Kalapa Council Report

58 Responses to “Kalapa Council Report”

1. Card-carrying Buddhist on August 3rd, 2009 10:04 pm
   

   Interesting developments.
2. Tsondru Garma on August 4th, 2009 12:12 am
   

   Andrew,

   This must have taken you so much time and effort to study!!! I’m waiting for others’ comments, as it all seems a bit overwhelmingly complex. I can’t get around it, other than the impression of seemingly self centered / top heaviness of the mandala.. Also, I’m not sure I really understand the need for such complexity.

   Can the CTLP really be in danger of being changed while protected?? That’s a scary prospect indeed. I sincerely hope that the Project is not in any danger of revisionism. Too painful or difficult to even imagine .

   I’ve been hearing about Ladrang now, for some time, and yet don’t really know the nature of what it actually is or what its implications are. Does anyone else know more about this?

   thank you,
   Tsondru
3. Ngakma Zer-me Dri'med on August 4th, 2009 6:51 pm
   

   Thank you, Andrew, for having the courage to wade through all this and attempt to summarize it for us. I tried when Mark first posted the link, but drowned in adminispeak about halfway through it. It is somehow supposed to be terribly important, but it doesn’t actually say what anyone is going to do. Does anyone understand this? Why does Shambhala need yet another layer of administration? Don’t those nine people already have three or four jobs each in the mandala?
4. Chris on August 4th, 2009 8:23 pm
   

   I think this is the most clear document published yet.

   It is creating a family and crony empire, with total control given to the Sakyong,and those that continue to always agree with him, with no checks and balances regarding his whims, wishes and “direct commands’ , Feedback only goes one way, from the top down, every one on this Kalapa Council, also sits on the Sakyong’s Council. It is also a “crony reward” for having gone along with every decision the leader has ever made to begin with, and that has given total power to itself, and further insulated itself. Its main concern is with “harmony” and having no dissent . Protocol and Decorum. Harmony. A Confuscianistic inner court, where the emperor’s wishes are always adapted to by his subjects. That is one of the definitions of a confuscianistic model.

   This is simply proclaiming , what has been actually been going on behind the scenes, for the last decade.

   The most startling and bold-face part of it, however, is Kalapa Council folding under its imprimatur the Chogyam Trungpa Legacy Project. Now they can legally can “rewrite history” in their own image. It would take as bold a move to stop it, or counteract it, and I doubt if that will happen. Best to leave them to heaven.
5. rita ashworth on August 5th, 2009 7:00 am
   

   I think with any organisation that is based on the court principle one has to be very wary of that structure. The tendency in history in the west is that the court principle has failed -this is because the court has been full of Ya-sayers instead of no-sayers perhaps this is why Roman emperors were very much reminded that they were mortal.

   So I think the question is with a court how do you include the no-sayers the people who can really at times give you the appropriate advice on matters. For example I am reading a biography of General Michael Jackson former chief of staff of the British Army and his relations with politicians. He admired Margaret Thatcher and advised her not to go to Paris before her possible re-election as leader of the Tory party -she chose to ingore him and said you concentrate on the soldiering and I will concentrate on the politics. Of course she was ousted as leader – if she had stayed in the UK she might have lasted longer as PM.

   How do you make the court principle work – I think myself in the end it will come down to everyone, every member having some real input into the role of governance and of course then again we are into the context of what form of ‘democracy’ that will take. Perhaps Kalapa Executive members could be elected by people on the ground – this body will maybe also include in the future people who do not follow the Sakyong but take as their main teacher Trungpa Rinpoche because in all kingdoms you have to allow for divergence of opinion as to religious matters. Here people could maybe recognise the Sakyong as the ‘king principle’ but not the ‘guru principle’ -but myself I really wonder as time goes on and the present operation fudges on concrete changes whether this is possible. If it is not possible I could see the whole thing disintegrating – - why because people in the west are used to working with government in every aspect of their lives and citizens in Europe at least have a great impact on the workings of government – its a two way process. So yes in the end I think some kind of ‘democratic principle’ will have to be evolved otherwise I think the whole thing will fail.

   A King or Queen if they are to rule properly has to listen to their people as
   a whole – we can see this in recent history that in GB the present Queen
   lost some of her kudos because of her behaviour after Diana’s death. The monarch lives or dies in the west on how they relate to your ordinary man or woman in the street so how much more so must a Sakyong allow his ’subjects’ divergent opinions if he or she is to establish an ‘enlightened society’. And even if we have a feeling that a lineage of Sakyongs is not appropriate for this time we still have to consider that we as embodying the ’sakyong principle’ have to have an open attitude to how a possible society could be constructed in the coming years.

   Well best again

   Rita Ashworth
6. Chris on August 5th, 2009 9:39 am
   

   I also think it is cause for celebration that this Kalapa Council report is so “transparent”, something many have been wishing for. It doesn’t hide under “political correctness.”
   This is a statement of how SMR is manifesting, take it or leave it, you could say. Or, leave it to heaven, you could also say.
7. John Tischer on August 5th, 2009 12:10 pm
   

   Whatever is at the center of power radiates out. This is quite obvious from the transition from Bush to Obama….the feeling in the USA (and the world
   towards the USA), changed overnight. This is the mandala principle in action. Enlightened society has to have an enlightened ruler at the center…
   otherwise it’s just another dictatorship. This can be clearly understood from
   “The Sacred Path of the Warrior” book.
8. John Castlebury on August 5th, 2009 1:45 pm
   

   [VCTR, Kalapa Court, 15 September 1980,
   to a student, from the unpublished poetry:]

   DHARMA KINGDOM

   Because of the precious teachings of the father guru
   Because of our connection in the previous lives
   Because of my vow to propagate the dharma
   We are working together as teacher and student.
   Sad or happy
   Free or imprisoned
   Our bond together in the dharma will never diminish.
   In order to share our feast together
   I would like to invite you.
   Let us organize dharma kingdom.
   Let us propagate true sanity.
   Please come and join us.
   In the name of the father guru
   You are more than welcome.

   With love and blessings –
9. Edward on August 5th, 2009 2:36 pm
   

   Chris writes:
   A Confuscianistic inner court, where the emperor’s wishes are always adapted to by his subjects.

   Chris, your reference inspired me to research Confucianism a bit. At the risk of going off topic, what do you think of this:

   Confucius said, “The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.”

   Confucius said, “The superior man mixes easily with others, but does not form cliques.”

   Confucius said, “The superior man is easy to serve, but difficult to please, for he can [only] be pleased by what is right. The inferior man is difficult to serve, but easy to please, for you can please him by catering to his weaknesses without necessarily being right.

   Confucius said, “The superior man is broad-minded toward all and not a partisan; the inferior man is a partisan, but not broad-minded toward all.”

   Confucius said, “The superior man goes through his life without any one preconceived course of action or any taboo. He merely decides for the moment what is the right thing to do.”

   [Taken from "The Wisdom of Confucius" by Lin Yutang, pp. 190-2]

   I thought these passages were interesting, yes?
10. Chris on August 5th, 2009 3:03 pm
    

    Confuscianism /Taoism/ Buddhism influenced and informed each other, in China/Korea etc. and overlapped each other before confuscianism became reified into a dead imperial code. It had to have gone through a more open, fluid period before this happened.
    The Council Report seems to be communicating a very closed system, that is linear, and hierarchical in nature and is not fluid. Feedback is to come in the nature of “communicat(ing) the harmonized view of the Sakyong’s wishes and commands”. I can’t see any room here for any advice unless it is communicated in this ‘harmonized view” , through the hoops of the filters of the closed circles, where all conflict is quashed, so only what “pleases” the leader gets through.What goes out is his wishes and what comes back is his wishes, with nothing getting through that would disturb His Majesty. Lids not flowers. He can so trust the non-individuality of his inner court, that they can “serve his pleasure” without him even expressing his wishes, it will just be known by channelling I guess on the right frequency. Implicit in this document is that anyone not conforming to this mode of expression of the group will not last long.

    Now maybe people think this is going to fly in the long-run in the West, or Noth America, but it seems apparent people are going through big changes questioning the whole monastic lamaism thing in this country so a god/king? . I just don’t think it is going to attract that many Westerners in the long-run.It may attract very frightened people , who want to lose themselves in a trance-like group thing. People who are so frightened by what is occurring in the samsaric world that they long for hierarchy and order of this nature.
11. Susanne Vincent on August 5th, 2009 10:45 pm
    

    Thank you hugely, Andrew. I’ve watched this – not to the extent of ‘monitoring’, but observing signs and signals – and your research of this setup is illuminating. These are the parts that ‘stopped’ my mind as I read.

    ‘. . . primary responsibility for the protection and manifestation of the vision of the Kingdom of Shambhala (is) now to be held by the Kalapa Council’.

    – Excuse me? Who are these people? The wife, the husband, Kasung, the money (liquid, stashed and borrowed), the legal counsel – and just one Acharya, Adam Lobel http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/acharya/alobel.php – a terrifying looking character, describing himself as a ‘Buddhist minister’ (sic), a pandita currently doing a doctorate in Divinity at Harvard, never a direct student of Trungpa Rinpoche, and purportedly representing all the Acharyas, or – as I see it anyway – the factor of ‘lineage transmission through VCTR’s students’. Or cancelling it, whichever way you might wish to look at it.

    This governance body seems to be the Top Dog group, and I’d like to know which councils their decisions override. Their accountabilities are not fully set out, perhaps I ought to search more in the links, but it looks like a land grab.

    ‘Kalapa will be the storehouse and protector of the Shambhala lineage, and in particular, the Lineage of Sakyongs.’ The Legacy project to come ‘under the protection and blessings of Kalapa, since it had long term implications for the propagation of the lineage teachings . . . of successive Sakyongs of Shambhala’

    - Ermm, exactly how many Sakyongs have we had to date? And is there anything that we care about that is material to this ‘lineage’ apart from the Vidyadhara’s teachings, the dharma and termas and the Shambhala teachings? Is there anything else that characterises Shambhala? Any other reason to show up? So the ‘storehouse’ function is the sequestration of the teachings of the Vidyadhara with trade marks, copyrights and legal frameworks so that nobody outside the mandala can get their hands on them. Just like intellectual property is owned by the firm. So if you are wondering why you can’t get a handful of copies of the Sadhana of Mahamudra and do a full moon session with some mates in your living room, and never will be able to, this is why.

    - What is the meaning of the concept of ‘copyrighting dharma’ ? Is this an oxymoron? (Please discuss in no more than 1000 words!)

    I bore in mind the list of names on this council when reading the following:
    ‘Relations within the mandala: . . . to help ensure coherence and a spirit of mutuality throughout the mandala . . . monitors the impact and implications of the new curriculum . . . so that the community as a whole can embrace diversity and change . . . ‘

    – In what way is this group competent to do this? And what is the meaning of the final phrase?

    ‘The Kalapa Executive. The Sakyong indicated . . . the importance of identifying and empowering an executive body for the mandala as a whole . . . coordinate the highest level executive officers of the Three Pillars . . .’

    – (Three pillars? Sorry, what are these? Presumably this is not the three jewels. So are we to have three CEOs? Does this diminish the authority of Richard Reoch? It must do so.)

    ‘Advising and assisting the Sakyong and Sakyong Wangmo. The Council acts in an advisory capacity . . . Both may refer matters to the Council . . . The Council itself may wish to offer advice to their Majesties on any matter that it deems appropriate . . . assist in the governance of the mandala in areas such as manifesting mandala principle, protecting and sustaining the lineage (beg pardon?) . . . advising on court appointments in the mandala.’

    – Whilst some have voiced their concern about the Divine Right of Kings, a power crazy Sakyong running amok and so forth, I actually don’t have any evidence that their Majesties are currently busting to proliferate a clear, decisive, insightful vision and looking for a vehicle. Right now, in the absence of Dilgo Khyentse and 16th Karmapa, the real office of protecting the lineage appears to lie with a couple of worthy Rinpoches working on an unofficial basis. I feel that this Council will be asked to make decisions way beyond their ability or sphere of authority that will affect who gets to speak where, who gets what and where the locus of control lies.

    I view this whole thing with great discomfort: that the reasonable idea of ripping a bit of Best Practice from the corporate world is rapidly supplanting any idea of natural heirarchy, wise rulership, etc; that the Vidyadhara’s teachings and the Vision of the Great Eastern Sun are identified not as the answer to the dark age, to be proliferated by generous hands to all willing ears and minds, but as intellectual property and ‘product’ – to be controlled and contained and delivered entirely conditionally, and that the body responsible for deciding what are those conditions is not entitled by factors of competence or genuine authority to do so, but by factors of internal protectionism.

    Am I exaggerating here? I find it all extremely depressing.

    Grant your blessings so that confusion may dawn as wisdom!

    With love, Susie
12. Rita Ashworth on August 6th, 2009 6:28 am
    

    I welcome Chris’s comment on the Kalapa Council Report particularly the sentence that states her feelings about the what is happening in the world

    “People who are so frightened by what is occurring in the samsaric world that they long for hierarchy and order of this nature.”

    Its true we have to watch the tendency of falling into some eastern understandings of Buddhism which sides predominately with a ruling elite. We as Buddhists and Shambhalians and to some extent Christians have to get back to the essential teachings of these religious founders before the politics and the various cultural viewpoints stepped in.

    I believe this is what CTR did in essence with his teachings – he went back
    to what worked the basic practice of samatha itself. Of course later he
    brought in the Shambhala teachings but here also there was an
    emphasis on inclusion and diversity – an open way to relate to all peoples.

    Hierarchy without the mirror input of a people will not work and history tells
    us that it has never worked. Peoples strange desire for a leader beyond
    their own questioning and innate intelligence I think is a corruption of what
    CTR admonished us to do in relating with Authority -that is ‘Dont trust but
    be friendly’ (where is that poem -hope someone could put it up).

    Yes I believe all people are leaders and a true Shambhalian revolution
    would empower everyone with the capability for leadership -this would
    subvert the very twisted view of hierarchy that has now been put on the
    SI table.

    Perhaps we could have a discussion on hierarchy?

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
13. John Castlebury on August 6th, 2009 7:44 am
    

    [VCTR, 25 November 1969, from Timely Rain, page 13,
    and Mudra, page 59, Shambhala Publications]

    [Untitled]

    Looking into the world
    I see alone a chrysanthemum,
    Lonely loneliness,
    And death approaches.
    Abandoned by guru and friend,
    I stand like the lonely juniper
    Which grows among rocks,
    Hardened and tough.
    Loneliness is my habit –
    I grew up in loneliness.
    Like a rhinoceros
    Loneliness is my companion –
    I converse with myself.
    Yet sometimes also,
    Lonely moon,
    Sad and Happy
    Come together.

    Do not trust.
    If you trust you are in
    Others’ hands.
    It is like the single yak
    That defeats the wolves.
    Herds panic and in trying to flee
    Are attacked.
    Remaining in solitude
    You can never be defeated.
    So do not trust,
    For trust is surrendering oneself.
    Never, never trust.

    But be friendly.
    By being friendly towards others
    You increase your non-trusting.
    The idea is to be independent,
    Not involved,
    Not glued, one might say, to others.
    Thus one becomes ever more
    Compassionate and friendly.
    Whatever happens, stand on your own feet
    And memorise this incantation:
    Do not trust.
14. rita ashworth on August 6th, 2009 10:05 am
    

    “The idea is to be independent,
    Not involved,
    Not glued, one might say, to others.
    Thus one becomes ever more
    Compassionate and friendly.”

    Thanks for putting up the poem Mr Castlebury. I believe the most pertinent part is quoted above – to me it is the essence of how a true leader would behave in the world. You really do have to evolve your own position regarding the teachings and life generally but you also have to be open to others in that independence born from meditation. Really it means you can create an enlightened society from your own independence but you have to have matching compassion for others too. It’s an indivisible need for society to be constructed in this manner.

    So a Sakyong has to be independent but he/she has to be open to others
    in whatever manner they choose to be open. Thus I believe there is a definate and sanctioned requirement for more input from sangha in a political and general sense in this growing and diverse mandala.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
15. danny goldberger on August 6th, 2009 11:46 am
    

    The three pillars of Shambhala society are the Church, the Government, and the Military, not a bunch of executives. . .
    And Adam Lobel a terrifying character??? A vegetarian family man and scholar who loves to dance. . . I am truly shaking. (seriously he is one of the sweetest, most genuine people I have had the pleasure to know).
    I was scared of photographs as a child, but not anymore.
16. Susanne Vincent on August 6th, 2009 11:20 pm
    

    Greetings, Danny. I am sorry to hear about your earlier problems with photographs. I didn’t say he was terrifying. I said he was terrifying-looking (in reference to the link I provided to his page on Shambhala.org). My comment was flippant, and I apologise for this.

    You say you were shaking – I can appreciate your anger at having a friend of yours described as terrifying-looking. I hope that in return you might appreciate my deep concern that the vision of the Vidyadhara, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and our connection with the Practice Lineage, of which the acharyas are arguably the living conduit – appear to be represented on Shambhala’s seemingly highest governing body of at least eight people by only one person, who was not trained by him and is a theologian. I was horrified.

    Thank you for your explanation of the Three Pillars. I hadn’t previously heard that Shambhala has three pillars, the Church, the Government and the Military, nor considered that enlightened society would consist of these. This may be a long standing definition that I have (perhaps luckily) not come across.

    Of course I’m familiar with the modern segmentation of society into public sector (government), business sector and civil society. Commonly, it has also been the Church, the State and the People. We could segment it all sorts of ways and it would be particularly good if the segments reflected a universal principle that applied in the Inner Court too. Perhaps we do have an internal Church, Government and Military, I hadn’t formerly looked at it in this way and will give it my best shot. But I do agree with Rita’s observations on the seeming absence of the people from the paradigm. I guess we assume the People are all sitting in the Church.

    About the only thing I do for a living is teach leadership and governance skills. The key factors don’t change much: values, vision, mission, engagement, culture, accountability, sustainability, the idea of governance as eldership and stewardship, the need to cultivate and liberate leaders at all levels, the need to wed wisdom with insight and compassion and listen to every stakeholder, and the need to understand that power is a privilege and that trust is the bedrock.

    I chaired Amnesty here for six years recently, about 7000 members. One time the Director and I went to do something in Copenhagen, and while we were away, the management team decided to change the name of our annual street collection week from Candle Week to Freedom Week without consulting anybody. This seemingly small thing caused an unholy riot amongst the people, who had a deep sense of ownership around it, and it required a huge amount of conciliation. To understand the sense in which a membership-based organisation is a ‘movement’ – a political and spiritual force of hearts and minds that is arguably the master of all its administrative servants – is very important. To completely change the legal and governance structure of a membership-based organisation without the mandate of the people is to me completely unthinkable, so you must forgive me if I am coming from a slightly different place.

    Susie, New Zealand
17. Suzanne Duarte on August 7th, 2009 7:07 am
    

    Many thanks to Andrew Safer for his insightful research and excellent questions about the Kalapa Council Report. It is stunning to see how power is being consolidated in the center of the mandala, which appears to be assuming a form more like a corporate pyramid than a mandala.

    Or, perhaps – thanks to danny goldberger’s identification of the “three pillars of Shambhala society” – it is a theocratic pyramid. When it is put so bluntly – that the three pillars are the Church, the Government and the Military – one has to wonder how the Druk Sakyong’s vision of a secular society/kingdom based on sacred outlook has morphed into a theocracy in which the military is such a prominent support.

    But only three pillars? A three-legged stool or table is less stable than a structure with four legs, pillars, or sides. Even a pyramid has four sides. Now, it’s true that a source of dharmas has only three sides, but its apex is at the bottom, not the top. And the three sides of the source of dharmas are not Church, Government and Military.

    It seems the least they could do in formulating governance for a mandala would be to design it according to the ancient, wise symbolism of a mandala or stupa.
18. Christine Baranay on August 7th, 2009 10:56 am
    

    Was it not CTR who spoke of benevolent monarchy? Of natural hierarchy?Of the 7 jewels of a monarch? The Queen, Ministers, Generals, Elephant,Horse, Wheel and Jewel? Concepts that are ancient in Buddhism and brought to the Shambhala Path by the Druk Sakyong.

    I don’t find the Kalapa Council ominous. I marvel that 9 people are willing to take on such an enormously difficult task as the governance of the mandala.

    Would you be willing, if asked, to take on such responsibility — to be one of nine people asked to devote time, energy, a life towards this?

    Even if it were one of 50 people — would you agree?

    Or one of 100 people — would you agree?
19. danny goldberger on August 7th, 2009 11:45 am
    

    Hi Susie, thanks for your kind response. I wasn’t angry, that was an attempt at humour that seems to have been thwarted by the lack of inflection on internet posts.
    The notion that the military having a prominent role is fearsome is worth looking into. The Dorje Kasung as a military cannot be looked at in the same light as the conventional military. The allegiance is to gentleness, nonviolence, and most importantly the awakened nature of mind. When functioning properly the military serves as a tether to the ground of sanity. As the society is built on practicioners, and not a load of Buddhas, the success rate will vary. The sense is that the military not be involved in the political process, but bring those in the administration or government back to a sense of the ground. Of course the Church, or office of practice is of huge importance. Without the ground of the teachings and the practice none of this works. The Administation is essential as well, without the logistics, funding, etc. etc. then there would be no space for things to happen(shrine rooms, for example)
    I think that we are a very young community on the grand scale, and that we need to be rather meek about our understanding of what it will take to actually foster a society and community that allows for the best of humans to come to the fore. Everything about the world we live in undermines that goal, so confusion and agression will arise in even very praticed people at times.
    I think Christine makes a good point with the list of things that the DD taught, all of those are in the Sacred Path book. You could see that there is some sort of bait and switch happening as Davee described, but actually the whole path is laid out in all of these public books, it is just that most of us miss them the first time around, until the teacher removes the little red blindfold, so to speak.
    I wish you all the best on your path.
20. damchö on August 7th, 2009 11:50 am
    

    Hi Danny:

    Church-Government-Military… With the King himself also the Guru, and no real, actual independence between the branches–senior teachers often being both Military and administrators and all serving on the same (seemingly non-transparent) councils together, senior teachers bound by samaya vows to the King-Guru and the senior Military bound by samaya vows to the King-Guru and by extension to the senior teachers, cases of mistreatment between teachers and the plebs or Military and the plebs adjudicated by … the Military … and nobody ever questioning the senior teachers anyway (I once heard a senior manager at a land retreat centre put it gratifyingly plainly: I *never* question something an acharya tells me to do. Exact quote.) …

    Yes, that’s a theocracy. 99.9% of Westerners who might otherwise be well-disposed towards Shambhala will run for the hills. And you will be left with the True Believers, who do not question.

    On the other hand, large numbers of Christian fundamentalists might become attracted. Perhaps if Maitreya’s name were changed to Jesus…

    Speaking of the Military, I wanted to respond to something which was said awhile ago, and on another thread (can’t remember which). Someone had written that they’d just been to Boulder and the Kasung there were smiling and friendly.

    I’m glad to hear that–although smiles and surface friendliness can conceal much, as we’d all better know by now. My experience of the Kasung though is quite different. I have found many of them, and increasingly, to be power-trippers, some subtly, others not. I have seen, personally, not a lot of smiles or friendliness, a heck of a lot of suspicion as a basic attitude, disingenuousness, and some abuse of power. Their role has changed, that seems to be clear. More than anything, I can’t help but think of Freud’s Superego role, or Blake’s Nobodaddy, crushing the experience of basic goodness, which is the way our secular police and military function but which ought to be antithetical to the protector principle.
21. danny goldberger on August 7th, 2009 12:15 pm
    

    You act as if samaya is a mind control technique.
22. damchö on August 7th, 2009 1:27 pm
    

    In one practitioner and another it can always be misinterpreted like that, right? And in very extreme cases this is what does happen on a mass scale. The leader of Aum Shinrikyo–who spoke constantly of bringing on the Kingdom of Shambhala as it happens, taking on its numerous enemies–operated that way. Of course that was a Cult of pure evil and Shambhala is a completely Enlightened Kingdom. They are literally polar opposites and the one could never in a million years share any kind of even minor chracteristic even remotely with the other. So we don’t even have to worry about the effects of power, right?

    However, mixing samaya with politics still seems to me highly dangerous. Samaya to a Guru who is also the King? The King of an organization with a utopian mission and biggest of all possible agendas, convinced it is uniquely well-suited to save the world, run by an extremely tight intermeshing of religious, political, and military roles…

    To me, it is rather the denial of ego which is undharmic here. Dharma gives us no guarantees. We don’t need to make things ever so much harder for ourselves. Power is rather tricky. The same mistakes seem to be made over and over again. Kind of ironic, immensely sad.

    I don’t see the situation as healthy, that’s all. That was the gist of my post. You may disagree. I’ve had many experiences (most of them within Shambhala) which lead me to mistrust giving too much centralized power to *anyone*. If the Sakyong, every acharya, every senior kasung, and all centre directors were 10th bhumi bodhisattvas, and all of us could be *sure* of this too (though the teachings say we’d have to be 10th bhumi bodhisattvas ourselves to know), then, maybe, who cares?

    Since this is manifestly far from the case, let’s get a little more real here, and give ego and group ego their proper due. Spread the power, welcome–no *rejoice*–in criticism. Let’s be gracious with those who have no say in the realm of power; let’s sit down and talk with them. Practice deep listening with spacious mind, and not be afraid to express regret and cultivate healing. Let’s never forget that worldly “success” is all Mara. That nothing matters but embodying wisdom, interdependence, skillful means, tender heart, kindness…
23. Suzanne Duarte on August 7th, 2009 9:08 pm
    

    Dear Christine Baranay,

    You ask: “Would you be willing, if asked, to take on such responsibility — to be one of nine people asked to devote time, energy, a life towards this [the governance of the mandala]? Even if it were one of 50 people — would you agree? Or one of 100 people — would you agree?”

    As one of the many people who did work in the government while the Vidyadhara was alive, I’d like to speak to the differences I sense in the way he governed the mandala, which some others in this thread also perceive. VCTR’s mandala was not a closed system. He created numerous channels – official and unofficial – by which information could reach him regarding the health and wellbeing of the sangha and the mandala as a whole. Some of those channels bypassed the Board of Directors. VCTR wanted to know what was going on, whether it pleased him or not. He trusted the people to whom he gave responsibility to embody the teachings and vision he had imparted to us, but he wanted us to think for ourselves, and to use our own judgment. At the same time, he put us into situations in which we were challenged and could grow. This is how he trained us. Yes, he did express his wishes and sometimes issued commands, but there was a lot of space for creativity – and to make mistakes. It was a dynamic situation in which the information and energy flowed in all directions between center and fringe, ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ – an open system. Yes, there was a sense of ‘natural hierarchy,’ but it seemed fluid, not solid and fixed, and it was not insular.

    The governance model reflected in the Kalapa Council Report seems insular, as if protecting the center from the fringe. The energy and information seems to flow in only one direction, from the center or top to the fringe or bottom. This is quite different.

    As I and others have said on this site, if we look at the changes taking place from a systems perspective, the closing down of feedback mechanisms and the emphasis on protecting the center is a sign that the system is closing. Closed systems are less resilient than open systems. Closed systems often seem frantic to reify institutions, and in doing so, often lose the vision and mission that inspired them in the first place.

    So in answer to your question, Christine, while I was happy to work for the Vidyadhara, I don’t know whether I would last long with Sakyong Mipham. I wouldn’t take on the responsibility for governance of the mandala unless I could be honest with him, as I was able to be with VCTR.
24. Christine Baranay on August 7th, 2009 10:09 pm
    

    Dear Suzanne, Thank you for your thoughtful and informative email and taking the time to respond.

    You mention not wanting to take on responsibility for governance unless you could be honest with the Sakyong — I get the idea from this statement that you don’t think you could be AND still be part of governance. In other words, he would not tolerate different opinions or divergent ways to tackle a situation.

    You therefore imply, if I am reading your response correctly, that because of your differing views or your desire to be honest about this or that — you would be asked to step down from a governance position.

    I don’t get the idea that the Kalapa Council is made up of yes men. Perhaps you have actual reason to believe otherwise –

    Christine
25. rita ashworth on August 8th, 2009 9:21 am
    

    I just got to the end of Sir MIchael Jackson’s (former Chief of the British Army) book ‘Soldier’ The epilogue said something very interesting about
    a military education at Sandhurst. The motto of the school is ‘Serve to Lead’ and Sir Mikes take on this was that for this to work you would have to have ‘loyalty’ from below from your ordinary soldier in the field otherwise
    the whole military system would collapse.

    If you further this analogy to governance you have to have the loyalty of the
    populace in believing that the government has their best interests to hand.
    How do you get the interaction of a govenment with its people -to me that
    involves democracy and of course there are many forms of democracy
    in the world. The set-up of the Kalapa Council is not even considering
    democracy in its most mildest forms. If it is not even on the table what
    does this say about the leadership surrounding the whole concept of
    the creation of an enlightened society. At some point VCTR wanted people to vote on issues in a National Assembly – this has to be discussed not only in SI but for those satellite groups growing up around SI because I myself would not be averse to having some relation with SI in a modified form as I think Ray would as well. I think you have to allow for different takes on VCTRS teachings, as Richard said we are all in this karmically.

    Would welcome more points of view on what is evolving in the greater
    mandala.

    best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
26. John Castlebury on August 8th, 2009 11:27 am
    

    I have a neighbour a hundred metres down the road in coastal southwestern Nova Scotia three hours from Halifax. Over the years he has transformed a large residential property into a trucking business/junkyard.

    The eyesore of it I could abide or got used to. A man has to make a living, I told myself. But now the noise of diesel engines idling for hours and their exhaust is getting worse, and the coming and going of trucks on this small country road is worse.

    This is in the midst of a rural cluster of old houses where people obviously live for the peace and quiet. Clearly the peace and quiet of his neighbours is not a concern of his.

    Then last weekend for a day and a half there was a loud droning compressor and louder bursts of pressurised water as he cleaned all his trucks. There was no escape from the noise. It vibrated like an echo in my stomach and chest.

    I thought of going over and asking for mercy. But his behaviour already told me that he cared only for his own purpose and cared not at all for the comfort of his neighbours.

    Nevertheless I did walk over because at this point it had begun to seem we would have no other choice but to leave our home of twenty years since his business has been getting bigger and busier. He was refilling the water tank on the truck with a pump at his well, the truck was idling for no apparent reason.

    I asked him if this was going to be going on for much longer, and he asked what’s the matter? I said the noise was filling up the house, what about his neighbours? He said “What, now I can’t wash my trucks! Go home and take a pill!” And then he turned his back and ignored me.

    The point is his behaviour had already told me all I needed to know before I went over there to talk to him. My neighbour had already declared the direction he is unilaterally taking. Either we accept the eyesore and the noise, or start scouting the real estate pages – what else, a lawsuit? a fistfight? a website? Because realistically do you think I’m going to change my neighbour’s behaviour?
27. Martin Fritter on August 8th, 2009 6:19 pm
    

    I can second Suzanne D.’s post about how CTR governed “the mandala.” There wall all kinds of checks and balances, both official and informal. There was a great deal of conflict, with people jockeying for position and trying to advance their various agendas. People tended to hate “the administration” — sometimes with good reason — but out of this yeasty mix arose all the institutions of the Vadjradhatu/Nalanda universe.

    Next, the actual Council minutes are basically an unintelligible mess While I admire Andrew’s efforts at explication, what really comes across is the vagueness of the original. The only thing that jumps out to me is the absence of direct students of CTS, as commented on earlier, and the continuing centrality of Richard Reoch.

    I find the inability of the current administration to communicate clearly to be one of its strangest shortcomings. The rhetoric, such as it is, sounds inflated and self-important.

    Finally, what is unexplained, and I think undiscussed in these comments (I haven’t read them all in detail) is why a new legal entity was felt to be necessary. SMR is free to re-organize Vdh/SI in pretty much any way at any time — although there are legal restrictions on the disposition of the assets of a church.

    My assumption is that somebody feels that Vdh/SI is not stable financially.
28. Tsondru Garma on August 8th, 2009 6:22 pm
    

    John,

    I have really have appreciated your poems, they are a great contribution to the site.
    …and at last, prose!!

    If I understand your metaphor correctly, My response would be to say that this website is about much more than changing anyone’s behavior. I feel certain that SI will take its course no matter what, and the purpose of this website is much vaster than an expression of despair and helplessness over the implications of what is happening.

    For myself, it is like some weird sort of therapy, or having a community, or even just a refreshing place to hang out…”hearing” the various takes and turns about the many issues, understanding them better, getting so many new ideas that spring forth as the discussion goes on. Even the interesting quips and comebacks…including honest dialogue, etc

    I’m sure there is much more to be said on this. What a wonderful variety of personalities and ideas there are here!

    Also, I love being in touch with the “old timers” and the “inner circle history of how it was.”

    And even though we have “moved on,” in our own acceptance and practice… I feel it is still important to look after what is happening, and to keep track of it. and maybe there are things that can be done.

    Sincerely,
    Tsondru
29. Suzanne Duarte on August 8th, 2009 7:16 pm
    

    I get your point, John Castlebury. Who wants to go to the trouble of lobbying among the neighbors and starting a class action lawsuit to get the bad neighbor to abide by environmental and other laws that may not even exist in your township, or whatever collective body governs your area. It would entail years of unpleasant work and generate questionable karma.

    However, I don’t think the analogy that you are suggesting really lines up with RFS, do you? Speaking for myself, I don’t have any hope that critiques of SI et.al. will change the direction of the organization. But I do think it is worthwhile to articulate the distinctions between VCTR’s vision and MO, and what is happening in SI . For one thing, I think that CTR’s loyal students owe it to to VCTR and to future generations (posterity) to state the truth as we see it, since SI seems to be capable of rewriting history. Based on my own experience of VCTR, I feel quite certain that he did not want his own history to be rewritten or revised.

    For another thing, I see evidence that the outspokenness of some loyal VCTR students on this site is strengthening the courage and conviction of other such students who write little or nothing on this site. If we can help to clarify the confusion and reinforce the integrity of some people, it is worth the time and effort.

    It seems clear that there are loyal SMR students who cannot get or grok what we are saying. That only strengthens the point that has been made so many times in so many ways on this site – there IS a difference and a division. The fact that we are stating it does not mean that we created the difference or the division. But stating it seems to be of benefit to those who can understand what is being said here. Nobody is forcing anyone to come to this site, and people aligned with this site are not invading SI’s territory to disrupt it, as far as I know.

    As Mark Szpakowski said in his podcast interview, RFS is allowing the Dark Matter in the greater Shambhala sangha to self-illuminate.
30. Tsondru Garma on August 8th, 2009 7:30 pm
    

    Suzanne,

    I love it. You remind me of Vetali!
31. Edward on August 8th, 2009 8:33 pm
    

    Rita made some comments about loyalty, in a military setting and so on.

    I’d like to share a few thoughts about loyalty from “Patton on Leadership”, a book based on quotes from General George Patton, Jr., considered (by me, at least) one of the greatest generals in the 20th century. (For the pacifist Buddhists reading this, he also claimed to remember his previous births, much to the discomfort of his associates who did not believe in such things.)

    While Patton was a big advocate of loyalty and of earning people’s respect– his own men refused promotions again and again to stay under his leadership– Section 19 of this book discusses Patton’s recommendation to “Fight Bad Orders.”

    Section 30 is “When Necessary, Question Your Orders”. Patton said:

    I believe that a good deal of my success and a great deal of my unpopularity is due to the fact that I fought every order to take troops away from me.

    Patton was a great foe of protecting or fortifying ones’ position. He said digging trenches or foxholes was like committing suicide.

    There’s another thing I want you to remember. Forget this goddamn business of worrying about our flanks. Some goddamned fool once said that flanks must be secured and since then sons of #!+*&$ all over the world have been going crazy guarding their flanks. We don’t want any of that in [my] army. I don’t want to get any messages saying that ‘We are holding our position.’ We’re not holding anything!

    Perhaps my favorite quote from Patton: “No one is thinking if everyone is thinking alike.”

    Patton is said to have demanded free and frank discussion from his inferiors regarding every decision he made, and he never tolerated mere polite agreement with his ideas, which he saw as a form of cowardice. He sometimes had superior officers work under inferior officers who had more experience. And, as shown in the movie, he caught a lot of flak for having Germans run their own country after the war was over, since he felt they had the most competence at their jobs. He was ordered to replace all the skilled “enemy” Germans with inexperienced “loyal” workers, even though at that point the Germans were no longer the enemy.

    Patton stressed the importance of getting out to the front lines constantly to see with one’s own eyes what is going on. He said it was essential for a military leader to be accessible to the people under him, and Patton even said that a general should answer his own phone.

    So, just like Confucius, Patton seems to have recommended an anti-cocooon structure around himself, in which he could get maximum feedback from all levels of the “mandala” around him.

    In my opinion, it’s not so much one’s words but one’s actions that are the real teaching one passes on to others. A great leader needn’t say anything “spiritual” so long as he teaches by his own example.
32. Rob Graffis on August 8th, 2009 10:05 pm
    

    It does seems a bit like a All In The Family Monty Pythonish show. A king with no kingdom yet, and already, the relatives and friends are in charge.
    It may make a good serial comedy half hour show on BBC when most people want to switch off the evening news.
33. Suzanne Duarte on August 9th, 2009 5:44 am
    

    Bingo! to Edward, and thank you. The quotes are very apt.

    I like your idea, Rob, although I’ve been thinking more along the lines of a Shakespearean costume drama, a feature film in the genre of tragicomedy.
34. Martin Fritter on August 9th, 2009 9:23 am
    

    Tony Duff just posted on the “New Curriculum” thread. Check it out if you have not done so.
35. Mark Szpakowski on August 9th, 2009 9:47 am
    

    I must admit I did not find the Kalapa Council Report all that complicated – maybe because I’m used to dealing with complex software. The language seems carefully crafted, tuned to a certain style, almost to the point of parody. The subtext of certain sections seems juicy, a possible inspiration for novels:

    The Sakyong made clear to the Kalapa Council and to the Warrior General that with the establishment of Kalapa and the creation of the Kalapa Council that primary responsibility for the protection and manifestation of the vision of the Kingdom of Shambhala was now to be held by the Kalapa Council. The implications of this for the role of the Council of Warriors, together with the wish of the Sakyong and Sakyong Wangmo to establish a Shambhala Office of Culture and Decorum, have been a regular feature of the discussions of the Kalapa Council since its inception and are continuing.

    I await the WG’s equally carefully crafted response – there is some humour in this situation

    Psychologically, an image has kept coming to mind: the Four of Pentacles. One can’t help thinking that there is insecurity at the center. The notion of mandala is transforming into a series of protective concentric walls, the center being pulled up so that the energetic flow is that of pure vertical hierarchy. This is not really mandala principle.

    I still vividly recall the first time I heard CTR talk about mandala, not as circles, but as society. The center of the mandala is space and openness, with the “vajradhatu” quality that no personal thingies can survive there. This is traditionally represented as the deity – the completely pure samadhi. This also applies to the secular court: “the nature of the court is _ _ _” (Mukpo & Rich, 1980): that genuine mind of sadness, suddenly free from fixed mind. The king is there to embody and guarantee no ownership.

    Diana Mukpo quotes from Great Eastern Sun: The Wisdom of Shambhala (p 100) in her Dragon Thunder book (p 223):

    Royalty in the Shambhala world is not based on creating a Shambhala elite or a class system. In that case I wouldn’t share the Shambhala vision with everybody. I wouldn’t be telling you about this at all. I would probably have selected ten or twenty people to hear about the universal monarch who joins heaven and earth rather than discussing this openly. Why should I tell you these things? One of our topics, gentleness and opening up, has something to do with it. Every one of you can join heaven and earth. You could be a king or queen — every one of you. That’s the switcheroo, the great switcheroo. That’s why the entire vision is shared with everyone. That is a very important point.
36. Barbara Blouin on August 9th, 2009 2:24 pm
    

    Reading Suzanne’s post (August 7) reminded me of a communication between Chogyam Trungpa and me in 1981. First what Suzanne wrote:
    “As one of the many people who did work in the government while the Vidyadhara was alive, I’d like to speak to the differences I sense in the way he governed the mandala, which some others in this thread also perceive. VCTR’s mandala was not a closed system. He created numerous channels – official and unofficial – by which information could reach him regarding the health and wellbeing of the sangha and the mandala as a whole. Some of those channels bypassed the Board of Directors. VCTR wanted to know what was going on, whether it pleased him or not.”

    Now to the story: In ‘81, as I said, I wrote a long letter to Trungpa Rinpoche. There were several key elements of Vajradhatu and Shambhala culture that I disapproved of (I’m a critical person … no surprise to any of you regular RFS readers!). I fully expected to be harshly scolded by my teacher, or worse, but I felt so strongly that I sent the letter anyway.

    To my astonishment I received a long and exceptionally kind response about two weeks later. This was just at the time when HH Karmapa XVI was dying of cancer in Chicago, which made the response all the more poignant. Rinpoche did not agree with my criticisms, but he laid out in great detail why things were the way they were. And he wholehertedly extended to me his love. Not a harsh word anywhere.

    I later learned that he had had one of his students read both letters to Lodge members (maybe the term “Lodge” has disappeared??) in Boulder. Then he came to Halifax, where I lived, and both letters were read once more. The tone of that gathering was strong but gentle and respectful. I feel confident that the feeling in Boulder was similar.

    This story illustrates just how completely Chogyam Trungpa not only listened to his students — whether they were saying things that were positive or critical — and how deeply he cared, … and responded!

    That is what we still need today, in the new era of the current Sakyong, but it is not happening. The new structure appears to be, as others have already said, a closed circle, a loop, without any possibility for direct feedback.
37. Davee on August 9th, 2009 2:49 pm
    

    Concerns that the original texts will be edited are funny. Really what’s happening is the opposite. The original audio and video are significantly more accessible thanks to heroic digitizing efforts and donations and now distribution to a number of centers around the world. We’re increasingly getting access to the unedited original words instead of just the edited books.

    One thing that might make these discussions difficult is that not everyone has access to the Kalapa Assembly transcripts where the Vidhyadhara laid out the court principle, or his fictional memoir about being a King in the court and it’s various intrigues. Now that the notion of kingdom as organizing principle (and kingdom as inner world as well) is talked about openly, it sounds like it’s coming from the Sakyong and it really pre-dates him. Even the Vidhyadhara’s presentation is mostly based on the court principle teachings of the first Mipham in the 19th century, which matches closely, so it predates him too. Therefore to have the second Mipham, who is also the second Sakyong, also organize things along the same court principle is hardly shocking.

    But independent of the structure, I don’t disagree that listening and open communication is important. I just don’t see how the structure and this document imply that there any less listening. Sure the document doesn’t describe all aspects of the organization and every detail of roles and responsibilities (which are always in flux anyway probably). But what specifically suggests that there is less listening? Also as someone already noted, it’s the same eight or nine people who have already been leading so has much really changed from the listening point of view? You can still email all these people (which is probably much easier then the 70’s before email) so this is not some huge government really, there’s just a few people and they’re mostly volunteers.

    That said, I recall a story where someone asked the Vidhyadhara if he wanted feedback and he responded “feedbag?” Quite an interesting response I think, and to Mark’s point that we’re all Kings of Shambhala, how much validation in the form of feedback do each of us generally need? Of course we need open flows of communication and energy, but I really get the sense that the Vidhyadhara was not a fan of democracy or western forms of government. Anyone disagree? Seems similar that we shouldn’t believe all the thoughts bubbling in our head all the time. Then we could ask, is our contribution to the politicial discussion a first thought of insight or a second thought better left alone?
38. John Tischer on August 9th, 2009 3:49 pm
    

    There’s more than just thoughts “bubbling in our heads”. There’s evidence of lots of actions that have taken place, and changes in structures that many people have discussed here that point to a completely different way of ruling between VCTR and SMR. The difference becomes more apparent over time.
39. Davee on August 9th, 2009 5:10 pm
    

    Some folks here are arguing against monarchy – which I totally understand and appreciate – it’s just that is an argument against the Vidhyadhara’s vision really and not any of the Sakyong’s changes. I think we should be precise about that. Then if we’re going to critique specific implementations or applications of monarchy it requires even more precision, but that doesn’t warrant mixing in any misgivings about monarchy. I have no idea whose ideas are first thought or second thought about all this, that will only ever be a personal contemplation.

    “feedbag”, that still cracks me up…
40. John Tischer on August 9th, 2009 5:33 pm
    

    I’m not arguing against monarchy…but if you understand the Shambahla
    teachings, it’s clear that the Monarch has to be enlightened. Not all here would agree that SMR is that.
41. damchö on August 9th, 2009 5:48 pm
    

    Hi Davee, some comments:

    “But what specifically suggests that there is less listening?”

    How about: many personal experiences of no listening.

    “You can still email all these people”

    You could, yes…

    “Of course we need open flows of communication and energy, but I really get the sense that the Vidhyadhara was not a fan of democracy or western forms of government. Anyone disagree?”

    I don’t see the connection between those two clauses. “We need open flows of communication and energy”–that’s it, yes. That’s a complete thought. We do need that. Period. Many people here feel that we have been losing that more and more.

    For that matter, often within Shambhala circles I have heard quite breezy dismissals of “democracy”, and find these pretty troubling. Nobody I know thinks democracy in and of itself is a magic wand. It’s also a word with many shades of meaning, capable of being implemented in many ways–including co-existence with some form of monarchy. But it seems to have become a new badge of pride for many people in Shambhala to have “seen through” “democracy”. A new mark of Identity even.

    The first time I began wondering about this was when I heard someone casually say that although the Dalai Lama goes all round the world praising greater democracy as the direction we ought to be going in, he doesn’t really mean it–secretly he believes in monarchy. Well, I suppose this guy could be right, and the Dalai Lama is simplly lying right and left. But I suspect a more reasonable assumption somehow is that he’s telling the truth, and likewise that the Kingdom of Bhutan’s recent movements in this direction are symptomatic of something more and more understood, ie the necessity of “open flows of communication and energy”…
42. damchö on August 9th, 2009 5:52 pm
    

    And re: “feedbag”. Your story *could* be interpreted as having a subtext, right?: “stop asking questions, stop thinking things through, stop sharing concerns, accept everything coming down to you. The members of the hierarchy simply don’t need feedback. They are perfect, and the system is incorruptible, and our insight is of lesser value.” To me that would be an abandonment of bodhisattva vows.

    What Trungpa Rinpoche himself meant by the comment–in its highly specific context, and if remembered accurately in the first place–is not something we can know. These stories are kind of like Rorschach blots, aren’t they? Maybe he genuinely misheard the person asking the question. Is “feedbag” even a negative word? I don’t know. It’s really up to us to decide. Fortunately, the dharma teaches us never to abandon our critical intelligence.
43. John Tischer on August 9th, 2009 7:16 pm
    

    Thank you, Damcho….nice comments.
44. Davee on August 9th, 2009 7:19 pm
    

    yes i wasn’t there when “feedbag” occurred, but the story was accounted during a shambhala training program by an acharya who was present and I suspect really was on the receiving end of the feedbag comment! He was quite clear on the significance.

    But my point is that these criticisms of the new organizational structure is within the larger context that the Vidhyadhara setup. So critical intelligence yes but are we really trying to critique the whole enchilada that the Vidhyadhara setup or just the most recent iteration of the structure?

    We hear that the Vidhyadhara facilitated channels of and we hear examples of two-way communication. I don’t see what specifically in this new organizational structure hinders that, since it’s the same people, etc. it has more concentric circles legally, kalapa -> sakyong’s council -> mandala governing council. but we also have 170 centers and groups and 8000 official members, if we had that many in the 70’s would we have had more structure?

    Speaking as someone who has gone to many vajra assemblies in the last few years, my experience of the Sakyong is that he’s constantly relating to what students are saying and his teachings are often bringing those into the narrative. But perhaps one has to be there to see that to some degree? Was the same was true in the (exclusive) Lodge in the 80’s, if you weren’t there you wouldn’t interact as much just naturally?

    If there’s a criticism I could see from that, it would be the Vidhyadhara heard more from those who engaged in what was going on rather than those who sat on the side lines and didn’t engage. Those going to vajra assemblies were getting more opportunities to talk with him than those who didn’t.

    New structures like the mandala governing council have a two-way communication role specifically, as do other structures like open working groups. But I’m sure the Vidhyadhara also had a range of mechanisms and if you were hanging out in the various exclusive gatherings you had more interaction naturally, plus the community was smaller = more interaction, and less geographically diverse = more interaction.

    Now if you dislike your center director that might not help you make use of the mandala council structure, but… being disaffected or bothered by the people or organization probably always makes it harder to have a conversation no matter what organization we’re talking about. Stephen Covey would definitely say so. I agree then as an organization grows it’s helpful to encourage those disaffected to communicate and magnetize the diverse range of opinions. I’m not sure it’s strictly necessary, more best-practice. And it matters are we talking about 20% of the community, or 2%, or <1%? The folks posting on this board (myself included) are definitely a vocal minority and echo chamber of the same folks again and again. Though I feel like I’m getting to know you all a little in spite of the echo, which is nice.
45. John Tischer on August 9th, 2009 8:36 pm
    

    Thanks. I had no problem with the Shambhala Center in Denver, where I co-taught two classes in the “Turning The Mind Into An Ally” tract, as well as a level II of Shambhala Training. But as an “employee” of Shambhala.org, I found the governing structural hierarchy totally corporate, without feeling and totally antithetical to any Buddhist understanding. Maybe some people think that had to be so. Maybe so. i don’t know.
46. damchö on August 9th, 2009 10:25 pm
    

    Davee, your reply to my reply to the “feedbag” story made me laugh! Not at your reply as such, but at the omnipresent humour of language and communication. And this reply to yours to mine to yours hopefully may cause you to do the same. In any case, this is a tangent to the main topic here, but I feel like saying a little something more about this–ie about how we interpret the endless Rinpoche stories…

    Even if the acharya who told you this is certain of the One True Meaning of each and every personal encounter they had with Rinpoche, I wouldn’t buy that. Maybe they are even certain that every time Rinpoche coughed it “meant” something–and that they themselves knew exactly what that something was. (And who knows, maybe it did, and they did!) I just think we need to have a sense of humour about all that. We all know how two people present at the same event even yesterday evening can have a very different memory / interpretation. This event must’ve occurred 20-odd years ago at the very least–that’s about 7500 evenings ago at the very least…

    Here’s the funny part: technically speaking, “feedbag” and “feedback” have five successively identical sounds, and then one sound that’s *almost* identical, differing in only one feature: vocal cord vibration, versus no vocal cord vibration. Ie: it’s extremely easy for me to imagine mistaking the two words, if there is any kind of background noise whatsoever going on, or you’re a little intoxicated, or just being playful etc etc. Try saying them one after another to yourself, rapidly….. See what I mean?

    Laughing yet?! No?! Damn! I failed! Okay, then maybe your acharya was correct, and you are correct. Rinpoche was poking fun at a serious question concerning whether feedback to the teacher is helpful. Maybe he really was telling us: “hey, keep to your lowly place. Can’t you see I know everything that’s going on everywhere? You’re talkin’ to the King here. I rule over you. Of *course* I don’t need feedback.”

    This seems to be your point in relating the story: that there is something comical about offering feedback to…someone so immeasurably higher than us? I can’t think why else you would’ve brought that exchange up. But I’m not convinced…

    All I’m saying is: it’s great to bring up stories when we are trying to illuminate our personal understanding of something. But easy to bring them up also as a way to give our own understanding some kind of imprimatur. I’ve done this myself, and have seen it a lot: kind of the Buddhist version of quoting Leviticus or something. Maybe you weren’t doing that. Anyway, peace–I’m not sure I’ll ever look at a feedbag the same way again…

    Hey! Maybe that’s what Rinpoche was teaching us. He said that word so that whenever we saw a feedbag in the future we’d be reminded of feedback, and how necessary it is for all leaders to receive it, and for everyone else to be able to express it… :0)
47. danny goldberger on August 9th, 2009 10:48 pm
    

    So, Damcho, are you saying that all these people who say they are CERTAIN of what the DD was doing and had in mind mightn’t be so sure after all?
    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEDDDBAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!
    I get it. . . Hilarious.
48. damchö on August 9th, 2009 11:02 pm
    

    Danny, you got it. We’re all fallible. Many heads are better than a few.

    Your views are just as strong as anyone else’s here, my friend. Long live genuine open discussion–cheers!
49. John Tischer on August 9th, 2009 11:52 pm
    

    Wow…..awesome…I mean beyond compare…
    Thanks for this.

    Best…. J.T.
50. Davee on August 10th, 2009 1:27 am
    

    heehee. ya, if i were to offer my amateur commentary it was not that feedbags should remind us of the need for feedback, but rather the opposite and that confidence and overcoming the trap of doubt is a core component of the shambhala teachings and path. this is the topic of one of the graduate levels of shambhala training, which I won’t go in depth since it would be definitely out of context. but it doesn’t mean one abandons intelligence nor communication at all; or that the teacher or leadership is necessarily better than us in some way.
51. ashoka on August 10th, 2009 6:18 am
    

    I thought that we all are already enlightened and that part of the point was to trust that in one another? I wonder if we could apply the compassionate view of the masters to ourselves, and the Sakyong for that matter, how different would the world look? Would our streams of concepts and ideas feel different? I’ve always felt that the essence of the path is about unraveling that, and being prepared to wholeheartedly allow things to fall apart in doing so…

    I actually came on here to ask John Castlebury to post the poem about life being a lonely journey; I’ve been looking for it and I’m not in a place where I can access his poetry. Turns out it was the last poem he posted in this thread! Coincidence is the attendant of devotion I guess… Thanks John! KiKiSoSo

    PS Barbara I thought your last post was worthy of contemplation. That was a nice anecdote, thank you.
52. rita ashworth on August 10th, 2009 6:54 am
    

    It is interesting to hear from Ashoka again on this thread. I take his
    point about relating to each other in a compassionate manner so that some of our concepts and ideas may fall apart. But lets not forget there
    are at least usually two points of view in the whole relationship, if there is
    to be a meeting of minds both have to let their positions fall apart
    somewhat.

    I think if you wish to be a King or a Sakyong for that matter some of your cherished views about the way things will evolve will have to fall apart too as indeed Trungpa’s Rinpoches ideas fell apart after he had his accident in the UK in that he devised new ways of teachings in the US.

    How could the Sakyongs views fall apart when he is interacting with people who feel that they are now providing new ways of bringing VCTRs teachings to the world. I hope the Sakyong can come to a much more inclusive role in working with the diverse viewpoints that are evolving in regard to the Shambhala teachings.

    Would like to hear further views on this post.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Stockport UK
53. John Castlebury on August 10th, 2009 8:25 am
    

    [VCTR, from 1983 VY transcript,
    Talk Sixteen, Bedford Springs, PA:]

    The King’s Bugle

    We don’t expect money from you.
    We don’t expect horses from you.
    We don’t expect elephants from you.
    However, we expect glories from you.

    Let us shed tears.
    Let us beat our drums.
    Let us sniff with the help of kleenex.
    We must maintain our dharma kingdom.
    We must purify ourselves from kleshas.

    Once upon a time there was a beautiful mountain, capped with snow and glacier.
    Fantastic scarf of mist wrapped round its neck.
    Wind blew gently but crisp cool,
    And the coyotes howled meaningfully, hauntingly.
    Dharma is lost in Tibet.
    Dharma is flourishing in North America.
    We cry with joy that this dharmic lotus blossom can open in North America.
    We take great joy that dharma is the water that quenches anyone’s thirst―
    Anyone can drink dharma.
    We are pleased that the Kagyü dharma is becoming great and strong
    In spite of his Holiness Karmapa’s death.

    We have to lick the dharma.
    We have to swallow the dharma.
    We have to chew the dharma.
    Dharma is good food,
    Especially the Kagyü dharma that we love.
    We like the spice of the Kagyü dharma in our food.
    We love to cry a lot, shed our tears.
    We want to support dharma,
    We want to spend lots of money for the sake of dharma.
    Please come join us and practice with us.
    Practice is like a key, money is like a lock;
    Enjoyment of all this is like opening a treasure chest.
    Welcome to the dharmic world.
    We are so proud and hungry.
    This is a hungry letter from Chöggie.

    Still Chöggie is Tiger Lion Garuda Dragon,
    Unflinching,
    Never afraid of obstacles.
    So Chögyam Trungpa writes this letter;
    C.T. Mukpo writes this letter in the name of the Kagyü dharma.
    Kill or cure, Trungpa never gives up.
54. Rob Graffis on August 10th, 2009 10:18 pm
    

    In a talk Thrangu Rinpoche gave in 1995, he said what made Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche such a great teacher is that he knew how the western mind thinks and works better then any other Tibettan teacher he knew of, not only him, but the Dalai Lama himself.
    On a different note, to say “As one lama friend told me, you let yourselves be treated like “white slaves” of Asians. “Rich” white slaves.” as one reader noted isn’t excatly research material. Besides, as far as I know, it’s still the Pacific rim Buddhist students who are the largest financial patrons of many of the Tibetan teachers we have had the good fortune to hve sudied with and receive their blessings.
    Rob Graffis
55. Tsondru Garma on August 11th, 2009 4:27 pm
    

    (22) Since the late 1970s, the Vajradhatu Office of External Affairs has facilitated the establishment of contacts with lineage teachers and cultivated these relationships, as well as managed many aspects of relations within the broader Buddhist context, and beyond. Under the leadership of Chögyam Trungpa, this office had as many as four people working full time, reflecting its high priority. In recent years, the staffing commitment has been reduced to two part-time positions. The Office of External Affairs has been closed and Peter Volz, a senior student of Chögyam Trungpa with considerable experience in lineage relations, has been retired.

    Does anyone have any information about what exactly has happened and what is happening with the Department of External affairs??
56. Ed Z on September 3rd, 2009 11:52 pm
    

    While not exactly on topic, I thought this might shed some light on the current situation:

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/626737c84a/infomercial-hell?rel=player
57. Nick Wright on September 10th, 2009 12:15 am
    

    Just dropped in to see what’s new. A few brief notes to clarify the structure of Shambhala society as the Dorje Dradul presented it (see “The Decorum of Shambhala” page 26 for a diagram if you are authorized).

    At the top (lha): The Royal Family. In the middle (nyen) “three pillars”: The Government, The Buddhist Church, and The Military. At the bottom (lu): The Subjects. (The arrangement can also be seen as a mandala, with the Royal Family in the centre.)

    The Government comprises:

    1) The Privy Council (six members): the Sakyong, the Lord Chancellor (at that time VROT), the Kasung Kyi Khyap (head of the Military), the Dorje Loppon (head of the Buddhist Church), the Kasung Dapon (head of the General Military), the Kusung Dapon (head of the Palace Guard).

    2) The Sangyum

    3) Ladies of the Court

    4) The Administration:
    Ministers of the Realm
    Foreign Service
    Dekyong Council

    There are further breakdowns, but I think the above is enough for this thread.

    Best wishes,

    Nick Wright
58. Andrew Safer on September 13th, 2009 2:46 pm
    

    Tsondru:

    Some time ago, you asked: “what is happening with the Department of External Affairs?” My apologies for the late response.

    In a word, it was shut down. The Office of the Kalapa Court has been given the responsibility of relations with visiting teachers. Richard Reoch oversees this area of activity. As I understand it, Michael Gayner and Lodro Gyatso are working in this capacity part time.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!