1. Charismatic Authority: this is the emotional bond between a leader and his followers. It lends the “legitimacy” needed by the leader and “grants authority” to everything he does, while at the same time “justifying and reinforcing followers’ responses to the leader and/or his ideas and goals. Charisma, is the hook that links a devotee to a leader and his ideas.” The leader accomplishes this through “priviledge and command” and the desired effect is that followers will have faith in and “identify” with the leader.
2. Transcendental Belief System: the “overarching ideology” that binds the devotees to the group and keeps them behaving according to the group’s rules and norms. The leader and his administration layout the “methodology” or “recipe” necessary to travel the path and it provides a “world view” that offers both “meaning and purpose” through a “moral imperative.”This requires each member to subject himself to the programmatic structure laid out. The members can feel a sense of connection a larger goal. The belief system is “internalized” and behaviors and attitudes conform to the group’s goals.
3.Systems of Control: This provides organizational structure. Its primary purpose is to “create a behavioral system and disciplinary code through “rules, regulations, and sanctions.” The “effect is compliance or better yet obedience.”
4. Systems of Influence: This is the networks of social influence and interactions that are present in the group’s social relationships. It becomes a “group culture” that teaches members to “adapt their thoughts, attitudes and behaviors in relation to their new beliefs. The purpose of the “system of influence” is to shape the group culture and to “institutionalize” the group norms.
Lilich: on Cults.

“Of the three Jewels, the third one, the Sangha has been put on the back burner by this present administration, which many of them very much wanted to cooperate with at first, but were not only not listened too, but somewhat invited to leave if they don’t like it.”

I certainly have noticed that the third jewel, the Sangha, has been put on the back burner by the current administration. The dissing of CTR’s sangha has been obvious for many years, especially because CTR took such pains to nurture his sangha with the sacred outlook of the dharma.

However, I’m curious about what you’re saying here: “which many of them very much wanted to cooperate with at first, but were not only not listened too, but somewhat invited to leave if they don’t like it.”

Who do you mean by “them”? Who wanted to cooperate with what, and who was not listened to and “somewhat invited to leave if they don’t like it.” And what does that “it” refer to?

Can you clarify?

Thanks for your latest post.

Just been doing some brief research on Shambhala website re Dan Montgomery’s comments on governance. Found Community as Practice Contemplating Shambhala Buddhist Culture 2004 (SMC) on Shambhala Congress website (prepared by Mary Whetsell) which is interesting because it shows a lot of discussion about the role of the Sakyong –so people could look at that if they wanted to.

Secular Sacred Governance report is on the main Shambhala website proper. Now this is the concept that Dan Montgomery states Richard Reoch came up with on his post of 1st December 2010 which made no sense to him. It would be useful to know from Dan if any other reports were written down besides the one I found above compiled by Ms Whetsell in 2004 as I can not find any others online.

On another tack re the discussions about people going off from SI and doing their own thing –yes its a gamble but then isn’t everything. I still dont know what to make of Ray –heard stories for and against, but yes he seems to be flourishing and attracting people to his centres and groups. So I dont know the lay of the land may become clearer after another 10 years for all of us besides SI’s thrust to the fantastical, big number, grand, mega,
12 million??!!

Yes so many scenarios could happen with people drifting away from SI, indeed as rfs provides a growing forum for people to comment and to gauge what is happening out there others may decide to start setting up different groups that is also a possibility.

Well hope people can check the stuff above –it proves interesting reading. In Secular Sacred Governance Richard spent lots of time poring over the OED about the word secular, and of course loads of debate has gone on this site about ‘that’ word. Wonder how long he was glued to the OED?!

Well best from the UK. Also brief news we are trying our best to free Assange but the Swedes wont let us! Hope people continue to back up Assange worldwide.

Rita Ashworth

First, I appreciate the re-reminder (I have bought this point up) concerning the three Jewels. Of the three Jewels, the third one, the Sangha has been put on the back burner by this present administration, which many of them very much wanted to cooperate with at first, but were not only not listened too, but somewhat invited to leave if they don’t like it.
Secondly, those who had Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche as their teacher, and mistakenly believed they automatically had to follow the Sakyong as their “Guru”, were not discouraged from doing so. Remember, the Sakyong was designated to be our Secular leader more then a spiritual one. Even if he was designated to be a spiritual leader, our root teachers are the ones we have made a deep connection with, not whom we are told to.
The absolute teachers and sangha are the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and those who one the Way.
As far as communicating to Chhoyam Trungpa R. goes in the final years, the Regent took over those resonsibilities as time went on.
I have to admit, I even mad a semi complaint about The Regent to Rinoocher, and his only response was “That’s our Regent”.
Rinpoche was basically too sick and unpredictable to see people anymore.
You also have to remember, Rinpoche started the group, and most of us joined it because of him, not because we wanted to become Buddhist.
It woiuld kind of be like protesting the founder of a company who you asked to work for.
The Sakyong is a successor. Not a founder).
Many of us did not choose him as a teacher.
Long before his father died, many of us knew he was not going to be our own personal spiritual guide. Shambhala, yes, but not Buddhist. It was not out of disrespect.
That is why it was confounding to many of us that he mixed Buddhism and Shambhala as the same thing.
That would be like mixing Shintoism and Buddhism as the same thing.

There could have been plenty of people that gave him that advice. Point is,
he listened.

Poisoning, and assassination was one favorite method.

If Shambhala can’t find its way to work with those kinds of universal issues of dishonesty, abuse…in a much healthier way than up to now, then our pretensions about enlightened society are worse than none at all.”

Yes. This is the core point, for me anyway.