing through the facade. But they are Asian, and for them , it is bad form to call something like it is. It would take a Padmasambhava, or a Trungpa Rinpoche , and they don’t come along often. So we will continue to send in our dues, and send more monies to the endless fundraising events like good little “buddhists” or what we think of as budhhism. And our window of opportunity to cut through this monkey show will have been lost. We will support a “retreat” which might be really a golf retreat the last time, we won’t ask any questions;,and we will send in our monies to let a family pretend that they have not abandoned their brother and son all these years, first by letting the sangha totally take care of him and now the State, and we will let the family pretend out of their shame, and we wont demand that finally they take responsibility themselves. At least to take down that website, which is just another fundraiser.And so what if the son has demolished everything that CTR stood for, and that this son wouldn’t even have a mandala without the back breaking sacrifices of CTR’s older students. We will just quietly “go into the night.” We will ignore Gyatrul Rinpoche’s warning in 1990, when he said to the sangha “The Sawang is here to take care of you, you are not here to take care of him”. Instead we will enable, and enable and enable, and equivocate, and “discuss”, until CTR’s legacy is so unrecognizable, that he has simply become a “trademark” for a corporation bleeding everyone dry. ho HUM
Well done, wrathful dakini! Sometimes, when ignorance and delusion are thick, as in the “thick, black fog of materialism,” the corruption has to get so bad that things fall apart, which finally serves to wake people up. Hoping that things won’t fall apart, propping them up in spite of the signs of corruption, doesn’t stop the decay. Best to jump ship and do whatever creative work for the good that one feels called to. Some (many) of us have already taken that path.
Meanwhile, here is a delightful interview with Khandro Rinpoche on BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00431gj/The_Interview_05_09_2009_Khandro_Rinpoche/
Rita – “Openness Clarity Sensitivity” is a book, and you should go to the longchenfoundation.com website and order it – easy for you, since they want payment in British currency – I had to use Western Union and pay 15$ in fees over and above cost + shipping to get it sent to the US. Still, well worth it! I also ordered a pamphlet called “Formless Meditation and the Dying Process” which was very good.
After reading the 2 books and the pamphlet, my impression is that he (Rigdzin Shikpo) seems to be committed to teaching CTR’s Ati legacy with much less of the Tibetan cultural overlay, and firmly based on the formless practice that CTR taught. I don’t know if he ever gets to the US to teach.
BTW my feeling was that much of the turmoil around the Regent’s behavior and subsequent fallout was due to the way that the organization dealt with it. My involvement with the organization ended then. My connection with CTR did not end – it hasn’t, and it won’t – but from then on I really could not stomach the “nothing to see here, move along” politics. The collective opportunity to learn an important lesson was squandered, and I think that the Shambhala sangha is still paying that price so many years later.
Well said, John.
The thing about corruption in the Shambhala Kingdom is that no one is going to deal with that corruption except the Sakyong himself…whichever Sakyong it is. For one thing, no one is going to impeach the Sakyong.
It’s interesting to read the comments by Jigme Phuntsok on the Chronicles site in regards to this…http://www.chronicleproject.com/tributes/26.html.
While the debate here has been useful for me in terms of airing out my head,
I think it doesn’t mean a whit in terms of altering the way SMR is moving forward with Shambhala. The ones supporting him, I feel, certainly have to
be watched, because it appears that they are not about to police themselves..
We have been surprised to learn, when we go outside this mandala, that other lamas are well aware of the deceptions and corruption and even say “what took you so long” when we start seeing through the facade. But they are Asian, and for them, it is bad form to call something like it is.
Yes, this is interesting.
I think Asian teachers are willing to drop some hints but then let people figure things out for themselves.
If a person is determined to worship and make excuses for a corrupted teacher, who am I to interfere? They might ask.
I’ve heard that many Rinpoches were terrified of CTR, yet I’ve read very few comments he made about other teachers (after coming to North America). How did he do this, I wonder. It probably has something to do with having a very precise understanding of territory and aggression and so on.
I would love to read a book someday by some of CTR’s students who assisted him in various capacities– relating to other teachers and their organizations, providing kasung service, etc.
Since CTR’s successor has eliminated CTR’s students from skilled service roles that they might have wanted to continue for many years, maybe this opens up a door for other activities like book-writing.
In a way, reading a book by one of CTR’s students is just as powerful as reading CTR’s own transcripts. It can even be more powerful, because it can capture more of what CTR communicated. If a teachers’ words are perfectly suited to the environment in which they’re given, then only reading the words only gives part of the story.
Interviews are also good, extremely good, but the advantage of writing a book (of any length) is that in the re-writing process, details often come out that were previously forgotten or unclear.
“The thing about corruption in the Shambhala Kingdom is that no one is going to deal with that corruption except the Sakyong himself”
What can you do about corruption? You shout it from the rooftops, like CTR told us in Lids and Flowers” when he said “be a town crier” you publish it in newpapers that he has put his brother in STATE CARE, for example, while spending millions on himself, and yet still fundraises from the sangha for a few thousand to pay for a little extra respite care for the State worker. . You tell the family to “once and for all pay for this themselves” and that’s the very least they can do , after years of neglect and shuffling their responsibility onto others. , If they care so much , as they now say, about their son and brother.. can’t we at least expect that much from them? We tell them to grow up and be adults and take responsibilty..
We say NO NO NO to the endless fundraising that has equated dana, generosity , the first paramita, with keeping keeping the teacher in lavish robes , pastries and pies? Is this 19th century Russia?
You make sure SMR is really going on a retreat, instead of like last time, when he was golfing for most of it on the CAPE. You monitor that he is doing what he says he is doing. It might help him actually do a retreat this time.
You stop acting like 14th c. slaves and peasants, If you want this mandala to be a mandala for Western students , in the West. We are not in 14 c Tibet. And we don’t allow people to treat us like we are peasants and slaves. They can only do this if we let them, and this is not keeping samaya with us. It is using us to keep their lavish lifestyle and has nothing to do with the dharma. Samaya goes both ways.And corrupt regimes count on people keeping quiet. They use a false idea about samaya to keep us trembling and disempowered. It is a terrible use of the dhama and it shouldn’t be allowed.
The regent debacle didn’t just happen because of the regent. It happen, because people were cowards and kept quiet about his sleeping around, even when knowing he had AIDS. The community , in their silence, were collaborators and enablers throughout that debacle. The same people who are keeping silent now. Good God, we are the people who smell the flesh burning outside the camps, and keep quiet. It is us, when we keep quiet about corruption, deceit and lies. We are helping to perpetuate it. it.
Don’t we owe something to those new students, who come into this mandala because they read CTR books, or heard about his teachings?
This is actually bigger than being about SI’s corruption. It is about saying NO to a import of Tibetan monastic/aristrocratic corruption being imported into the West everywhere, the very thing that CTR warned us about and didn’t want to happen here. Protesting this in every form, inside and outside Shambhala International, is keeping samaya with CTR, and only helping to really plant the dharma in the WEst. It is not just about Shambhala International. Isn’t that the least we can do after all that our teacher gave to us?.
And yes, someone should write the book. Consider it bodhisattva activity.
I appreciate your energy Chris.
I think overcoming idiot compassion is one of the most difficult things, the thing people try the hardest to avoid doing.
We want more than anything to appear “good”, “kind” and “compassionate”– or sort of wise and aloof– no matter what the cost, no matter what kind of nonsense we end up tolerating, enabling, reinforcing.
If there weren’t so many of us on this planet who would do anything– anything!– to continue our idiot compassion, there would be far fewer corrupt leaders, I’m convinced. Our insistence on acting like children guarantees that skilled manipulators appear to fill the vacuum. The universe is always willing to provide us the lessons we demand of it.
. . . .
Regarding book-writing, I think just about anyone can write a book– anyone who has had a couple learning experiences, or occasional contact with someone like Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. It doesn’t require any sort of fancy job description any sort of credential to be able to tell a story that could benefit many, many people.
Yes, Chris, you’re angry…and not without reason….but I just don’t think
that anger is going to help you….in fact, it is poisonous for you. I do think it’s good to point out the things you are talking about..Even more, using Mr Karelis as an example, it’s good to point out specific short comings and
misdeeds we perceive. It’s good to have RFS, so that there is at least one unfiltered debate going on. I’m not denying any of that. All I was trying to say that if SMR ripens into what he could be, it’s possible that the whole mandala could change…no guarantees, of course….but if it is going to change, that’s where it has to start. There are people that will follow SMR’s lead where ever it goes. There are always people like that….some who think, and some who don’t. But comparing the situation to German’s around Hitler is a bit rabid, I think. And the different p.o. v.’s are out there for any of the newer students to access if they want to. The statement I made that you quoted is more of an overview rather than an apology
for SMR’s specific activities. I agree that the Mukpo family is a bit spoiled
and over indulged. It wouldn’t happen if people weren’t willing to do that.
So, please continue contributing your views. I just hope you don’t suffer too much because of them.
Dear John:
I was directing my remarks to the generic you, not “you, you”. And I disagree. What is poisoness for everyone has been not getting angry enough at outrageous behaviors.
Of course SI is not Hitler Germany. But are they operating as fascist /corporate systems operate? I say yes. And that’s how it starts. All German’s weren’t rabid racists, they were ordinary citizens, that just “went along” to not make waves. That was my point. From what I can see from Buddhist sheep everywhere these days, not just SI, I now understand how there could be a Pol Pot, and imperialistic/militaristic Japan. One can use Buddhism to reinforce frightening conformity. That’s seems to be the general direction, i.e. don’t question, don’t cause waves, don’t get angry, that would be so unbuddhist. I was shocked by what Bill Karelis revealed about the Kasung and the Achryas these days, and not much shocks me about SI. I say that is the opposite of what the Buddha taught. Studies have shown that chanting and marching can be used to institute unquestioning conformity, kind of mass delusion , if it isn’t balanced by critical thinking and deciding for oneself what is true.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8302474/The-Way-of-Maha-Ati
The Way of Maha Ati by Chogyam Trungpa and Rigdzin Shikpo
Examining the teacher and questioning the dharma has always been
part of the Buddhist path. VCTR was very clear about this. I don’t know whether or not these ideas are part of peoples’ education in Shambhala at this point. Perhaps some of the newer students that read this thread could let us know.
Ultimately, it’s a lonely path. Chris, if you believe that anger is a helpful response, then you are seriously confused.
There are three ways to address anger in a practice context. All of them are good. The first is neither to indulge it nor to suppress it — just experience the intensity and discomfort. Dzigar Kongtrul R. analogizes it to burning karma.
The second is to touch the anger — understand that it is a habit of mind and let it break your heart. This is the Mahayana approach.
The third is the most difficult — to be awake and compassionate and without a sense of territory or self and other while experiencing anger. The closest analogy would be a mother’s anger at a child who is reaching up to touch a hot stove.
The anger that you are expressing, Chris, is none of these. It is just an expression of pain.
Mr. Wilton, thanks for sharing those remarks about anger.
The first is neither to indulge it nor to suppress it — just experience the intensity and discomfort.
Yes. I wonder if we can also do this with the anger of other people. Feel the discomfort without trying to suppress it.
The anger that you are expressing… is just an expression of pain.
I am not competent to comment on this. But I wonder if pain is a stranger to anger, even when the anger is “good”?
Chris has some valid points and some not. I don’t agree with her at all that there is a small window of opportunity to change things, or the call for revolution, but do think it of paramount importance to discuss these things openly for a bunch of reasons.
That being said.
The 3 valid ways to work with anger as presented here are one reason Buddhists get the reputation of not giving a shit about others while ignoring the world in pursuit of their own personal happiness.
As I understand what Mr. Wilton is saying, we have only these three ways to work with anger in a valid way and… that’s it. Otherwise anger is “just an expression of pain’ and is somehow OK to disregard as a valid statement of… anything worth regarding.
Well from all I understand pain is something valid. It’s the reason we practice and take bodhisattva vows. Expressions of pain, even if it were valid to cubby-hole all Chris has said in that way (I don’t think it is, but if it were…), then one would still have to acknowledge that pain came from something.
In Buddhism 101 you can say it all comes from mind, therefore ignore everything else and work only on that. At other levels, while that holds true in some sense, we nevertheless have vows and skillful means and forms of action in order to nurture what needs to be nurtured, destroy what needs to be destroyed, or to very simply help in order to lighten someone’s load, in order to alleviate suffering.
Buddhism is not in any way limited, as that list may suggest, to navel gazing when bad stuff is encountered. Again if that were so, Buddhism’s rap as an escapist trip would be deserved.
There are just too many examples that make this a no-brainer. Anyone who is a parent and has a child who has been abused and immediately takes refuge in these kinds of teachings in order to avoid feeling anger is frankly psychotic. If we see things like that in our lives and we choose to simply float back into our mantra to avoid rather natural humane, sometimes compassionate reactions, then in my view we must be missing a couple of critical synapses or something. I’ve encountered people who tried to operate as if these kinds of list are universal rules, and the reactions I have seen on occasion have been creepy and disturbing, not inspiring in any way. They were people I would not want on my team.
I saw Trungpa Rinpoche get angry. He didn’t get angry and then do some inner thingy to get rid of it. He expressed it directly so that others understood what it was about, what had caused it, and what needed to be done.
Anger as a constant is poison, no question. But sometimes it is an appropriate or useful reaction to something in order to stop something bad from happening. Like a father yelling angrily at a child to get out of the street.
But even if it is ‘just pain’ (hey all you wimps out there), that too can’t be simply disregarded, if we take the teachings to heart. That‘s what it’s all about.
In the inspiration that to everything there is a time
[VCTR, from postcard appeal for Vajradhatu Planned Annual Giving, Autumn 1984:]
.
.
AUTUMN
Time to bear fruit –
No hesitation.
The entire world is ripe –
Generosity drools.
James, a bow to your last post. One of my favorite on the site. So important to say, and you say it so well. Thank you.
[After viewing the clips at NFB of Gesar Mukpo’s “Tulku” and Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s appearance in the trailer:]
.
.
l(a
le
af
fa
ll
s)
one
l
iness
e.e. cummings [1894-1962]
Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, “Dead Leaf”
[A collage of allusions to "dead leaf" as taught by HEDKR at 2007
Uttaratantra, Vancouver, excerpted from transcription pp. 60-68,
128, 176 and 237, and lightly woven into a single discourse.]
Imagine, you open your window in the morning and the first thing you see is a dead leaf falling. Or you can completely NOT see it – just like the native Americans never saw the ships, just like that I’m sure. Many of us don’t even see it.
Or you might see it but from a certain angle such as ‘O I have to rake those fallen leaves again’, with that kind of ignorance or unknowing.
Or if you are one of those poets, there’s an opportunity to write some poetry, ‘Dead leaf, dead leaf old haggard decaying o how old am I,’ you understand, ‘I’m getting old, season’s changing, feeling sad.’
So you go back to the meditation cushion – just because of that dead leaf – shamatha vipashyana, more and more compassion, more and more renunciation mind, all of that, and read the words of the Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical Buddha.
All this is done because there is Buddha within, the Buddha-nature. This dead leaf is not having any intention, such as ‘Wait a minute, he’s going to open the curtain and then I will fall, and then lead him through the shamatha vipashyana and all of that.’ No, no intention.
Because it is your Buddha-nature projecting, it’s a Buddha activity. ‘Spontaneously-arising spontaneously-accomplished activity’ it’s called. Later you can think of and thank Shakyamuni Buddha, ‘Thank you for sending this dead leaf.’
You can give the credit of this Buddha activity to Shakyamuni Buddha – that will only enhance your merit more. That’s the trick. Meanwhile, dead leaf, all of this has no intention, no intention.
This is how the Buddha’s blessing works. You can still pray to the Shakyamuni Buddha, because Shakyamuni Buddha, historical Buddha, golden light Buddha and that dead leaf, as far as bringing you to the Dharma – there’s no difference. This is how the Buddha’s manifestation works.
See, there’s no intention – so compassionate that actually the leaf decided to fall in front of you who are the receiver of the compassion. It could have fallen behind you. There are others who do not even notice it. We have so much temporary defilement that we don’t even see it.
It is your karma, but in this case we call it good karma, which is good. The decision of good and bad is usually made by the Mahayana people in this way – anything that brings you closer to the Buddha-nature is good.
You can even pray for that, actually. Shantideva has verses like ‘May I become a bridge, may I become medicine for those who are sick,’ and so on. So, for instance, you can pray ‘May I become a falling leaf for those who are about to pass through the middle-age crisis,’ or something like that…
[continued]
[DKR, "Dead Leaf" continued:]
.
.
.
…The Buddha-nature within the Dalai Lama, all the Rinpoches, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, stray dogs and maggots, all of these – there’s no difference.
Tulku means ‘manifestation.’ How important the tulku is depends so much on the receiver also. If you are a good receiver like a ninth-bhumi Bodhisattva, almost everything is a spontaneous manifestation of the Buddha’s compassion.
Tulku is like the dead leaf, remember? Tulku is a dead leaf. The receiver’s Buddha-nature is actually the main director, you see – the producer, the director, everything. Shakyamuni Buddha is just pictures on the celluloid, on the screen.
Also literally nowadays the tulku situation has become like a dead leaf. But somehow it’s amazing, how can we not believe in karma and karmic debt? Whatever tulkus like myself say, you just keep on buying more – that’s karmic debt. Karma is actually like this, no logic.
Okay, now let’s go back to your example of me and all of this. Your having the Buddha-nature, your devotion to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha has led to this occasion. Through this devotion you hear me teaching. You think: ‘He’s the manifestation of Chökyi Lodrö and all this blahblahblah.’
And that becomes the cause for more merit, you understand? So then like the dead leaf that I am, I will manifest as Chökyi Lodrö’s incarnation for you. And this takes care of your path very well.
By the way, that paranoia thing that you have done something you think is wrong so you’re all worked up, you’re all nervous, you’re going to your master and then you think he knows – that paranoia is a blessing, by the way.
By having that paranoia, you behave much better in the future, you understand? So that’s like the dead leaf. That paranoia, that guilt, that sort of nervousness is like the dead leaf, so that’s good.
Anyway, beyond the paranoia and some kind of assumption and presumption, we don’t have a world. There is no other kind of a world that is not a presumption or assumption. It’s all like that.
[End]
greetings all~
following the suggestions to pause, i realize how i feel like i must sneak into your company. and then i realize, i feel like i’ve been sneaking around for the 21 years i’ve been in the company of this sangha, never quite sensing i belonged anywhere & yet feeling touched by people & teachings.
i’m one of those monkey in the middle sangha folk: i came into the sangha in 1988 and climbed around on the cosmic jungle gym taking refuge here and bodhisattva there: i dont mean that casually, i just mean there was no one place to go for those steps:i obviously didnt know the fabric of the community was being ripped apart. but over the years i began to piece things together. as best that shattered pieces of glass could be hobbled together. images begin to arise: images of the stained glass windows from churches in europe that were destroyed. post war, some local citizens began reassembling the sacred images, purposefully allowing the new images to be slightly jagged and imperfect but they still allowed light to shine through.
my heart is weary of the oppression i’ve experienced over the years: the oppression of dissent being squelched. being told if i questioned certain things, i was told to experience ‘doubtlessness’ more. through the support of elders in the sangha, i have become a sadhaka but i have stayed away from becoming a meditation instructor or a teacher. i long to do both but cannot find an easy place in myself to represent the ‘shmbhala brand’. yet i do want to be of service to others. i’m leaving to attend a guide training tomorrow: it has been a hard decision to make, yet, i want the skills required to help others.
part of my ambivalence through the years has been what i perceived a gross mishandling of difficult times during the vajra regent’s reign. i never knew him, i wasnt there, i do not claim to have any first hand knowledge but it has cast such a long dark shadow over the community for so long. i know some students who left the sangha, some who stayed, some who stayed but stepped away from the regent, some who couldnt have cared less one way or the other….i remember being at 1994 seminary, talking w. a group of europeans who were attending. apparently even by then, some of the most painful details of the regent era had not been revealed to them. we all sat together in the dining tent one evening in stunned silence.
i have my doubts about SMR. i’ve also taken samaya w. him. i dont like the blurring of shambhala training w. buddhism. there’s nowhere i’ve been able to express these concerns or any of the aforementioned ruminations. i realize from the highest view it’s all part of the play of phenomenon. but unfortunately that has often not inspired me to keep practicing in the past. thank you for reading.
Dear Meg,
Thank you for posting. I find your ruminations to be very touching. Welcome!
Suzanne
James Elliott, I too want to thank you for your last post on pain and anger. Well done. I appreciate and can second what you say about the Vidyadhara’s expressions of anger. I think we used to call it “black air.” Does anyone else remember that expression? There was absolutely no mistaking when Rinpoche was angry, and we always knew the ‘black air’ wasn’t just a bad mood, either. It always had a cause in something that was going on in the administration and/or among his students. It was accurate and Mahakala-like, and we heard about the cause of his displeasure.
Thank you also for your meditation on pain.
Dear Dan Montgomery,
I’m still here!
XO,
–ST
[Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, 30 October 1969 (Garwald House, Eskdalemuir, Scotland) from the unpublished poetry:]
.
.
Autumn leaves falling down
Autumn leaves falling down –
The play of Mahakalis is subdued into this, this blessing
which need not be sought.
Come on, O Queen of Night –
Your disguise as full moonlight is pure inspiration.
Come down as leaves blown quivering from autumn trees.
Ready or not, it is time for you to depart –
Exhibit your autumn colors of passionate red, subdued orange,
inspiring purple.
It is time for you to show forth.
I will cheer you on as you break away from branches where
some leaves are still green.
It is time for you to give a sign of autumn –
Exercise your beauty.
Demonstrate that you have fallen in love with the fall.
I invite you to join me –
Surrender to the decay that brings new life in the spring.
Glory be to wine!
Glory be to wisdom!
Glorious to be with the inner inspiration –
Hey ho, the happy yogin.
There is oneness everywhere.
Come and join me with your dance of crazy wisdom.
It is crazy because there is no beginning or end.
It is crazy because there is no statute of limitation.
It is crazy because there is autumnal craziness of nowness
that is undeniably so.
If you are a yogin you are in this crazy wisdom.
Let us dance in this crazy wisdom.
Hey ho, the happy yogin dances in this crazy wisdom.
It is glorious to be with this crazy wisdom.
You may want to look at the following website, wwwinfinitenetworks.com.
Look under Dhyani Ywahoo article # 8.
It’s a story about the relationship between Gampo Abbey and Dhyani Ywahoo’s Vajra Dakini Nunnery in Vermont.
It looks at a possible tax fraud scheme that occurred between these two places and includes email’s between the story writer and high ranking members of Shambhala and Gampo Abbey.
After the writer advised Shambhala they told Vajra Dakini Nunnery to remove all donations references.
FYI
Some act as Watch[wo]men and Spies! Context:: Many so-called Afro-Americans are in actual fact also descendants of 1st Nation indigenous people Wampanogs, Creek, Seminoles etc . In the ’80′s Dhyani Ywahoo a Cherokee was invited to Marpa House – led an inspiring workshop – Pema Chodron and Ani Tsultrim Palmo were in residence – at that time there was some interest, that if 20 tantrikas sought ordination Tibetan lineages could reconstitute a ‘college’ – apparently they had no tradition of fully ordained female monastics – a transmission preserved by the Chinese, hence Pema and Palmo had to go to Hong Kong to receive it..Have no recollection that a monastic system was high on CTR’s agenda – why Shambhala was accommodating to many of us [the diversity advocates] It was known that DY received transmissions from both the Nyingma and Kagyu {HH. Dujom Rimpoche and HH 16th Karmapa]. And Dzogchen Ngakma acknowledge great female Adepts- Yeshe Tsogyal, Machig etc resonates with Her Sunray Peace Village in Vermont has been in existence since 1971 – hosts gatherings of Female Elders indigenous people world wide. Her efforts to extend bodhisattva activity to include training facilities particularly for women IMHO was auspicious – the Vajradakininunnery in Vermont [Drikung Kagyu/Nyingma auspices, is modeled on Gampo Abbey and Kenmo Drolmo who heads DY’s nunnery was trained at Gampo Abbey. Its plausible that collaboration between the two institutions was natural- without intentions to defraud – as John Castlebury’s posted link seems to imply. Useful to question his motive for doing so? Using Gampo Abbey as recpient for Tax deductable contributions from Canadians, funds intended for a US institution apparently put in jeopardy Gampo Abbey’s status – contravenes Canada’s Tax code. as David Brown, Terry Rudderham and Les Ste Marie were quick to concede.Where is the empathy?
So question: What of tax deductable contributions by US citizens supporting Shambhala institutions in Canada? Intelligence Agencies vigilant investigation of cults,fraudulent financial transactions and tax evasion [frankly – found the link JC provided simply provocative/sensational/repugnant – what would Padmakara do? Church, International Corporation, or simple self reliant sustainable cooperative communities? With aspirations for the great awakening to the gifts freely available: Look Look
vulnerable beyond hope and fear, joyously grateful to everyone, Ho Ho Hooooooooome less.
Correction
Aba Cecile wrote:
“Its plausible that collaboration between the two institutions was natural- without intentions to defraud – as John Castlebury’s posted link seems to imply. Useful to question his motive for doing so?”
It isn’t useful to question his motive for doing so, because John Castlebury did not post the link in question. “John” is a new John who has not offered a last name; it was not this John.
Useful to question Aba’s motive? No, Aba just made a simple wrong assumption.
“Its plausible that collaboration between the two institutions was natural-without intentions to defraud”.
Les Ste Marie the Director of Gampo Abbey was totally unaware of this “collaboration”. His remarks are quite to the point about this matter and he saw the total damage that it could do to its tax status.
Neither Terry Rudderham or David Brown were aware of this “collaboration between the two institutions”
The three of them appear to have seen an attempt to defraud and that’s why it (that collaboration) was shut down so fast.
The request to Vajra Dakini Nunnery to remove Gampo Abbey from this website also is a very strong statement by Shambhala.
Who during those years at Gampo Abbey had the authority to set up this scheme?
Who at Gampo Abbey had the power and authority to with hold this information to the Financial Comptroller Office in Gampo Abbey’s yearly financial accounting statements to them?
One should not be looking at the motivation of the “Messanger” but to concentrate on the “Message”.
John,
Were you personally harmed by somebody? If so, why not focus on getting that resolved, rather than on tax issues? And if not, then why bring this up at all? Just curious.
In the Christian tradition, we are encouraged to forgive our neighbors for their sins, particularly if they repent. Do you disagree with this?
Also, and perhaps most importantly, how does this relate to the article at the top of this page?
Sorry for misidentifying ‘John’ Actually spent over six years at Gampo Abbey and understand fully how natural and no ‘big deal’ was the arrangement. GA admin staff change frequently, absence of continuity of institutional memory. Precisely because Dhyani Ywahoo has been active as a PEACE maker with cordial relationship with Vajradhatu Sangha members for years even before the exodus to Cape Breton that sought to give context – expose attempt to denigrate and defame her.
To the noname JOHN – May the peace of understanding available at this very moment pacify the bandits of hope and fear, May dissent be accompanied by self liberating insight; Who are you? What’s your story?Watchman or Spy?
First to Edward – I was not personally harmed by anyone (strange question).
The tax question involves the reputation of both Gampo Abbey and CTR’s
organization.
This tax matter was referred to Revenue Canada for a formal tax investigation. Could you imagine the 11 o’clock news starting with the headlines of “Buddhist monks and nuns in Nova Scotia under investigation for an international tax fraud scheme”?
The name of Gampo Abbey and more importantly CTR would be dragged
through the mud.
Now Shambhala may face a lengthy and costly tax audit and at the worst could lose it’s tax status as a charity.
Yes I do forgive those who sin but neither Gampo Abbey or Vajra Dakini Nunnery have done anything to me. (another strange question)
Now on to Aba – You speak of “peace of understanding… pacify the bandits of hope and fear”. You have twice stated “Watchman or Spy” against myself and John Castlebury then demanded to know “Who are you and what’s your story”.
Are you the Spy or watchwoman? Please pacify your bandits of hope and fears Aba.
My intent was to pass on to the readers of this website the information about a possible tax fraud scheme that may damage or destroy the reputation of CTR and Gampo Abbey.
These attacks on the messenger are an old story. I find it interesting that you do not want to discuss the contents of the story about Dhyani Ywahoo and Gampo Abbey at http://www.infinitenetworks.com.
If you read their articles on Domo Geshe Rinpoche and Madi Nolan you will see how they have exposed two other woman as con artists and fake Tibetan Tulkus.
If this Dhyani Ywahoo is a fake Cherokee, a fake Cherokee Chief and a fake 27th head of a fake Ywahoo Cherokee Lineage what does that really mean?
If it is true what does that say about those who brought her to Gampo Abbey and gave public legitimacy to a con artist?
Finally Aba, your statement about “how natural and no BIG DEAL was the arrangement”. As soon as the head of the Kapala Court, the Chief Financial Comptroller and the Director of Gampo Abbey heard about this scheme they knew it was Illegal and they shut it down.
Are you saying that no one at Gampo Abbey thought that this scheme was illegal?. Giving out false tax receipts for money that was not intended for Gampo Abbey but being sent to the USA wasn’t illegal?.
So all I did was pass on a story on a website and in return I have become the story.
Things that make you go HMMM.
Okay, please take this Dhyani Ywahoo/Gampo Abbey discussion to another venue, or to private email. Thanks.
- Mark
Mark not so fast please. Who is ‘John’ so I may respond privately.
Do argue this post relevant to this thread.-
Alledged ‘dissent’ in SI concerns how it is FINANCED. – 501[c][3] Non Profit , Charitable Organizations, NGO’s and Private Foundations are exempt from Fed Income Taxes and in some instances exempt from state taxation as well. There are requirements for record keeping, tax returns etc. and stiff penalties for abusing these instruments. Madoff scam is example. So responsible Charities need guidance from ethics sensitive investment lawyers to advise how to perform.
Federal Government offers rewards upwards of $1billion to whistle blowers and others exposing ‘cults’ and FRAUD.
Will be happy to host discussion on Generosity: The Gift offered without expecting anything in return and without hope of gaining merit. How does this fit with solicitations for ‘dues’ with the ‘hook’ that contributions
are ‘tax deductible’. .Chris D inspite of reticence considers contributions to the Sakyong’s Retreat worthy of his support. I have no material gifts to offer : only sincere aspiration for his wellbeing.
Ashe
Dear All Of You,
I have posted this in the dissent category, but I don’t mean to send a message of dissent, just open minded witnessing. I am considering attending the upcoming S. Congress, and am deliberating about whether or not this would be worthwhile. I don’t have any particular hopes or agenda to bring forward; I would only go as an interested member and an objective witness to the proceedings. However, I do not expect that my objectivity would hold for too long if the proceedings do not seem to be addressing the real problems. If I go, and if the design of the event works with break out groups as it has done in the past, this time I would go to the Finance Group if possible. At the first Congress I joined the One Mandala Group, which ironically was so big that it had to break into two One Mandala Groups. At the second Congress I joined the Communication Group. I did not attend the third one in Germany.
I’m posting this here because I’m wondering if anyone else who reads this list might be willing to attend the Congress? It’s expensive to come to Halifax plus the cost of the programs etc, but maybe?? There are a few people on this list who live here; would anybody besides me attend? I would do my best to report back to you, but it’s likely that my mind will boggle and I will not be capable of reporting to you in a coherent way. I know that it is a challenge to find the time and money to come to Nova Scotia to participate in the Congress, but it would be so good if some of the voices from this list, where we have practiced well in identifying and articulating the issues that call for attention, could bring some clear contrasting views where they are needed.
What do you think?
Madeline
Hmm, Madeline, I started looking through the tea leaves…. But first, I just got an email from Richard Reoch, titled “Removing obstacles before the Sakyong’s year of retreat”, who wants “to make sure that you have not missed the messages about the practices we have all been asked to undertake to remove obstacles before the Sakyong’s year of retreat.”
He includes a link to Sakyong Wangmo invites all Shambhalians to the long life ritual for the Kongma Sakyong prior to his year of deep retreat. The Tenshuk, the long life ceremony, will be preceded by the “Gesar Trakpo Abhisheka, a powerful protector practice… Gesar Trakpo is the wrathful form of King Gesar of Ling, the manifestation of enlightened rulership whose energy cuts powerfully through the obstacles of the dark age.”
Here’s the Shambhala Congress schedule:
So, there’s a day and a half of Congress, framed in between a two-day abhisheka empowering the wrathful destruction of obstacles, and a long-life ceremony calling for the participation of all of the sangha on behalf of the Sakyong’s life and well-being. In addition, the sangha is being asked to directly support the Sakyong and his retreat, not through Shambhala International, but through the Kalapa Ladrang: “We feel there would be few gifts so dear to the Sakyong’s heart than for every single practitioner to make a direct, personal offering to him at this time.”
So, you’re hoping to go there with “open minded witnessing”, but wondering if some criticism, “some clear contrasting views”, would be well received?
Cheers,
Mark
PS I highly recommend George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant. It’s not about the details: it’s about the framing.
mark thanks for the book quote I will get my library to get it
Madeline if you go I would go with a bundle of people at least eight and stay together as a group – eat together etc etc -it will be odd -perhaps you should meet beforehand and really discuss the questions you will raise.
Yeh -it would be good to have an unbiased report on the proceedings-but I should not expect much from such a brief congress.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Shambhala is asking its centers to set up websites using a common approach. I was asked to help my center with this. When I looked into the fine print I saw that centers will be charged $400 to set it up. Whoa! But then I also saw the following on the SI site guiding the centers. Same Mark S? WTF?!?
Email and web addresses
If you have existing email addresses and an existing website address, nothing will change. Just be sure to contact Mark Szpakowski to include your email address on the new site. If you are building a new site with a new web address (URL), you will want to include the new address that you would like on the form when you choose your site from the website menu.
Rich, that reference to me must be pretty ancient. Although I registered the shambhala.org domain in the first place in 1994 and helped create and manage the web site, I am only marginally involved now – no, don’t contact me, contact the shambhala.org webmaster about such issues!
Yup, that’s what I figured. Hopefully you won’t get bombarded by others.
About Attending The Congress:
Rita,
Thanks for your reply and words of advice.
I have not yet decided whether or not to attend.
I will keep your suggestions in mind.
You sound like you have plenty of experience.
Madeline
I guess that Mark already said it all…but I must say that spending two days and an evening of the Congress on a (what I’ve heard to be a very intense) wrathful practice to destroy obstacles, 1/2 day on the long life practice for the Sakyong and only 1 1/2 days to have the Congress is a bit weird.
There is a lot of negativity happening here. That’s not what we’re trying to do here. I don’t think I’ll be back to this site for a while.
I am fascinated to find this website because it addresses the nagging, gut-level concerns I have felt about Shambhala from the beginning of my relationship with it. I am pretty new to Shambhala (just about 5 years), but the more I learn about the history of it and the scandals, the more concerned I have become. I also had a gut-feeling of uncertainty about the Sakyong and his royal appearance (mode of dress), and did not clearly see the signs in him of life experience, humility or suffering I guess I would have expected of someone in such a position. I still respect him and his father and the lineage, but it is just good to have one’s eyes open, I think. I am one who is deeply devoted to the Buddha’s teachings, and so for me, I only want to follows Shambhala/Shambhala Buddhist teachings if they mirror the Buddha’s teachings to the best of my knowledge. I am deeply puzzled and confused by the Shambhala path as distinct from the Buddhist path. (Why do we need two paths? It is just confusing to me). I think for me at least, I would prefer to devote myself to a teacher who does not have any known baggage and whom I trust completely. Luckily, I do believe there is such a teacher who I have encountered, and who others on this site have mentioned. I think I shall follow her teachings primarily and attend Shambhala centers for support other times. Thanks for listening!
Sounds good Liz. Thanks for sharing.
Liz writes:
I would prefer to devote myself to a teacher who does not have any known baggage and whom I trust completely.
Good idea. Trust is important, particularly in this setting.
On the other hand, sometimes a good teacher might help us encounter our doubts or our fears or our ugly, dogmatic side.
In that sense, a good teacher might seem untrustworthy to us on occasion, depending on our goals. I didn’t realize it at the time, but when I first went to my old teacher, one of my aims was to feel important, to feel better than other people, and to have my limited, dogmatic ideas reinforced and secured.
As it turned out, my teacher was completely untrustworthy for helping me achieve those aims. And once in a while his actions seemed “scandalous”, at least compared to my judgmental way of thinking.
I guess even the Buddha himself knew how to create scandals– he abandoned his wife and newborn child just for starters. But that’s another story.
I guess my point is that trust is good. Trust is important. But knowing what it means to be trustworthy is something that can take time to mature, like a good barrel of whiskey.
Good luck on your journey.
“When one bodhisattva gets angry at another bodhisattva, countless obstacles are set up everywhere in the universe.” Thich Nhat Hanh, quoting the Maharatnakuta Sutra
Yeah, Thich Nhat Hahn dissed the Great Stupa when he was at SMC, calling it a waste of resources.
Please, what IS the Ladrang? Is it Kalapa or Sakyong Ladrang? Read about it here and there. Not clear to me what it subsumes or what is its provenance (if that is the correct word) — is it a legal entity? What about texts of CTR — who owns them if we don’t ?
Thanks. Lucy
But a little anger now and then makes life so much more flavorful!
Check out Gene & Roger at the 6:20 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkwVz_jK3gA
I’ll repost the quote without the presence of any other names or personalities with which to get hung up on.
“When one bodhisattva gets angry at another bodhisattva, countless obstacles are set up everywhere in the universe.” –the Maharatnakuta Sutra
Hi Frank, what’s the context for your quotation? Is it referring to bodhisattvas as in the sambhogakaya deities, or to literally anyone who has taken the bodhisattva vow? If the latter, are you quoting it in support of a view that people express no criticism of each other here?
The context of my quote, damchö, is partially a warning. I have seen conflicts like this in tribal communities; the lasting effects are still in place twenty years later.
It is also a personal expression of sadness at what I am seeing, reading, and hearing in the wider community as it relates to the various mandalas which–while distinct and separate in focus and activity–are held together nonetheless.
Dissent, disagreement, dialogue, discussion, even speech charged with a passionate energy that expresses commitment to a set of principles, or that supports the Dharma activity of one’s teacher and their mandala, are all healthy; succumbing to venomous speech is not.
Rather than invoking buddha-nature, or the dralas, such activity invokes the hell realms which eat away at the cherished tapestry of the Dharma that binds the universal sangha together, not simply the sangha in a particular region. With such acidic, venomous speech being spewed on the tapestry, we may as well burn all the thangkas.
Across the wide spectrum, from novice practitioners to active bodhisattvas (and I include any tulku, lama, rinpoche, roshi, etc. in this), we are all human. Anger is going to happen. Much like thoughts arising, it is natural. Inner-weather. When it does, however, it is precisely in that moment when the balance and fruition of our individual and collective practice is tested.
There has to be a shared commitment to raising the energy of the discussion from the hell realms into conscious body-mind-speech. Unless we do, we betray our teachers (whomever you follow), we betray generations of Dharma ancestors (whatever your lineage[s]), and we do great harm to the Dharma itself, whether that is the Vajrayana, different lineages within the Vajrayana, the Shambhala Dharma that is weaving in Vajrayana elements, or the secular Shambhala teachings that have immense value in and of themselves outside of the Vajrayana, or Buddhist activity in general.
When anger arises, someone–whomever it is in the disagreement–has to invoke “the off ramp” from the road leading toward greater violence (and, make no mistake, venomous speech is a form of violence). Otherwise, all previous practices, all previous instructions, are for naught.
We then become part of the Army of Mara, casting around seeds to grow into what our Japanese brothers and sisters call Mappö — the Degenerate Age of the Dharma. Oh, yes. Mara wants this. Mara likes this. Mara is being given lots to feast on now.
Bringing everyone’s awareness to the fact that the discussion / dialogue has slipped into venomous speech, biting the hook of the Three Poisons, becomes of paramount importance. Solutions cannot arise as long as fires of aggression are being fueled; solutions to such vital questions as: how can the secular Shambhala teachings be given a forum to exist and flourish outside a Buddhist context? could both thangkas be placed facing one another from opposite ends of a practice hall, like a double-headed dorje? How is this energy turning new people away from Shambhala and the Buddhadharma in general?
All of that said, I offer different words for contemplation, straight from my veins.
“Getting Through”
Everyone
whether they
know it or not
is looking
for a way
of ‘getting through.’
Getting through
the barrier
to the
Great Abiding Peace.
It doesn’t happen
for the lazy.
Anything worth having
takes work.
It requires
precision
focus
breath
a mind like a katana
a heart like a joy-filled child.
There’s a mother
right now
trying to get through
to her daughter.
A daughter
trying to get through
to her father.
There’s a wife
trying to get through
to her husband.
There’s a whole tribe
trying to get through
to their chief.
Some
are just trying
to get through
another day.
Others
are trying
to get through
to something
deep inside them
but something else
is getting in the way.
What is it
about this
strange parasite
we’ve been
carrying around
inside us
since birth?
The one so insistent
on weaving
cobwebs of blindness
over our eyes;
who stuffs
old, bloody rags
from battles long forgotten
into our ears
so we forget how to listen.
Until we evict
the gluttonous fool
who has taken over
the house,
we cannot ponder
the real questions.
We cannot sit boldly
in the warrior’s world
taking our seat
fearlessly willing
to encounter how
we are the architects of suffering;
our own, others.
We say we want happiness
yet every time the
Hook of the Three-Poisons
comes around
we bite like a brainless fish
in time’s great river.
“Don’t bite the hook.”–Pema Chodron
The moment
we say no to the hook
an ancient part
of the heart-mind
receives a spark of life.
This ancient intuition,
indigenous to us all,
becomes inquisitive
about the truth
and reality
of our shared condition.
This ancient intuition,
like a hawk on a branch
surveying the wider world,
suddenly asks:
Why is there suffering
and how can it be alleviated?
Then
whatever else
we may do
with our life
and our time
we inherit
a new full-time job.
____________________________________
from Tongue on Fire
(c) 2010 / Frank Owen / NEKYIA.POETRY
http://bit.ly/nekyia_poetry
May we all stop and ask the other, “My friend. Tell me, how is that you are suffering?”
Frank, it’s nice to hear your concerns in your own words. Thank you for sharing that.
It also sounds like you might have a tremendous fear of anger, if you’ll forgive me for saying so.
That’s ok, I think most of us share that. Anger seems like it could destroy our very world, our very existence sometimes. It scares the hell out of me personally.
I think a lot of these issues go back to basic questions of dharma. Some people believe that the ultimate purpose of the dharma and the goal of practice is to attain a calm state of mind. If this is truly one’s goal, then “anger” becomes our enemy. Also, anyone who upsets us or disturbs our mind becomes our enemy. Our wife could become our enemy, or our boss or coworker.
Whereas if we relinquish spiritual materialism, relinquish the idea that the dharma and practice will EVER make us feel permanently safe and calm and so on, then maybe some of these situations we get into could have a different feeling to them, perhaps.
Maybe anger could become a creative situation rather than just something threatening, something to defeat, something to achieve victory over.
(Edit: I wrote this before seeing your poem. Nice poem.)
Thank you for your thoughts, Edward.
As a former therapist and dispute mediator, I don’t fear anger
but I sure respect it; I respect its power to build alliances when
worked with consciously, and I am saddened by the results
when it is not.
I do make a categorical distinction between anger felt and
expressed within the container of productive conflict (such as
the “Magic of Conflict” model of Thomas Crum, Marshall
Rosenberg’s model of Nonviolent Communication, or such
processwork models as Arnold and Amy Mindell) as opposed
to destructive forms of expression (i.e. the actualized vajra style,
the neurotic vajra style).
However, that said, I will take this as an opportunity to reflect on
any blindspots I may have with regard to fear, anger, my own, others.
Frank, thanks so much for your thoughts and poem. I agree whole-heartedly with you about anger and about speech. Well said.
No doubt there is sometimes anger expressed here. Every now and again I see language which saddens me, even from time to time makes me cringe. So your words are welcome to see.
Beyond that, there is room to assess the overall situation in different ways. Is the large and diverse group of people critical of SI’s direction for various reasons a negative phenomenon? I think quite the opposite. Is the temptation to anger the only worrisome element in this mix? I think ignorance (in the sense of ignore-ance) is at least equally strong. How does one work with people in power who have shown themselves to be simply uninterested in their deep and considered feelings, in their pain?
Your final words could not be better expressed:
“May we all stop and ask the other, ‘My friend. Tell me, how is it that you are suffering?’”
Dear Frank
Thanks for your contribution to the debate -it is difficult to know when to speak and when not to. I have read one of the books you mention Rosenbergs on non-violent communication.
However I feel there are dimensions of thought not being addressed in the political sense of this community being made up of diverse viewpoints on how the teachings should be carried forward. I really think it calls for a meeting of people to discuss these matters thats why I suggested the video debate to Waylon. It would be a first step.
I have suggested ways on another thread as to how we could carry the shambhala teachings forward by receiving the werma sadhana from Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche after Warriors Assembly for people who wanted to follow that way of doing things. So I believe there are solutions out there for people to work on projects together whilst also devising a somewhat different curriculum for people who dont follow the Sakyongs thought about how the teachings should be promulgated and wish to go back to the Kalapa Assembly format.
That said SI is making no moves at present to accommodate people -thats why people are miffed and some indeed angry.
People at other points on rfs have also offered solutions to the present hiatus but I dont think these points are being looked into in a fruitful sense by SI.
What do you suggest people should do?
Best
Rita Ashworth
I remember the days, right after Rinpoche’s death in 1987-88, when the therapists and therapy tried to exert its power once again in the mandala and merge itself with the dharma. Most students of Shambhala now would not have understood the “violent” reaction of the administration then , at Karme Choling, to try and stop even the most benign forms, such as AA and “finding your inner child. The directors were violently outspoken about this. I didn’t understand it at first, being in the field and having been a therapist myself. I remember the days , not long after, when “deep listening” was introduced and it took us 18 months of “deep listening” sessions before what was a medical necessity, was accomplished for Trungpa Rinpoche’s son. The lets “process it before we take action” and process it we did ad naseum before what was a medical necessity was finally done.. Similar to what happens on RFS at times. Therapists love to process things, they could process forever while the runaway train is heading for disaster. They stop any energy that frightens them, they step in and control.
There have been great therapists (I have even studied under them), a lineage definitely of radical therapists, such as Whittaker, and R.D. Laing and others who understood the moralizing, controlling, (much anger their folks underneath the façade of deep listening, believe me, I have worked with them for years) nature of therapy and therapists. Why most of us go in the field of therapy so that we can be in control; studies have shown that often therapists come from deeply dysfunctional families where they were the disempowered bystanders. So power is a deep issue for therapists, since there was usually a lot of anger in most of their families, either repressed, or explosive, and yes Edward, anger is very scary for therapists. There own and other’s anger. Thomas Szasz wrote a whole book on therapy and its coercive control and being an arm of the institutions in power, to maintain conventional mind another kind of “calm abiding” either through moralizing or drug interventions. Therapy’s goal is actually to facilitate the masses to conform to conventional reality. It is not a radical vehicle for waking up. So when the therapists start moralizing, as though they were “objective” about these things, a red flag should go up instead of being stymied by credentialing and thinking here is something very “wise” that’s being said. It might be, but like everything, our critical mind should have a gap here. Watching, over decades, how psychotherapy has merged with the dharma and watered it down, I now understand why in CTR’s day there was such a protection against this happening. It stops all energy from moving in a spontaneous way, because we give it ‘special “ status equal now to the dharma.. If you had worked in the field these last 40 years with psychotherapists, you would not be so quick to do so, believe me.
Of course these days, unlike when Rinpoche was alive, the therapists and therapy have had a “revival” not only in dharma scenes, but also in the society at large.
Namkai Norbu was so disturbed, back in 1996 about psychotherapy and the dharma merging that he wrote a little pamphlet about it called “Buddhism and Psychology.” He wasn’t against psychotherapy, he saw that it too had been watered down from its own lineage, (every other person is a therapist these days, just look at the curriculum vitae of most members of dharma scenes) and he believed that therapy had its place certainly, but not in the dharma. You can still order this little pamphlet from his group. It is a jewel and I highly recommend it. In it he talks about what will happen to the dharma, mixing with psychotherapy after 100 years. He believes that the dharma will become unrecognizable. “Human beings, (he writes) are very difficult to fundamentally change by any method. And the nature of karma is a little like glue, its purpose is to remain attached to the himan skin. Sometimes I wonder if many Westerners have the maturity and tenacity to stick to the path long and hard enough to obtain deep results. What can happen to a person if he mixes the Teachings with psychotherapy and then teaches it other people? What problems could a person have with the Dharmapalas? Truthfully, it is hard to say specifically. But it is best to think about it in terms of what happens when one teaches something that is wrong, and this spreads from them to other people and could even last for generations. That means that one has been the cause of many people’s misunderstanding, possibly over a long time. One has been the cause of the continuation of other’s suffering. That is heavy karma. Again, I repeat, it doesn’t mean one cannot use psychotherapy in their personal life. One can use it, but one should also know the vast difference between the two.” Namkai Norbu.
So for me, I would rather take the karma of erring on the side making mistakes of “anger” and aggression” than contributing to the karma of watering down the dharma, which we have witnessed over the decades now, no small thanks to the therapists who have infiltrated the second jewel. How much has this contributed to the confusion in the Shambhala mandala of CTR? I would guess a great great deal. I wonder what CTR would have thought when he saw a latest offering at Shambhala Mountain Center, offered twice now, called “Psychotherapy and the Path to Liberation.” Amazing this could happen. But it has. That’s what people should be concerned about, not that they have erred on the side of “aggression’ in trying to speak the truth and be genuine, you have to make mistakes in order to find your genuine voice. You will never find it , if boxed in by the moral police, or superimposing moral glitches on every behavior.
Rita
My opinion is of very little importance in the grand scheme of things.
I count among my dear friends people along different branches of this family, some of whom are no longer with us, and I love them all, and I hope that some sort of peaceable solution can be arrived at.
I agree with you that some kind of forum for open discussion is needed. I also agree that if the parent organization does not facilitate this, in earnest , that they do so to great detriment. It would be akin to ignoring the poison arrow.
Has a collective, concerted petition by those concerned occurred? Are there not Acharyas who understand the past and who comprehend the present that can serve as mediator?
My prayers are with you all.
Frank
Chris -thats an amazing account of therapy and the dharma – I will print it out and read it.
I have read about the debates between the two and of course CTR did say in one of the transcripts that the Buddhist path of course went beyond Jung -what did he mean by that – in relation to archetypes?
Frank – yes great to have an open forum -hope Waylon jumps over the cuckoos nest -always get your story -yes!
Acharya Mediator from whatever tradition -good suggestion – is there one?
Well best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Surrendering Your Aggression, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
http://www.shambhala.org/teachings/
There are many kinds of teachings. The best are teachings that arise spontaneously and address the moment:
Once, when the then Sawang was visiting us, before he became the “calm abiding” lama, and he told us a story about how “fed up” CTR was with all the “processing and do gooder “ interventions that were surrounding his son (who was becoming more violent with others), and how this do-gooder energy was making Tagi crazier and crazier. It’s one of the main reasons CTR agreed to have Tagi sent to Rumtek with the 16th Karmapa. He knew the Kagyus would not have boxed themselves in with all this psychologizing and do-gooder energy. He felt he had to get Tagi away from all this. SMR told me about an incident when this do-gooder energy was occurring in the car with Lady D and Tagi. He got so sick of it, that Rinpoche put Lady D out in the snow and drove off. One couldn’t describe this as “nonviolent communication”, I don’t think. I think we can say that this is not hearsay, or just another story since it was told by the Sawang. . Apparently her own view changed, when she told us during her one visit with us, that she would have taken a “cattle prod “ to him now that he was 6 feet tall and more dangerous to others when violent.. She didn’t understand why we were allowing any violence from him to keep occurring. She wouldn’t have hesitated doing this and I believed her. I am very grateful to her for that fresh “reality” based exchange. I couldn’t have gon that far, but it did free me up to stop second-guessing every thing I did from within a “dharma jargon straight jacket.”
Ato Rinpoche told us about his own teacher “boxing his ears” when he made a mistake. The built –in antidote to the Supra-Ego tendencies of tulkus in training, which no longer occurs and we are seeing the results now.
I always appreciated those personal stories, shared with us, because they were real and helpful. Not just more psycho-babble that really didn’t help the situation one was dealing with.
So there are teachings and there are teachings. And they are not all the same, or all applicable to every single situation. There are dharma teachings in talks, and there are dharma teachings regarding relative reality or doing what needs to be done without a conceptual box superimposed on every situation so that skillful means no longer arises in a spontaneous way, and actions are always referenced to some conceptual framework superimposed on reality.
So what would CTR think now about all this “nonviolent communication” mingling with the dharma? Not very much , I can say without hesitation. As a general rule, sure, of course its helpful. But applying it to all situations is very dangerous. It could get people killed. At the least , it has certainly contributed to standing back, saying nothing, and watching the whole mandala be co-opted and changed beyond recognition. So that now, it is way beyond too late in my opinion. The do-gooders and psychotherapists are the victors in the SI scene, the dharma has been coopted.
Aggression is a very interesting thing. A tricky thing, maybe.
If we see other people being aggressive, and we try to stop them, are we ourselves being aggressive? If we feel anger and we try to stop the anger, are we being aggressive toward our anger?
We could spend our entire life working to end aggression in the world– for the sake of our own personal comfort– but actually increase the amount of aggression in the world instead.
I think that’s where practices like tonglen come from. Instead of pushing the anger away or trying to stop it, we open ourselves up to it completely, breathe it into our heart.
. . . .
I remember a friend of mine telling me about a conversation he had with my old teacher. My teacher was being irrational somewhat and suggesting things that didn’t seem prudent to my friend. Well, this was freaking out my friend, who was trying to maintain control over things, but the more he did that, the more crazy and irrational my teacher got.
It kept escalating, until finally my friend started to just give up, to just give in to the situation and work with it rather than trying to control it. Immediately, before he even communicated anything, my teacher became completely rational in an instant. Everything was resolved very simply once my friend surrendered rather than tried to argue or control things.
(Edit: Chris, I posted this before seeing your post. Good stories, thank you.)
Chris,
Thank you, thank you for your incisive analysis of therapy/non-violent communication/do-gooding versus the dharma. In just paragraphs, you articulated so much of what I have been struggling with for years regarding these two viewpoints. Having been schooled and well-practiced in therapy-view, I constantly find myself misinterpreting the dharma through that lens. More recently, I have just been rebelling against anything that is “peaceful” or “non-violent” and making a relationship with my humanity–anger, aggression, passion, ignorance and all. However, sometimes I find that my personal pendulum has swung to the other extreme, having for so long tried to control my own humanity.
That may explain why I simply wanted to spit on you, Frank, and your self-righteousness. But I am still much too well-behaved to have come at you in a public forum. I don’t really wish you harm. Further, I can watch my reactivity even as it arises and I can hold the possibility that you were simply speaking from what you believe to be true, with good intentions, rather than trying to bait people on this forum. However, I still view your initial post, the quote about Bodhisattvas, and then the link to CTR’s talk on surrendering aggression, as acts of passive-aggression in themselves. Were/are you, too, not rejecting something? Is it not possible to view the Sakyong’s dismantling of the Vidyadhara’s teachings and form as aggression?
As Chris said ” there are teachings and there are teachings. And they are not all the same, or all applicable to every single situation.”
That said, I guess I also have to thank you Frank for serving as the voice and view of therapy/non-violence/do-gooding, which is easy enough to disguise in dharma speak. It has been my voice and view for too long. But the true act of aggression would be to reject it completely, instead of seeing its value in the correct context. In this way, perhaps I can find compassion for my well-developed mechanisms that are so hell-bent on maintaining a sense of control as well as a sense of solidly existing self.
Theresa
Some very interesting thoughts coming out about agression and anger.
I think I ‘agree’ with Chris sometimes you have to do things that might seem aggressive to others watching -the situation just calls for it – a firm hand of the law in a rough fight you might say, and here not just including the police but anyone.
I suppose what Frank is saying with that video is that you cant proceed from anger in the discussion with others about your views or theories about the dharma. So is that true?………Not sure about this after reading Chris’s posts and stories – depends on the ‘quality’ of the anger being expressed maybe with ‘vajrayana flavour’ – if anger opens up the situation I think it would swing -obviously one could experiment here as Rinpoche said that you do with life – you would soon get feedback from where you were at!
I know from living in Nova Scotia for example that there is a lot of things you can get exasperated about in living there. First one is the general ignorance of people towards any change that they could bring about if it required them rocking their own boat. So perhaps Nova Scotians need to get angry about their lives in the province…….so many stories of desperation there……..drives the come from aways insane. Is it you or the Canucks -finally realised its the Canucks!
Anyway thats why Waylon should do the video thing…….break things up and open everywhere. Journalism another form of therapy – my mind in the proverbial story sewer in NS -so journalism is one way of getting to the truth of the situation -there has to be the means to do that in commmunication whether you call it non-violent, angry, unsecond-guessing or not.
Well best.
Rita Ashworth
A few final thoughts, as this will be my final post on this thread:
I agree with Chris that there are different dharmic responses for different circumstances. And, ultimately, I have zero problem whatsoever with the penetrating, sharp-edged potency of a directed vajra sword-point aimed toward awareness.
All too often, however, I see some practitioners (for whatever reason) latch onto this “wrathful” way of being as a predominant style and it would seem they forget the very roots and fundamental purpose of the Dharma: the alleviation of suffering.
That isn’t “therapy speak”; that is the womb-field from which the Dharma has come.
If a person’s vajra-style isn’t simultaneously infused with a sense of looking ten steps ahead at where suffering can be alleviated (with awareness) than this style and approach has simply become a crutch, an easy shield to hide behind–just as much as some therapists hide behind their disengaged nonviolent speech.
If an individual is filled with utter rage and is expressing that, much to the contrary of being fearful of that, I personally feel a sense of profound honor that a person would trust me enough to reveal this sense of vulnerability and power. However, a person genuinely raging about something for which they feel impassioned and a person raging -at- others in a disrespectful way are two different things in my book. One is striking out against something they feel is a grave injustice; the other is just striking out—at people, and that is what I consider to be not only violent, but violent to the roots of the Dharma.
All of that said, Theresa, my intent was not self-righteousness or, indeed, Chris, even “therapy speak” but rather to invite contemplation about the energy contained in certain people’s posts, specifically danny G, whose communications don’t seem motivated by a desire to u
…don’t seem motivated by a desire to investigate solutions or to uplift the conditions of the situation but rather simply to promote an energy of attack.
If that deserves your spit, Theresa, I offer you my face.
Theresa, you’re too “well-behaved” to actually say you wanted to spit on someone? News flash – I think you said it! Strong statement. And for being too self-righteous! Sort like saying “I can’t stand your violent ways so I’m going to kick your ass!”
Thanks Frank for explaining what you were referring to.
I think your original two posts quoting from sutras were interpreted outside of the context you intended. They were interpreted as moralistic criticisms of ongoing discussions and the right of people to express anger in a responsible way. I didn’t know you were commenting on someone’s remarks from 4-5 months ago.
I definitely agree with you that angry remarks are not always useful.
However, in the context of people who have been meditating daily for 30-40 years, and who have studied with the likes of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, and who have been beaten down repeatedly for being “negative” or for questioning SMR’s decisions… I think in such cases acknowleding the existence of anger now and then could perhaps be useful. If not essential.
I’d guess that everyone who got upset with you in the past 24 hours in this discussion was unaware that you were commenting on someone’s remarks from 4-5 months ago.
. . . .
P.S. Thanks Chris for that description of therapy-thinking and do-gooderism interacting with CTR’s sangha after his death. It explains a lot– the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall into place for me.
Frank,
I regret jumping to conclusions about your intention and letting my anger spill out at you. I sincerely apologize.
Theresa
My apologies for not being more clear as to what I was
talking about.
I was not–in any way–referring to healthy anger being expressed.
The English language is very limiting in that way, which is why I was attempting to point out the specifically venomous speech of certain individuals as opposed to forthright expression of others. I assumed
that those expressing their views from that ground would know I was
not referring to them.
May all who practice the Dharma
experience fortitude and unyielding
upliftment along their way.
If I understand Frank’s posts as a warning against being divisive, no problem. That’s something we should always keep in mind. I don’t, however, think that the bulk of what people are saying is angry faced negativity and complaint. Enough of it is well thought out and calmly explained critique.
It’s a mistake, however, to sink into the widely held view that the problems in the community with marginalization etc., are largely due to the attitudes of and approaches people who have been marginalized have taken. Or that the problem is the individual sometimes sarcastic responses people make to protect all the changes. If we only change our attitude there will be no problem, doesn’t work on everything; especially if attitudes are not the crux.
Frank asks if there has been a petition for an open forum to discuss these issues. I don’t know if there has been a formal petition, but enough people have made their efforts in trying to relate to the center of the mandala, without feeling heard. That is as I understand it why RFS came into existence, with by the way, Richard Reoch’s permission. It was to create exactly that kind of forum, because there seemed to be no place for that from within.
The organization has not shown that much openness to feedback or critique for some time. There are lots of stories throughout RFS to illustrate that. I highly recommend reading “Lids and Flowers” which was being very recently handed out on sangha-talk. It is a talk by Trungpa Rinpoche explaining to a great extent how he was building the community, and also how a healthy community would generally go about giving and receiving critique.
I think the concern of such a community fragmenting into tribal factions is very real, and I would be surprised if that isn’t something causing concern in the upper echelon. But we, and they especially, should consider from where the problems of marginalization and divisions have arisen, and what they are based on. These divisions were not created by members. Members or students don’t have the wherewithal or authority to create different directions, never mind creating more than one.
It looks to me like these tribal factions, so-to-speak, regardless whether it was intentional, were created by decisions on an administrative level, not by people’s attitudes.
If that’s true, then working on the state of mind of those affected by such decisions can only be what’s referred to as a band-aid solution. A band-aid makes it look as if something is being done, but avoids grappling with what actually causes the divisions, and as such it won’t do anything substantial to help change that tendency.
In the same way, therapy is only as good as its ability to relate with the mind as it actually is, and useless if not harmful if it based on a model of the mind or human behavior sometimes several steps removed from whatever the real issues are.
In the inspiration that an undefined problem is almost as good as invisible.
James Elliott
On the question of anger, I think Frank’s posts are a valuable reminder. The expression of anger is generally quite poisonous… Things of course get more complex when we start distinguishing pure and kleshic anger, but still I’m never comfortable seeing Trungpa Rinpoche’s wrathful activity held up as a model for us to follow. Personally at any rate, I’ve yet to meet a western teacher realized enough to use anger helpfully. Maybe from time to time they can, and maybe even each of us, sometimes, can, but still… Caution here is not being new-agey, just decent and sensible, I think.
Something somewhat negative was said about Non-Violent Communication. I don’t know a huge amount about it, but it seems to me there is some great value in it–precisely because it seeks the dharmic path between repression and indulgence. In NVC you don’t bite your tongue and bottle up your feelings. But at the same time–as I understand it anyway–you practice expressing yourself beyond personal recrimination, negatively judging the other’s motivations etc. Instead of saying: “you horrible person, look what you have done to me / us”, the aim is rather to try and touch the pure emotion underneath any kind of aggression, so that we can simply say, “this is how I am experiencing your actions, this is how it feels”. (Someone with better knowledge of NVC please correct me if I have misstated anything.) In any event, sure, there are times when anger is simply going to come out, and times when it should.
Beyond this (James having posted just as I was about to submit this comment), I very much agree that the attitudes taken as a whole on this forum are not the obstacle in this situation, but rather a very positive step. I also agree with James that ultimately “attitudes are not the crux” here. But did want to add some support to what I’m hearing as Frank’s main aspiration.
Dear James
Is there any way that the Lids and Flowers talk could be posted on rfs for people to look at?
Re the tribal factions thingie-query could not an enlightened society have tribes? I thought with enlightened society we were not getting into a nationalism persay – cant you have divergent opinions within that society about how to go forward.
Surely a King would look at something and say yes or no in regard to the way people were of good mind and practicing in a good fashion only.
Question is it right that a King decides both on spiritual direction and the government surely that is up to the individual re spirituality in a final sense in a society if we are talking in revolutionary terms.
I always pictured an enlightened society as having various spiritual disciplines within it and none. The Role of Sakyong I see and saw as him/her having a role in legitimising those disciplines so much in the context of a present monarch in the UK stating she is the defender of the faith(hopefully that will be faiths one day!)
As to an enlightened society in practice If you read the Sane Society by Erich Fromm he described one form of co-operative in France where secular and religious people lived in a common community that was somewhat separate from the capitalist world around it and that embodied wage differentials, study of the Arts and freethinking. Thats how I and perhaps others envisaged an enlightened society to be within the context of CTR’s Shambhala teachings and how he developed them in this world. In addition if you look at Nova Scotia such a situation could work there well if people were attuned to it.
So yes perhaps tribes though not factions are good in making up a Kingdom. The rub comes when people can not unite under one King when that King does not allow people to live their lives in the way they interpret the teachings of the founder. Thats why I continually bring up the conception of the National Assembly – is it an Assembly of centres following the Sakyongs way only or a body that embodies the various tribes that make up peoples approachs to the dharma and the shambhala teachings.
I believe in a technical sense there can be a King of Shambhala but in a religious sense there has to be diversity based on the individuals own experience. For example again was not Tibet full of tribes and did not the various clans get on with each other to a certain degree. You can also see this situation of tribal unity happening in Scotland aswell before the British went in.
So yes what is so great about nationalism and superpowers like the states where people are separate to an unheard of degree from the political process and also where the very stability of the world physically is threatened by such superpower status.
I think there needs to be a radical investigation about how SI could stop being so individual and begin itself to reach out to people both Buddhists and not and start having ideas politically about how provinces like NS and even countries could be ruled. So yes more talk on political philosophy
Rita
What is NVC? Is it a special technique, or are we simply referring to being polite and respectful towards others even if we think they are completely off?
The only thing in the way of a technique I’ve seen like that has been the arrow that gets passed around to say who has the floor, and signal that no one else can talk or interrupt that person. It’s a version of what exists in 12 step groups with a little myth symbolism thrown in. Is that what is being referred to as NVC?
Before I go on a rant how that can be misused and create an irritatingly sticky illusion of openness… is that what is meant by NVC?
James Elliott
Meet Marshall Rosenberg, Video 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dpk5Z7GIFs
He has used this quite successfully with tribal conflicts in Africa, with groups of Palestinians and Israelis, and individuals on both sides of the issue in Northern Ireland.
Video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbgxFgAN7_w&feature=related
Video 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8fbxPAXBPE&feature=related
Thanks for posting those Frank. A lot of sanity and compassion there. There’s also an interesting interview: http://www.cnvc.org/en/what-nvc/interviews/dian-killian/beyond-good-and-evil
NVC is an awareness practice that requires a lot self-reflection, self-discipline and practice. If the ‘other side’ (SI, which holds power) is unwilling to ‘hear’ this side’s (dissenters’) feelings and needs – as has been the case so far – then what?
It’s hard not to have emotions about what you’ve given your life for and then to see it marginalized. The good news about this site is that, personally, it makes me feel like I’m not off my rocker in terms of what I see is happening.
What blows my mind is that the intelligence of the older students is being completely ignored.,,,that the genuineness (both neurotic and sane) has been replaced with hero worship and phoniness. I don’t have much emotion anymore about what’s going on….thanks RFS.
ditto. except, maybe yes, a bit of emotion is still here. thank goodness for RFS!!!!
John said, “What blows my mind is that the intelligence of the older students is being completely ignored.,,,that the genuineness (both neurotic and sane) has been replaced with hero worship and phoniness.”
Yes, the disregard for dissent by CTR students is mind blowing, especially when one considers the intelligence of those students as part of CTR’s legacy, which I have no doubt that CTR himself did. Otherwise, why would he have worked so hard and intimately with so many of us? He poured his heart’s blood into us, and it was pretty hot stuff. He gave us a mission to carry on his work – together, not isolated and marginalized by the organizations he created. But the organizations – esp. Vajradhatu and Shambhala Training – were dissipated and diluted and then morphed out of existence, replaced by this lukewarm hybrid of Shambhala Buddhism that claims to carry on CTR’s lineage, but has gotten rid of the hot stuff of the Kagyu lineage and Shambhala Training.
Well, we still have CTR’s hot stuff in our veins, . We haven’t gone brain dead and I don’t think we’re going to shut up.
OK, I see what’s meant by NVC. It’s a form of mediation, with a philosophy that could or seems to want to extent into a superficial form of mind training. I don’t think it would require all that much discipline. It really only requires that one adhere to that model of human behavior.
Just finished “Diamonds, Guns and Steel” by Jared Diamond and “The Alphabet Versus the Goddess” by Leonard Shlain, both sweeping looks at the development of civilization going back much farther than 8,000 years.
I don’t see there or in any other such sources I’ve come across any archeological evidence for the peaceful people who made a mistake and created hierarchy about 8,000 years ago, thereby, according to the NVC model, creating the way we think that is so destructive.
I think that’s hooey.
Civilization became more complex as populations expanded, and in an evolutionary and slow pace, systems were adopted that worked. If they didn’t work, they perished, and there are lots and lots of examples of that as well. It wasn’t all due to a conscious decision someone made way back when to create a language justifying domination. That sounds like comic book logic.
There are more details to the model, but that model is also based on the blank slate approach to human mind which is proving to by wildly mistaken in key ways. We are not how we are because someone told us to be that way without our even knowing we had a choice. This is a common fallacy of religions as well. If religions have the power to transform us, it isn’t because the pope tells us how to behave. The work is internal and much more difficult than that.
The other major flaw in it, as a universal approach anyway, is that it assumes a conflict between equals or semi equals, or at least people capable of doing damage to each other, and negotiating from that platform by emphasizing the other party’s needs.
I think in a situation in which one party holds all the power and other none, there is no neutral place available, no balance of power to give both parties pause. If one could bring both parties to the table, it would be a theater, the one with power participating only in so far as there was curiosity to see if it could get its way by stealth. If not… back to business. So I can imagine this helping in tribal conflicts in Africa. I can’t see any way it would be helpful in places like Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, or any other places in which there is a strong central authority with a complex hierarchy that is pushing a destructive agenda that even large segments of the population find wrong or damaging.
It sounds like a therapy-esque approach. Very effective in some situations, and not at all in others, because it is based on a rather narrow model of human behavior which isn’t really how we all work.
In the inspiration that if religion or therapy or politics isn’t working, it isn’t because of our “failure to resemble an idealized model that someone blind to reality has managed to promote”. (from “The Black Swan” by N.N.Taleb)
James Elliott
James, re: Nonviolent Communication. I agree with you with regard to Marshall Rosenberg’s historical explanation. I can never follow those kinds of sweeping evolutionary narrative, which just strike me as speculation upon speculation upon speculation. (Often hopelessly reductive too.)
Likewise, I agree that power dynamics can render the effectiveness of something like NVC a moot point. Although sometimes perhaps it’s less the practice itself that is being ineffective as the number of people attempting it. Rosenberg has achieved some notable successes just by himself. Imagine if a group of people, even a large group of people, were all attempting to reach an organization through these means. Maybe, still, nothing would get through. But one thing I’m sure of: labelling people as Bad pretty much never works. Impugning someone’s motivation tends in fact to have the opposite result to our wish and will make the situation even more solid.
At the same time, in my own experience and in a steady stream of stories that has appeared on this website, it seems SI has a big, big problem with empathetic listening. Hence the degree of frustration sometimes evident here.
I do think Nonviolent Communication promotes a basic respect and empathy towards the “other,” and at best can result in a genuine shift in understanding, an ability to step into the other’s shoes–a phrase Dzongsar Khyentse has used in discussing how tonglen works.
I have little experience with it and sometimes wonder if it might become a formula (like anything I guess), ie too rigid. In any event one of the times I saw it being practiced it seemed to me a little unnecessarily “cool”. Again, that might be a misunderstanding. But in general I’m impressed with the framework it creates for a certain kind of mindful, compassionate speech.
It’s all there in the dharma of course, but I feel we don’t actually receive enough teachings specifically on the practice of speech. There are the guidelines against harshness and gossip and so on, but for situations of conflict or aversion or hatred NVC provides an actual technique which can eventually get you somewhere. In fact, this relates to one of the main issues I have with SI, which is its recourse to the practices of punishment, humiliation, and exclusion–so utterly antithetical, of course, to the view of basic goodness. If those exercising power within Shambhala were engaged in NVC, such practices could not be sustained.
You people should sit more and think less. Uff. Power struggle? I am abandoning this chatter website.
Licking honey from a razor blade,
Eyes of the learned gouged out by books,
The beauty of maidens worn by display,
The warrior dead from not knowing fear―
It is ironical to see the dharma of samsara:
Celebrities deafened by fame,
The hand of the artist crippled by rheumatism.
The moth flew into the oil lamp,
The blind man walks with a torch,
The cripple runs in his wheelchair,
A fool’s rhetoric is deep and learned,
The laughing poet has run out of breath and died.
The religious spin circles, in accordance with religion;
If they had not practiced their religion, they could not spin.
The sinner cannot spin according to religion;
He spins according to not knowing how to spin.
The yogis spin by practicing yoga;
If they don’t have chakras to spin, they are not yogis.
Chögyam is spinning, watching the spinning/samsara;
If there is no samsara/spinning, there is no Chögyam.