First, re: the quote from the Vidyadhara about his reincarnation. I posted that as a point of information, certainly not as a conclusion.

Second, re: “it’s up to us”…We can complain, we can equivocate, we can storm off, we can position ourself on the “right side” of the argument, whatever. In the end, *regardless,* are we doing everything we can to preserve and propagate these wonderful teachings we have been entrusted with–never mind the obstacles–or are we using one of the “good excuses” that are out there (and there are many) to shy away from the challenge?

Even if there is little to no support from within SI, are we still doing whatever we can? There’s a real charnel ground quality to this. Have we have been eaten up by the charnel groundness, or is it “otherwise”?

Vdh. Recordings was the first place where VCTR’s teachings were preserved and protected – in the original recordings from which all the transcripts and books of his seminars, talks and meetings were preserved. At Vdh. Recordings we believed we had a sacred duty to preserve, protect and disseminate his teachings for the benefit of future generations. I suppose that is where my own assumption came from, that all his “senior students” *should* understand that their samaya included the duty to protect and preserve and propagate VCTR’s teachings. But that assumption was reinforced in so many ways by the training programs he designed for us to become meditation instructors, teachers and directors of Shambhala Training. I never questioned my assumption that, as his students – and especially as MI’s, teachers, and directors of Shambhala Training – it was our duty to protect and propagate his teachings. Who else was going to do it? Why else would he have put so much blood, sweat and tears into training us???

Well, that was my assumption until my vajra brothers and sisters, people who had taken samaya with VCTR, began demonstrating that they did not believe it was their duty to protect and preserve VCTR’s legacy. I began to realize that many of my old sangha friends did not see things the same way I did when the basic meditation instruction was changed, and seasoned MI’s were told by Dale Asrael, the representative of Sakyong Mipham, that we now had to teach meditation according to SMR’s instruction. Well, that jettisoned my own 20-yr. ‘career’ as an MI. I literally felt I’d be damned if I went along with changing VCTR’s meditation instruction, which I still believe in whole-heartedly.

I was aghast that so many students of the Vidyadhara went along with the changes that SMR instituted. Each one made my blood boil: the name change from Vdh. to SI, and of dharmadhatus to Shambhala Centers, the removal of Vajradhara and lineage photos from shrines, the transformation of RMDC from a genuine practice retreat center soaked in lineage blessings and drala, to the new-age corporate resort called SMC, the merging of Shambhala Training with a Buddhist curriculum, etc., etc., etc. But many of my old friends rationalized these changes, which also made my blood boil. I wasn’t silent, I had arguments with my peers, but I seemed to have few allies. Even some former Vdh. directors went along with the changes. Nobody who had any influence within SI had any interest whatsoever in my objections, and some people insulted me and warned me that I was breaking samaya!

This story is not over! When will “senior students” who now have oaths of loyalty to SMR wake up and confess?

Thank you for your clarification on your last post.

I will print it off and think about it for a while.

I dont think lineage is debateable up to CTR – its after that that I have questions about the way things are progressing. I think I am prepared to live with that confusion for a while -perhaps older students can work with other Kagyu Lamas to manifest CTR’s teachings in the world -there might be a possibility in that area.

Yes Ray is interesting I await further developments with him and perhaps others.

So this is probably one of my last comments on the whole thing and I will think/practice around these questions for the near future.

Best

Rita Ashworth

Senior students , disciples protecting the purity of the teachings. their precious lineage, that they have a responsibility to continue. When you no longer see lineage as important, or you decide to make lineage expedient to the whims of a usurper, you have lost the view, the blessings dont come through and there is nothing but confusion. If you stay in a situation, and bystand lineage being destroyed, and your teachers stream of teachings tweaked and twisted, to the whims of a son , , , , and you stay in because of livelihood, or some mixed up view that you are still protecting the teachings, even though the lineage has been dismissed, and you stand by and let that happen, you are very confused and should not , I believe ,be continuously congratulated…It is how this whole mandala has been turned around .
So the lineage questions and revealed confusion about lineage , and the lack of protecting the teachings of CTR, is really about the same thing. These are not separate issues. Protecting the teachings so that they remain pure in their transmission, i.e. clear and not confusing so that people can wake up not stay confused. is what lineage is. Anything else, is something else.. We have short memories, but it is when the lineage of CTR was dismissed , the pictures of CTR’s lineage taken off the shrine, that the real confusion in this mandala occurred, lest you think lineage is debatable. Even in the most radical Dzogchen teachings,lineage still matters..

Just the way SMR has made lineage expedient, is the thing that should have placed all the senior students of CTR on alert. When even that was o.k. I, for one knew that all was lost in terms of finding the Genuine Trungpa Rinpoche in this mandala of expediency.

The journalist in me is asking me what you mean concisely about the above quote. Are you saying specifically that the senior students were asked by Trungpa himself to protect the teachings – if they were who were they specifically or was it just a group audience that met with Trungpa. Or are you referring to something in writing that Trungpa wrote and his students interpreted in a certain manner.

Re lineage and this is probably one of the last questions I ask on it for awhile what do you make of Rays statement that he is not self-proclaimed -that Trungpa did indeed want his older students to become lineage holders besides the Regent -how would you see that?

As to Trungpa 12 -there has been a debate on this board about him – how would you recognise that he is a genuine emanation of Trungpa in the light of other comments on this board.

Over to you – really would like to hear your comments on these questions.

Best

Rita Ashworth

Dream on. If the 12th Trungpa Rinpoche is brought over here, it won’t be Shambhala International hosting him, (just like they didn’t host the 17th Karmapa, despite the PR pretending they did (SI is best at pretending), It will be a Kagyu group, there are already rumors to that effect.

No, the senior students you are referring too, phenomenally failed in their first task, i.e. , to protect the teachings of CTR. There are no other chances now. Elvis has left the building to the echoing hollow sounds of ” it’s up to us, it’s up to us”

“Rinpoche’s students were so fortunate, we’ve gotten so much…The big issue now is not so much do we have enough; it’s more, how can we share it with the world?”

I appreciate this comment so much. It really got me thinking about the challenge of sharing what I’ve received from Rinpoche. It’s an ongoing challenge. I think it’s so true that it’s up to his senior students to manifest what we’ve learned, in whatever way we can. This resonates with what Mark has written in various places on this site…Basically, it’s up to us. The days of automatic service are over. No one else is going to do it for us!

Mark- thankyou for clarifying the original confusion and wisdom of this grammatical mishap! Could you maybe provide us with a context for this quote please?

Namaste

Edmund

As someone mentioned, you can always listen to the audio (and sometimes video) tapes. From my own experience (having listened to and taped 100’s of talks, done some transcribing, some editing, some proof-reading (re-editing), knowing a number of “senior editors” (including my wife)), I would say that Chögyam Trungpa’s words are relatively lightly edited. I’ve had the experience of reading the raw transcript of what became the Cutting Through book, for example, and then reading the book as published. A bit of the raw quality got lost, but you wouldn’t know that reading it now: it’s still an atomic bomb. CTR had a way with words, and you mess with that at your peril.

I use “relatively” here because I know that other teachers are much more heavily re-worked. The Sakyong’s Turning the Mind into an Ally was initially an 800-page book. I wonder also about the numerous Dalai Lama books.

CTR’s sometimes loopy syntax and on-the-spot neologizing could open you up instantly. I once heard him say, “open space cannot be perceived by otherwise at all.” Absolutely brilliant, and one of my all-time favorite quotes. So I was really disappointed to later read a transcript which amended it to something like “otherwise open space cannot be perceived at all”. Feh – tweaked, murky, outlandish, and unscrupulous