Heart in Palm
October 9, 2009 by Mark Szpakowski 
Print This Post
You can now listen to the September 9, 2009 Halifax Community Gathering with Adam Lobel: the MP3 (right-click to download (on Mac, control-click)) is available on the Halifax Shambhala Centre’s web site. Shambhala Buddhist Acharya Lobel starts off with a talk on Time and Timelessness, but the vivid discussion by the participants soon cuts to the chase of raw essence, what’s been missing, what is manifesting right there.
This is a two-hour tape. It’s worth listening to the whole thing, but if you’re really pressed for time, start at the one-hour mark, with some eloquent and incisive remarks by Lodro Dorje on how Trungpa Rinpoche’s approach was to create a rich practice container which invited further teachings from the great Kagyü and Nyingma lineage masters.
The highlight though, comes later: Lynn Friedman – trembling but courageous, gentle and articulate. As one text says:
The heart placed fresh in the palm, nothing else.
This is what we miss, but – surprise! – this is what we are.
Madeline Schreiber adds outrageousness and humor, exclaiming about the Rigden Thangka, “it’s bad art!”
There’s a lot more. Adam confirms again that the cornerstone and signature of the Sakyong’s approach is what is being termed “the Shambhala Terma”. A couple of people bring up conflict, skirmish, as itself a vehicle.
At the end, recently-appointed Halifax Shambhala Centre director Yeshe Fuchs expresses dismay at how people are whining.
Listen for yourself. Listen to the voices. Listen to yourself.
Energy fools the magician. - Brian Eno
Wow! This is absolutely fantastic. Thanks and kudos Mark Sz.!
What was the occasion for the talk? Was it intended to be so open-ended? Adam did quite well, although he used the soothing, “pacifying” tone-of-voice so common in SI circles which can sound mildly condescending. Compare how he sounded to Lodro or the other gentleman – Hudson, maybe?
Interesting that the most compelling statements came from the women, who were uniformly great.
Sill, considering his age and audience I’d say he’s pretty tough and his sophistries the innocent ones of youth.
Nice to hear the old voices.
That was great to listen to. Adam L.’s answer about doubt really clarified
aomething for me. I always had tremendous doubt around VCTR….the
people. the organization, yada yada…except for one thing: him.
So. simply, I feel, I shouldn’t take SMR as my teacher as long as I have
doubts about him. No flies on either of us. Sail on sailors.
Wow indeed! Have just finished listening and am really kind of overwhelmed…
Lynn’s words, their genuineness and courage, moved me to tears. I don’t think I’ve heard those feelings, which so many have experienced, stated with greater eloquence. And then near the end, that string of great contributions culminating in Madeline’s, which just hit like a burst of fresh air.
I’m not sure I’ve met any of the people who spoke, but am truly grateful to you all for sharing your openness and wisdom. And thanks so much Mark for making it accessible.
Madeline got me, I didn’t want her to stop.
aliens
isn’t it available on the HSC website?
Wow, I really liked what the woman (Lynn Friedman?) said. Especially her disposition. Very beautiful.
I think that’s all I better say for now, at least until I finish listening.
A very good talk – I have thought about it overnite and have some comments on it:
Shambhala persay is not SI. Shambhala is much bigger than that for example I had a brief email from a senior older student who said of the Shambhala teachings ‘Shambhala is bigger mind, bigger vision. More vast than even this small planet – so you can not be separated (from the teachings)’ and that statement does indeed describe my own connection to Lord Mukpo’s teachings -they are not bounded by SI or even receiving from the Sakyong Trungpa Rinpoches’ shambhala terma – although it would be nice to recive these terma as a Trungpa student.
No I think there will be more terma coming to people within and without of SI from Shambhala – I just have an intuition about that.
Some brief comments on the talk itself when Acharya Lobel states that the present Sakyong is above the battle I found that comment odd. My experience of Trungpa Rinpoche was that he was always in the midst of the battle because he was always surrounded by people 24/7. He was in samsara but not of it but he was always connected to people suffering in it.. Open that door and you would see Trungpa with some girl who was completely nutty.
Furthermore as to the Art of the Rigden king, I have my doubts about it. It doesnt depress me but rather I dont think it is rooted, grounded in a coming western tradition of Shambhala. I am willing to wait for Shambhala Art to develop from our own culture as Trungpa Rinpoche wrote of in the Lions Roar when he talked about American tantric forms developing.
As to Yeshe Fuchs comments -yes we are getting older, yes the Sakyong is the Shambhala lineage holder, yes you have devotion to the Mukpo clan but then dont we all within and without of SI – but for me my connection to Shambhala comes before even being a Buddhist due to my own experiences in my world. And personally in a heartfelt way I do not want these teachings barred to anyone anywhere in the world at any point.
As to whining I would say whine on in fact I think Jack Kerouac could have started a poem with the phrase “Come whine with me” – Mexico City Blues, his book exemplifies his contact with this aspect of our inherent whining!
And also I dont think we have to go through the teachings to magnetize them for others-the shambhala teachings are even more direct than that more in the sense of the snake going down the tube hyperfast. – so I am not worried about people coming to these teachings – if people just talk about them directly and truthfully people they will hear them -much as they listen to good music or feel about good art.
So yes whether in SI or not you can have these teachings in this world – I dont take SI’s claim to uniqueness with the teachings to be the case because as I said before new terma will ripen in the future if we meditate with good hearts on the teachings given to us by Trungpa Rinpoche.
Would love to hear some more debate on this talk.
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
What a surprise and what a relief. Finally, the humour, and intelligence and fearlessness of CTR students breaking through. Like the sun rising again after decades of fog and confusion.
Thanks, Halifax. 4000 miles away, and we were right in that room with you.
It broke our hearts.
Chris and Robert Chandler
Great!
After decades of being Buddhists doing the safe and snuggly Vajrayana Practices with the view of Hinayana – here is the opportunity to offer all our realisation to the new generations and be in this Shambhala experiment right from the beginning.
Let’s do it!
And not hide behind fixed ideas about pictures, shrines, forms….or did somebody give up, fearing any inconvenience?
Love to the cool old and new dogs.
Hans Wurst
Mark:
Thanks for putting this up. Could you put a link to this talk on sangha-announce so more people could hear it?
Chris
I woke at 3:00 am haunted by the talk Adam gave or rather the discussion and finally acknowledged my own deep sadness at what I feel is a loss. I acknowledged to myself how I miss the old shrine, the path laid out by CTR, but so inspired once again by our old sangha friends. Their bravery to speak out, their “right on” comments about doubt, Lodro’s words as keeper of our history in a way.
Interesting too how Adam seemed to go (in my view) from delivering a new product to being silent and I suspect somewhat abashed by the level of heart revealed. Indeed I feel “broken” and it’s good to hear it said out loud about some in our sangha, walking around with heads down fearing to offend.
It was the loneliness and brilliance of CTR I heard in those voices and it made me cry. So glad I invested the two hours in listening.
Some further thoughts.
I agree with what was said at the meeting, that Adam Lobel had a difficult role to play. That’s never an easy situation to be in and I thought he handled it with patience and some real empathy, as Lucille has said. Also–trying to look at it from his position–skill. At the same time, I find myself focusing on a few points.
1) Firstly, I was interested in what he said about how potential future meetings might mix discussion with practice, which, he asserted, was not really the case there. That struck me, because honestly, I don’t know what more one could expect in the way of dharmic communication. The speakers’ words were deeply genuine and heartfelt, direct and brave, insightful, all in the spirit of Shambhala. So I didn’t really understand what Adam meant there.
2) Related to this were his words on how the Sakyong never seems to take sides, which Rita has mentioned. To me this feels like a deflection of the issue. From the standpoint of power in an organization, “not taking sides” is a luxury accruing to those who are able to make the decisions. Because at the end of the day a side is definitely being taken with regard to questions of lineage, curriculum, approved teachers, and so on. So I guess I’m not really sure of the point in saying: well, the Sakyong himself maintains an inscrutable spaciousness and won’t be dragged into any kind of fray. It’s almost like saying: “you see, we’re not even taking sides in the first place. You’re the ones doing that. If you could only be spacious like us…” I don’t want to make too much of that, it’s just a personal feeling.
3) And then, on doubt and doubtlessness: often I think this is the real nub of the problem. I keep feeling there is a conflation of two different things going on when this subject is brought up. For me the idea of doubtlessness refers to the fundamentals. We strive to achieve doubtlessness concerning the truth of dharma, buddha-nature, and the path. At the same time it seems undeniable that there is a thin line between this proper level of doubtlessness and a state in which questioning about all the details is seen as bad faith. It is true that Adam also made the point that he himself experiences doubt “all the time,” but … I didn’t feel convinced by that. Not that I believe he was being anything other than genuine, only that I don’t feel he is saying the same kind of thing as the others in the room. And that kind of comment can easily be seen as again a kind of deflection, which I think Adam acknowledged.
I agree Damcho’s comments. The fact that only now,
after RFS has been happening and drawing attention,
has this kind of public forum happened. Maybe it’s damage control, but the fact that it is happening is a positive thing. Adam referred to RFS, so it’s obvious
that it has achieved notice. How far the discussion will go remains in question.
Chris, I’ve put up a message about this discussion on both sangha-announce and sanga-talk.
Damcho, re the points you raise, I had the same reaction, when I listened to the discussion. Adam made a point of saying he payed no attention to politics/Tibetan politics, which seems a little odd in the context of timelessness entering time (if timelessness has not entered politics it hasn’t entered time!), as well as for him as Kalapa Acharya, centrally positioned in the most political institution, the Kalapa Council and the Kalapa Court.
Damcho said: 1) Firstly, I was interested in what he said about how potential future meetings might mix discussion with practice, which, he asserted, was not really the case there. That struck me, because honestly, I don’t know what more one could expect in the way of dharmic communication. The speakers’ words were deeply genuine and heartfelt, direct and brave, insightful, all in the spirit of Shambhala. So I didn’t really understand what Adam meant there.
Dear Damcho:
Tremendous sadness came up when I heard Hudson Shotwell, and many others , who had spent their lives involved in the dharma and propagating CTR’s teachings, being in such a hell realm as having to address their heartfelt concerns to a graduate student from SI who obviously had NO IDEA what they were really trying to communicate to him.
Instead of judgeing the way they presented their concerns, he should have been awed, and I mean overwhelmed, at being priviledged to stand before them as they fearlessly demonstrated every teaching of Trungpa Rinpoche.
I salute each and every one of you.
This graduate student, delivering smarmy nostrums, represents Shambhala International: sub-standard, fake, a charlatan.
NOT AN ACHARYA.
Being a continent away, and having been thrown out of the current Mukpo clan’s franchise due to 35 years of maintaining samaya to the lineage of Trungpa Rinpoche and his Vajra Regent, it is heartening to hear that many older students expressed their concerns about the Vidyadhara’s dissipating legacy.
I know nothing about Mr Lobel except from his official bio that he has the credential of Kalapa Acharya prefixed to his name, is a post graduate divinity student who styles himself a Buddhist minister, and appears to join Mr Reoch in being front men for the “impartial” Sakyong Mipham’s repackaged Shambhala International.
I join the many vajra brothers and sisters I have not seen for a long time in longing for the purity of the Kagyü (remember that?) and Nyingma teachings received from the Vidyadhara and the Regent. We are blessed to have our practices, but it is sad to see so many new students being sold the watered-down, bureaucratized, and re-Tibetanized current version
Lynn was gorgeous, and very moving. Adam was open, really trying. I could not agree more about the thangka poster. This was some meeting, clearly.
Barbara–It was quite a moment. I agree that Adam (whom I don’t know from Adam) was trying to be real, but seemed to be out of his depth. It was downright embarrassing that he seemed entirely unaware of our long and deep connection with Thrangu Rinpoche, Tenga Rinpoche and KTGR and that it had to be explained to him by Lodro Dorje.
I’m still unsure what the occasion for this talk was. If someone who was there could say, I would appreciate it.
The sllence roars— sound of bardo ! Loppon…still so good.! Larry M. Can you ?!, would you speak something true!?
This meeting was advertised as:
There have been probably a dozen or so similar meetings / circles / discussions in Halifax over the last decade, one or two with SI President Reoch. There was one with the local Halifax Centre board this spring. This one may have attracted more people because it was aimed at tantrikas and lodge/kss members.
Thanks, Mark. Was this one significantly different than the other meetings, in terms of candor, perhaps? If so any idea why? I find Richard Reoch stultifying, but maybe that’s just me. Has SMR had any comparable meeting with the Halifax Sangha?
Just to break the flow a bit, I wanted to say how the Loppon’s statements, and the way he made them broke my heart. I had no idea about that history of the teachers that the Vidyadhara invited and why and how. To say he was doing the “donkey work” for introducing the full cornucopia of Kagyu/ Nyingma teachings for us was such a new perspective on his work for me.
And (as someone already mentioned) the Loppon’s presence, respect, dignity and humility in delivering this incredible information to this brilliant, brave and empathetic but young and naive whippersnapper was also poignant.
WTF! may the inheritors of ctr practice and realize and manifest THAT. May the students of the holder of the shambhala terma practice and realize and manifest THAT. However rationalized ,thoughts are just thought! Take what you can, make it as real as you are able, and die with confidence! WTF!
I have only listened to about 40 minutes so far, but I was impressed that Mr. Lobel seemed to be well-intentioned and somewhat open. I liked that. Though the whole thing was somewhat painful for me to listen to.
I did not understand some of the teachings Mr. Lobel gave, however. He mentioned something about not taking sides and being above conflict. That sounded interesting, but was not developed enough for me to understand it, or maybe I’m just thick. Perhaps someone here could help clarify it for me?
Let’s use a tangible example. Let’s say President George W. is playing golf one day during his presidency, and some reporters come along to ask him some questions.
Reporter: “Mr. President, what do you say to the fact that many American citizens are opposed to the new policies you’ve implemented?”
President George W.: “What’s that? I didn’t get the question.”
Reporter: “Mr. President, I said what do you say to the fact that a lot of Americans aren’t happy with your new policies, and feel they contradict what this country used to stand for? There is a lot of disagreement and people are upset. Homelessness is on the rise, and a lot of folks out there are in pain.”
President (with a smile on his face): “Oh, are they?”
Reporter: “Yes. What do you say to this?”
President: “I don’t have anything to do with that. You better talk to the people with the problem. Here, watch this drive.” (hits a beautiful golf shot)
. . . .
Is this what Mr. Lobel was talking about? Is this drala?
It does seem like an enjoyable way to live, in a sense, but I can’t help feeling that something is missing.
. . . .
But on the other hand, it’s very easy to sit at a computer and anonymously ask questions like this. It’s very hard to meet face to face and listen openly to what people say. And to speak openly, without making people feel attacked.
Edward,
Do listen to the rest, when you get a chance. The questions and comments, especially Lodro’s and Lynn’s, are more illuminating that the initial talk, I think.
Could someone please explain to me exactly what Mr Lobel’s qualifications are that he is being promoted as a prominent dharma teacher? Travelling with SMR? Postgraduate work in Divinity, generally a theistic curriculum?
Does he have some level of realization that escapes me? And, echoing Mr Fritter, why were those people listening to him in the first place?
So great to hear the Löppön’s clarity, a great teacher. That he has been discarded by SMR is another tragedy of Trunpa Rinpoche’s legacy.
I think that’s kind of unfair to Adam. The only qualifications Lodro ever had were those he got from Trungpa, Rinpoche. Same for the Regent, for that matter. They then earned their reputations by how they used the positions given to them.
I thought his talk was OK. I would hate to listen to one of my talks from 30 years ago.
It should be noted that, in essence, Lodro was supporting the current policy of having outside teachers vetted by SI, and by definition SMR, a policy I completely support, *unless* it means that teaches who have had an historical connection to our sangha are now being excluded.
At the same time, you could read Lodro’s comments as explaining why most of these people were on the shrines in the first place and why they belonged there. One could infer that he feels they should not have been removed, but he’s not explicit about it. fwiw, I think it’s a shame they’ve been removed. Many people of my generation — and I’m now approaching my mid sixties — had a personal connection with these people and feel that our experiences are being effaced and devalued.
This thread is a breath of fresh air! Just like the Q&A to Adam’s talk. What strikes me most, and again, is the callous responses that such heartfelt, sincere, genuine expressions of pain, heartache and devotion are met with by adherents of SMR. Yeshe Fuchs, who did have the opportunity to be around the Vidyadhara, but now is the Director of the Halifax center, can say nothing except ‘Stop whining’??? At least Adam had the decency to acknowledge the soft spot that had been expressed. (Yes, he truly was out of his depth.)
Then there are the Hans Wurst’s and ‘tsering’s’ who show up to scold and shame. They just can’t understand honest expressions of devotion and of fear of speaking up. The fear of speaking up, expressed in the Q&A, is fear of reprisal, of revenge, and of losing the sense of belonging within the community – so these callous people reinforce that fear: Stop whining!?!? Shame on them!
What seems clear is that students of SMR do not have the sense of unshakable, heartfelt devotion that students of the Vidyadhara still have after all these years. From what Adam said, and also Richard Reoch in his interview, one can only gather that they don’t get the experience of lineage and devotion that we got with VCTR. (Lineage and devotion were inseparable teachings that provided the ground for our relationship with VCTR.) They don’t get that personal, intimate experience of the student-teacher relationship, in which the student feels seen – often seen through – and cared about by the teacher. They don’t seem to get the personal sense of mutual love and trust. SMR projects a sense of unshakable spaciousness, of inscrutably being above it all, of being in Lha-Lha land. How very impressive. But do they get the milk of loving kindness and caring on a personal level? It seems not. That warmth, that heart connection, that golden glow – that is what we got from VCTR and the Kagyu teachers. So SMR students dismiss it, denigrate it when it’s expressed, with intellectual put downs. They don’t even know what they are missing, what’s been lost, so they put down the sorrow with snide insults, and entertain themselves with intellectualizing about doubt and doubtlessness, time and timelessness. But heartfelt expressions of devotion? They don’t recognize, much less empathize with that. It freaks them out.
Sorry, forgot to click ‘Notify me.’ That’s all.
Donn, I just want to agree with Martin — Adam Lobel, who is quite smart and serious about dharma, has been studying closely with the Sakyong for some years. The Sakyong has chosen him as an acharya and presumably is continuing to work with him closely. That’s exactly what the Vidyadhara did with Lodro and the Regent and his other most senior teachers.
In New York, we have a tantra shrine on the end of the main shrine room, where the 16th and 17th Karmapas’ and Khyentse Rinpoche’s photos are displayed — they’re displayed elsewhere in the main shrine room as well. Helps soften all this a lot. Also, there are a lot of dharma teachers who visit NY — either at Shambhala or elsewhere — there are lots of little dharma centers all over the city. It’s much harder in Halifax when it comes to this, since Shambhala is the only game in town.
Unfair, Martin? Who ever told you the world is fair? C’mon, Martin… Mr. Loebel has accepted a public and very visible position, by virtue of which he can now sit on a brocade gomden (!), in the front row. He can, and should be, held to account, and so very rightly so. We must never, ever lose our critical intelligence.
Mr. Loebel can obviously parrot, and even articulate the words and some concepts of the current Sakyong well. But, where’s the heart? Where’s the compassion? And where’s the wisdom, for that matter, born from genuine blood, sweat, and tears experience; meanwhile Mr. Loebel influences the demise of VCTR’s teachings (without even knowing the history of our sangha and our teachers)?
Mr. Loebel reported that the current Sakyong said “well, they (Halifax and Boulder) can come, or they don’t have to.”
…“It’s like he (the current Sakyong) is aware of the battle, but it just kinda comes and goes.”
“It’s not like he doesn’t care, or isn’t aware. But his personal approach seems to be one of he just goes forward and does the next step of his teaching and what direction is part of his forward vision. He’s very much vision-oriented in that way. And that has its effect.”
In other words, “let them eat cake!”
“…”Drala”: above the enemy; that seems to be the Sakyong’s approach to battle”, Mr. Loebel reported.
Dear vajra brothers and sisters, the ship has sailed. We are standing on the wharf feeling, somewhat ironically, cast adrift. But clearly, the ship ain’t coming back any time soon. And it won’t, no matter how long we stand on the wharf hoping it will.
So, the next step is: the next step, with all of our nostalgia and heart for what might have been. I suppose it’s all another great, but sad teaching on impermanence. But clearly, it’s time to move on.
And a final note: if I was still living in Nova Scotia, I would call for Yeshe Fuch’s resignation, if not impeachment, after her “whining” comment. Yeshe, you really don’t get it at all, nor do you deserve to keep your current position!
I would like to ask people on this list to practice mindful speech. it simply is not helpful for people who have never met Mr. Lobel nor had the opportunity to study and practice with him to write about him in such a disparaging way. It does not encourage discussion, learning and insight, but is instead a lid. The topics raised here are too important for that.
Let’s face it: it is because of honest discussions such as this that we’re hooked on this Shambhala thing. Adam was brilliant and incredibly open, as usual and as I have come to expect through meeting him a few times during his all-too-brief residence in Cambridge when we were blessed by his frequent presence at the Boston Shambhala Center.
I was touched, as was Lucille, by the “loneliness and brilliance of CTR” that I heard mainly in the women’s voices near the end, but I’m afraid that ultimately I agree with Yeshe that there was a high titer of whine in many of these comments. Might I even have perceived a certain idolatry (even spiritual materialism?) in the attachment to the particular ways of the Vidyadhara and the images of the teachers of his era on the shrine? Things change. We’re always forced to grow up. And as for “bad art,” how many would argue that the original thanka for Werma practice was a masterpiece? This is all a work in progress. For better or worse, we’re stuck with or in it, and I would guess that the naysayers are stuck as well, and even more deliciously, thanks again to the confronting openness that allowed such genuine interchange to take place. We can thank the Sakyong , Adam Lobel, and, of course, the Vidyadhara for that. It’s why we’re stuck in this place called Shambhala. Is that really such a bad thing?
Well, the world may be unfair, but I hope to do a little better myself. Adam didn’t seem all that bad, perhaps a little young. There’s a lot of inter-generational conflict and a lot of the “agony of influence.”
The founding generation of most movements always seems to feel a little disposed — see “The Three Men of Kham”. Perhaps we complain too much. Cranky with impending, or actual, old age probably. Maybe we’re disappointed with ourselves.
The younger people seem to want their own time in the sun. Who can blame them? Adam can and doubtless will make his own mistakes. I doubt he needs me looking over his shoulder. While I don’t know him personally, I do know, love and admire many of SMR’s students and wish them their best adventures into the unknown. Who knows, perhaps they will make something of themselves.
Has anyone seen Ricky Gervais’s new movie? It takes place in an alternate universe where people only tell the truth– rather compulsively– and when one of the characters visits a retirement home, the camera pans to show the large sign on the side of the building: “A Sad Place Where Homeless Old People Come to Die.”
Something about this discussion reminds me of that.
Martin Fritter, your comment sounds almost like it could have been spoken from such a setting: “The younger people seem to want their own time in the sun. Who can blame them? Adam can and doubtless will make his own mistakes. I doubt he needs me looking over his shoulder.”
Barbara Stewart, I did listen to Lodro and Lynn. That’s the only part I’ve listened to so far. Lynn was very beautiful. What a great woman.
As an outsider / newcomer to all of this, I think it’s all well and good that people are getting to practice with being outcast or unwanted, experiencing severe pain and disappointment and confusion and so forth. Good for you. How wonderful for you. How generous life is to set this up for you.
But as a younger person, I still would like to see CTR’s meditation instruction passed on to people. I’d like to see his Shambhala teachings passed on to Christians and atheists and so on. Who is going to do that? Why did CTR work so hard on a human level with people, if those people were just going to end up in a retirement home somewhere, marginalized and alone?
(I’m using the term “retirement home” in a metaphorical sense, not in a literal physical sense.)
In the words of Dylan Thomas:
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
(Thomas was trying to encourage his dad not to be a timid old man full of idiot compassion just because he was getting on in years.)
This is not about Adam Lobel, or protecting Adam Lobel. He has a whole corporation to protect him. This is about protecting the teachings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.
The barbarian hordes are NOW, the Shambhala teachings on warriorship are about NOW. Spiritual materialism is NOW and it is more represented by SI than any other dharma group I know. In fact, I think the greediest lamas have taken there cues from SI’s current manifestation. It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists who incorporated getting rich into the Christian tradition and so distorted true Christianity.. The dharma seems to be between a hard place, and a rock: The greedy, 14 c. Tibetan, lamaism that takes all our money for rebuilding a dream of monastic/aristocratic oligarchy of the past, in America! or a western, watered down, new age, psychobabble, hindu/yoga, mismash buddhism. Ironically exactly what SI has become. Is this what we want to leave as our legacy? This is what all our sacrifices, and labour , and sweat and tears were for? Corporate Shambhala using the worst aspects of lamaism to cower the masses and take their money? Do you really believe that CTR would approve, and think this was an expansion and improvement on his teachings? This is EXACTLY what he was trying to make sure didn’t happen here!
THIS IS ABOUT a LION”S ROAR not about being nice and peaceful and lets go gently into that night, equivocating and looking “fairly” at every side of it until we are so worn out, we give up
This meeting was so vivid, so symbolic , you just needed to hear it, and visualize it, to realize how complete the rewriting of CTR’s teachings have been, and that had taken place over the last two decades. If this isn’t the wake up call, I don’t know what is. Adam Lobel has served a very important purpose, for everyone to see, that this person, elevated to acharya, hadn’t a CLUE about what was being presented to him by the students of Trungpa Rinpoche. And he is never going to get it , as long as he is part of the current organization. He is clearly involved in “something else.” right now..
Don’t let us sink back into the idiot compassion and constant equivocating that has allowed this to go on for way, way to long. It should be clear that it is Trungpa students that are holding his teachings in their heart .. Surely you don’t want future students who come to the dharma, suffering and confused, and desiring liberation to think that this is what his dharma was about? Would this be bodhisattva activity? Do we really think that is is always about pacifying?. If you keep equivocating, and compromising, and looking at it from every angle, one’ loses a clear direction. Do you remember CTR equivocating, when it came to the authentic dharma?
Because that is what is at issue here. Protecting the dharma teachings of CTR. Or, one protects ones comfy, safe place, and goes back into a cocoon, what was it Bernie Weisman said, something like “I have a great deal of comfort about how the Sakyong is presenting the teachings” WHAT? This is not about comfort, this is about WAKING UP and helping others to WAKE UP.
Just a word about that word, “whining.” When Yeshe said it, I felt as though I had been kicked in the stomach. It’s a word that undermines, belittles what has gone before; it usually nips discussion or any heart connections in the bud. Perhaps it’s why some of us keep our heads down. It feels very aggressive because it nullifies -or tries to -what has been said.
Those pictures that used to be displayed, those pictures of Karmapa, and Khyentse, and Kalu Rinpoche, and Suzuki Roshi were and are not relics. They are what we are, they are where rock meets bone of our lineage and inheritance. They are our hearts’ blood.
I always knew I would get old and start to be dismissed but it hurts to see it on so grand a scale as now as I experience it now. I see a monolithic structure forming and it isn’t what my life has been since meeting Chogyam Trungpa so many years ago and practicing what he told me to practice.
Thanks to all for this forum. Lucille
Revolution is the Pod
Systems rattle from
When the Winds of Will are stirred
Excellent is Bloom
But except its Russet Base
Every Summer be
The Entomber of itself
So of Liberty –
Left inactive on the Stalk
All its Purple fled
Revolution shakes it for
Test if it be dead.
— E. Dickinson
Well, I’m being pilloried for premature resignation, it seems.
A few years ago, when her book came out, Diana Mukpo came to Karma Dzong and gave a talk. In essence she said that she was certain her husband would have no problem with the direction SMR was taking things and that if one didn’t agree, and didn’t agree that he was the fully qualified lineage holder of both the Shambhala and Buddhist teachings, one should leave.
I’d left during the Regency but had harbored hopes for some sort of reconciliation. Doesn’t seem likely, does it?
However, I refuse to believe that all SMR’s students are deluded and in bad faith.
If you want to get a sense of the original teachings of Chogyam Trungpa, you might go see Reggie (seriously) or to to Halifax and talk to Lodro. You might contract Fabrice — our St. Paul? — and see what he’s up to. You might seek out John Perks. None of these people are realized, imho, but they’re legit.
I’m very sympathetic with the Haligonians. It seems counter productive to piss them off.
Anyway, I’m going to stop posting for a few days because I’m starting to feel like an internet shut-in.
Dear Martin
Its interesting to hear your comment about what Lady Diana said at Karma Dzong about the Sakyong being a legit holder of both lineages, however, I dont think Lady Diana has the authority to state how Trungpa would view the Sakyongs actions now for sure.
Yes she can give her opinion and we can go to her for advice, but it is up to the individual as in all religions to make up their own mind about the state of their religious organisation – and if she did say that she thought people should leave because of the Sakyong’s take on things I think that is the wrong thing to say to people- it would not affect me so much because I have left but for those hovering its kind of limit to the conversation that is going on and to tell you the truth I find it slightly a statement too far for some people.
And anyway we have Patrick Sweeny as a legit lineage holder authorised in the conversation that CTR had with David Rome which can be seen on the Chronicle Project website – so we have not heard Patrick’s take on the changes which would be good to hear as added information.
In addition we have Ray stating that he is not a self-proclaimed lineage holder if you listen to the talk on his website on Vajra Masters for example.
No for me CTR said the Shambhala teachings in their entirety were open to all religions and this is my main bugbear still with SI plus there being of course no democratic forum for people to voice their points of view besides the Congress which does not allow voting on issues as CTR wanted and as he stated in his talk with David Rome.
So yes Interesting to hear Lady Dianas take on things but I do not think she has the final take on how the shambhala teachings will be propagated in this world for the shambhala teachings in themselves can not be owned by an organisation they are for everyone of every religion even pre-buddhist if you read Bernbaum’s book.
Myself I think shambhala can be propagated without of SI perhaps maybe we will have to go to other Kagyu lamas to help us out on this and the western teachers who have left SI but I think it is doable and the numbers outside of SI are growing for these teachings. I think Ray said he had about 400 students on his interview on the Chronicle Project but I think this will increase as he seems to be in permanent travelling mode – Midal and others are also teachings -so its going towards 1,000 – say at the high end. SI has 8,000 members -give the other teachers a few more years and I believe their numbers will have grown.
So the propagation of these teachings might in the end not be down to SI -that is a possibility. Myself I hope the outside teachers begin to form links in the near future because together we could do great things – that too may be a possibility.
So yes I am saying everything is up in the air – and SI is no longer the only ballgame in town.
Would love to hear peoples comments on how we could take the shambhala teachings forward in our own way outside of SI – we too need to get organised.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Just to clarify, when Dylan Thomas said “Do not go gentle into that good night” I don’t think he was inciting his father to start a bloody revolution particularly, to go attack people verbally, or to do anything at all, necessarily.
I think he was telling his father it’s okay to have raw and rugged feelings, and that he actually needed to experience that from his father. For me, it was very inspiring to hear the comments from Lynn in the audio recording.
It’s beautiful when people can be real with one another. Not in an obnoxious way, but in terms of owning their pain. I love it when CTR said something about how our pains and negative emotions are like manure. We can feel ashamed of them and throw them away, and then go beg our neighbor for some fertilizer. Please, I have nothing, take pity on me, look at how wretched I am. Or we can see that there is something valuable about our smelly manure, that it is fertile. Beautiful even.
In the art of bonsai, the artist works to make his young pipsqueak tree appear as though it has stood the test of time, has weathered the elements, developed character and all that. If the tree grows too straight, they don’t like it.
With the right momentum and inspiration, Halifax students of CTR could make their own container to protect and propagate CTR’s teachings. Eighteen years of trying within the SI mandala seems long enough.
Here in Crestone, CTR students hosted a teaching, passed on to them by Trangu Rinpoche, when he was here doing his two week Vajradhatu retreat, of a song written by CTR when he was eighteen. They hosted a week end-long tape and discussion You might be surprised what a small group of students of CTR could do, and the support and encouragement you might have from the lamas we have come to know and love, who do have realization. You could even invite Reggie Ray, John Perks, and Fabrice Mandal , imagine that! We had Keith Dowman here, radical Dzogchen. Its only a leap , before you take it.
suzanne,i deeply appreciate and agree with the view you express. But “show up to scold and shame” ??? The comments made were intended as aspiration and inspiration. Apologies if taken some other way.
I wanted to respond to the two Marks (Hazell and Bowen). I went back over this thread after reading your comments, and found roughly equal evaluations of Adam’s performance at the meeting. There have been a number of positive things said, along with mixed posts and negative posts. I only came up with one comment which I found disrespectful as such, based on a judgment of motivation which I feel we shouldn’t be making about others, and which I also disagreed with.
More to the point, and as a couple of people have already said, Adam should not be protected from criticism. That makes no sense and it’s bad for everybody, including him. He has a high-profile, senior position in SI! And he was the one who happened to be sitting in front of all those students (and teachers), a number of them probably twice his age and with several times the practice experience. He was sitting there moderating the group and in places giving advice to them…
There’s something a little surreal about all this, frankly. All across the sangha there are students who have experienced disrespect, being pushed aside or rejected (within sangha, as Lynn said at the meeting, “shunning is kind of the ultimate punishment”). Meanwhile, I have no doubt that Adam went back home afterwards, to be greeted over the course of the next several days by phonecalls / emails from fellow acharyas and other teachers, centre directors and no doubt from the Sakyong himself, all telling him what an extraordinary job he did. So let’s get real here! Adam has all the support he could want, going all the way to the top. The experiences Lynn and others spoke about, which many have gone / are going through: where’s the empathy for *this*?
Also, Mark (Bowen), you say:
“…and I would guess that the naysayers are stuck as well, and even more deliciously, thanks again to the confronting openness that allowed such genuine interchange to take place. We can thank the Sakyong , Adam Lobel, and, of course, the Vidyadhara for that.”
Well, personally I thank all those who’ve been sticking their necks out trying to be heard. The ones who’ve made the agonizing decisions that have resulted in losing a lot of friends, losing the warmth and nourishment of spiritual community. The ones who have wrestled with (as Lynn put it so well) that terrible process of doubting one’s very intelligence and sanity, simply because one just can’t see things the way the group is seeing them, however much disapproval or even ostracism comes along as a result. In my experience, the “genuine” interchange you speak of is actually somewhat rare. My own feeling, for what it’s worth, is that it was probably the existence of this website which was the catalyst for that meeting.
Shambhala teachings are all about bringing timelessness into time? A titillating concept, but Mr. Lobel used it merely to justify changes made.
It sounds like a sophisticated concept: time and other dimensions. Like if we connect with timelessness? we can invoke and bring into time visions of the Rigdens? without any need to consider what’s gone before or existing? because it’s timeless?
Is that about right?
Timelessness and sunyata seem like synonyms. I’ve never heard sunyata used to explain decisions of relative reality. But if the concept of sunyata and timelessness are conflated, and the possibility of bringing timelessness into time, like a mystical UPS, is assumed, then all kinds of conceptual cornucopias become possible. No connection with earth required.
Such ideas are not that sophisticated. You can find them in movies and series like “The Butterfly Effect”, “Stargate” and many others.
About the shrine, Mr. Lobel explained concisely it’s an intentional attempt to define and make clear to new and old alike, who we are. (We didn’t know before?)
Does an externalized attempt to define identity, rather than reminders of respect, devotion and wisdom one connects to through experience, cause or resolve identity crisis? (a rhetorical question, I hope.)
I’ve seen this disturbing view a number of times, that chants, iconography, even the practices, are indoctrination, or tools for social organization and cohesion, a way to define group identity and force common views, rather than as methods to discover the nature of mind. It’s a disturbing aberration which makes the original aim of spiritual practice harder too access.
The shrine is then no longer about inspiration, dharma, or experience. It is an intentionally impersonal symbolic representation of what it is ‘we’ do and who ‘we’ are: shrine as lapel pin.
In general Mr. Lobel is too logical, ignoring more than he considers. I like logic. Discussions can’t exist without it, but as he spoke it felt like a theoretical model/structure was projected for reflection and examination into an abstract intellectually pristine space. Within that space he could maneuver whatever theme, look at it from different angles and, free from other’s confusions, unbound by other issues that impinge upon the reality of the model, free of any other materialistic concerns, could then explain what he saw as the truth.
That approach by its nature, nothing to do with Mr. Lobel’s intent, avoids too much stuff. Enlightened space, as Shotwell and others hinted at, doesn’t create space free of confusion, it is not separate from it.
So he often didn’t feel real or pertinent. A couple of times it felt like he was luring people into that space to explain something, and I was heartened to hear a couple of questioners, who apparently noticed they were being lead by the nose, interrupt him to stop the castle building.
Whether it’s the beginning of rapprochement or a drawing of lines and further indoctrination, remains to be seen. His description of Sakyong Mipham’s cold shoulder approach was not cause for optimism.
Interesting, the idea of “defining who we are”, that James mentions. Seems
to go against the idea of genuineness. Sounds like a definition of ego.
Thank you, James Elliott, for your thoughtful analysis of Adam Lobel’s talk. I found it too intellectual and too abstract, and I was more than a little suspicious of what he was trying to do, but I was too lazy to deconstruct it. It did not sound like the kind of dharma talk I am accustomed to as a student of the Vidyadhara. So I appreciate your more thorough questioning of Adam’s talk.
I’m glad you picked up on this: “About the shrine, Mr. Lobel explained concisely it’s an intentional attempt to define and make clear to new and old alike, who we are. (We didn’t know before?)”
If you compare what Lodrö said about who and what we are, there is an interesting disjunct with Adam’s ideas of who and what “we” are. As Lodrö corrects Adam’s revisionist version of our history, Lodrö is correctly speaking about who and what we used to be, but it’s as if he hasn’t noticed that “we” are not that anymore, as the other questioners pointed out. I wonder if anybody else picked up on that. It felt surreal to me.
As for the intellectualizing about doubt and doubtlessness, it seems to me that the core dharmic issue is doubt or doubtlessness about the nature of one’s own mind, rather than about the teacher or the organization. If one has practiced enough, one (hopefully) develops enough trust in one’s own heart-mind to know what’s good, genuine and true, and what is not. Then struggling with such questions is no longer an intellectual preoccupation. You just know.
As CTR wrote in the Sadhana of Mahamudra, Be decisive, know what is, see clearly. These are the three types of confidence.
I also want to thank damchö for this: “Adam should not be protected from criticism. That makes no sense and it’s bad for everybody, including him. He has a high-profile, senior position in SI! And he was the one who happened to be sitting in front of all those students (and teachers), a number of them probably twice his age and with several times the practice experience. He was sitting there moderating the group and in places giving advice to them… There’s something a little surreal about all this, frankly.”
Indeed.
Correct, Suzanne, the way A. L. uses “doubtlessness” is different than
the meaning VCTR gives it. Using the dharma to support your agenda…..isn’t that what VCTR called “editing the teachings”? I’m beginning to be doubtless about not being involved with Shambhala anymore.
I still don’t understand what the occasion for Adam’s talk was. Was it a big “come to Jesus” (er, Padmakara?) meeting to talk about the State of Affairs and the Disaffection of the Older Students in Halifax thing or was it an opportunity for him to deliver his “Time and Timelessness” talk that just turned into the Big Discussion?
If it was an official visit from the Powers That Be to talk to the old folks, then I’m disappointed that he was not better prepared. In fact, if was a big deal moment, I would have sent Eric Spiegel or Gaylon Ferguson or John Rockwell, you know, somebody who knew CTR and old enough to have credibility with the Halifax Sangha.
So context matters a lot.
The fact that the talk was sort of half baked — I called it sophistry earlier — is not a big deal. Believe me, everybody gave weak talks at one point or another, including the Loppon.
Incidentally, I don’t regard DJM as realized, but she does speak with a certain authority. She also owns all of Trungpa, Rinpoche’s copyrights. Which I think she’s managing reasonably, btw.
Thank you damchö and James Elliot for your helpful remarks.
And thank you Mark Szpakowski, for pointing out the best part to listen to. Maybe it’s my own shortcoming, but I don’t think I could have stomached other parts of the audio.
damchö writes:
The experiences Lynn and others spoke about, which many have gone / are going through: where’s the empathy for *this*?
damchö, I loved your two recent posts, but in a sense this part reminds me a bit of Marpa’s wife.
In a strange sort of way, not receiving any empathy, being in a confusing situation that contradicts one’s own intelligence… these things might have been considered fantastic by some of the Kagyu fathers.
I don’t mean that as a joke, but let’s say the painful difficult aspects of my life that I’m always trying to weasel my way out of seem to also teach me the most humility and openness.
In a way, CTR’s students are following exactly in his footsteps… losing their “homes”, losing their sangha, being criticized for not falling in line and being more spiritually materialistic, etc. It’s a painful inheritance.
Dec. 1, 1967:CTR diary:
“I have no home,
Home, I have none,
I have no home.
While growing up, since I was little up to now, I have never had a family. Having no family seems very sad, but when I think how I have no home, it is very strange. Home and family – my parents couldn’t create it. My friends couldn’t create it. No one has been able to create it. Why? The family created by my parents and friends was just a family according to their own way of thinking. However, this was not something truly real according to my way of thinking.
. . . .
Therefore, since I have no ultimate heart friend other than myself alone, I think that it is definite that no one can create an ultimate home or family for me. Still, strangely, this home of being homeless is my home wherever I go. Everything is my home, the home of being homeless.”
[quoted by Lee Weingrad on Sadhaka Talk June 26, 2009]
Dear Suzanne
I just thought I’d highlight your quote on doubtlessness:
“As for the intellectualizing about doubt and doubtlessness, it seems to me that the core dharmic issue is doubt or doubtlessness about the nature of one’s own mind, rather than about the teacher or the organization. If one has practiced enough, one (hopefully) develops enough trust in one’s own heart-mind to know what’s good, genuine and true, and what is not. Then struggling with such questions is no longer an intellectual preoccupation. You just know.”
Yes the doubtlessness question concerned me in the talk as well because Adam seemed to be using it in concert with accepting the Sakyong or not which he did say placed some people in a torturous position in side the organisation.
Actually when he used that as an image I did think it was putting people into an impossible position, a sort of cult position to my way of thinking or a fundamentalist position that you get with some religions and also using that image did stop the conversation somewhat – so I thought it was inept of him to play around with the concept of doubtlessness there.
I have always seen doubtlessness in the sense of some thing you arrive at in meditation yourself and then using that ‘understanding’ to go out into
the world and ‘behave’ in accordance with it ie having a more spacious quality to the way you do things after a meditation session.
Martin re Diana Mukpo I wont belabour the point – I think people should ask her about stuff but they should also use their critical intelligence about the answers they get from her thats what CTR told us to do in connection with relating to organisations and people in the world – so yes I have made my point about DIana.
Returning to doubtlessness could we go into the doubtlessness thingie a little more as I think there are more erudite people out there who could explain it better than I do because if SI is using the doubtlessness ‘concept ‘ as a way that people should conform to the Sakyong’s way of doing things -people should have a better understanding of it from CTR’s viewpoint – any there any other teachings by CTR on the doubtlessness concept that you can think of – would love to hear and I hope we can have a thread on this for awhile
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Hi Edward, I’d make a distinction. On the one hand there is our life as it is, with all its difficulties, pain and so on. I agree with you that these experiences might have been considered fantastic by the Kagyu fathers. They are the raw material for it all, as we know, what the path is all about.
On the other hand there is the question of how we relate to each other, which I think is quite another matter. Ie, we should not be going around intentionally making each other’s lives miserable in the name of giving us all more raw material! I know you weren’t saying that at all. My point is just that relating to not receiving empathy when you need it is one thing, and being unable to give it is, of course, another.
That’s really all I was saying. Mark H. had posted asking us not to be disparaging of Adam, and I was just trying to say that I felt the empathy to be a little misplaced, given the circumstances.
Re: doubt and doubtlessness. This reminds me of a place in the recording where Adam says something like, “yes it’s torture to be in Shambhala and to have doubt”. I hope I’m quoting that more or less accurately–anyone who knows where that is on the tape, please correct me if I’ve got it wrong. But I remember feeling a little chill run up my spine when I heard that. Doubt (again, not about buddha nature or the path, but about all the innumerable incidentals with regard to the community and the directions it is taking) is an aspect of sanity! It *shouldn’t* be torture to experience doubt within a healthy community.
John Tischer,
The problem with using practice and dharma to organize community or society is not that it lacks genuineness. Maybe those who choose that method are completely sincere. I do tend to think it is well intended. I believe however that it’s misguided.
I’ve suggested before the need to create group identity is not a bad thing. That is something leadership needs to put effort into. But the sense of group identity comes from something other than practice per se.
Trungpa Rinpoche worked with that in a multitude of ways: Mid Summer’s Day, balls, community meetings, Delegs, the Buddhist Christian conferences, awards, Naropa, rotas, volunteers, various cultural activities like ikebana, kyudo, calligraphy, all kinds of talks and more. We could even include nyinthuns, the most basic form of practice where people could walk in off the streets to sit with us, or the kipeople nds of special event sadhanas that were open to all members.
Those are activities which are not dependent on a hierarchy of practices and as such help create a sense of belonging regardless what level of practice one is or is not doing.
From the other side, advanced practices are about something very different, having virtually nothing to do with social activity. For just one example, Jamgon Kongtrul in a talk at Sacred Heart in Boulder circa 1984 said that visualization practice helps to dissolve attachment to this world, and sampanakrama or formless meditation helps dissolve attachment to that world. Trungpa Rinpoche said things along these lines in Vajrayogini tris as well. While we may enjoy the company of other sadhakas at a feast, and these practices may affect us in ways that could influence all aspects of our lives, it hardly seems likely that creating group identity can be understood as the aim.
The problem that adopting such an approach creates is not in the first order dis-ingenuousness. That may be the result rather than the cause. Creating group identity via vajrayana practices is, in my opinion, based on questionable models of human behavior, the aims of practice, and the development of culture. If it is based on faulty models it is unlikely to result in a harmonious community, regardless how clever the people who put together the bits and pieces are.
In the inspiration of lha nyen and lu and natural hierarchy.
Martin, re what prompted this “Open Conversation”, it was the latest in a string of such events, featuring various mandala personalities or groups, the unique aspect being that a tape of it has been made available. That’s one reason we’re taking note of it so much. Also, more people were able to rise to the occasion, so a certain eloquence arose.
I think the event may also be part of a campaign that’s seems to have been going on this year, which includes “harmony meetings” being conducted by Mitchell Levy and perhaps some other acharyas. So it’s likely part of a strategy of meeting and dealing with this aspect of the organization as it reforms itself, with new distinctive boundaries taking shape on the levels of practice (the Scorpion Seal track), community (the concentric rings around the court), and ownership (the Kalapa Ladrang legal entity taking over the key assets). By the end of the year it should be really clear what it means to be in, or out.
Thanks, Mark, for clarifying the context for the meeting with Adam Lobel. If you’re right that “By the end of the year it should be really clear what it means to be in, or out,” it will be very interesting to see what next year brings.
Rita, re: “any other teachings by CTR on the doubtlessness concept that you can think of,” here’s a nice sychronicity:
Ocean of Dharma Quotes of the Week, October 13, 2009
THE SEED OF CONFIDENCE
When we have a feeling that life is worhwhile and we are worthwhile, from that, a sense of softness or gentleness begins to develop. It is like watering the seeds in a garden. In this case, the gentleness that develops is like the moisture that helps a seed to grow so that the greenery will unfold and flowers will blossom. Then, beyond that, you develop confidence. The ordinary sense of confidence is confidence in something, which is conditional or qualified. But in this case, gentleness and softness give rise to an unconditional feeling that is awake, brilliant, and warm. When we have both moisture and warmth, we know that the plant will definitely grow. That confidence is the seed that we should share with the rest of the world.
From ”Unconditional Confidence,” page 94 in SMILE AT FEAR: AWAKENING THE TRUE HEART OF BRAVERY, now available from Shambhala Publications.
Personally, I’ve always thought that confidence and doubtlessness are very close in meaning, like siamese twins, in terms of personal experience. I wonder whether others on this thread would like to comment.
Equating doubtlessness with buying into a religious organization’s creeds, and agreeing not to give any feedback or to discuss its policies… that seems like one of the age-old rationales used to promote cultism.
As they say, “There is nothing new under the sun.”
Of course I have compassion for people who promote cultism. But I do not look to them for guidance. It’s like relating with children. You can love children, but you might not trust them with adult responsibilities.
By the way, speaking from personal experience… cultism isn’t just what the folks down the street fall into. It can happen much closer to home. It’s not even a “bad” thing exactly, in the sense of something to be demonized– it’s just a desire to own and control something that is considered valuable. I suspect many of us have felt such an urge before. It’s when we collectively turn a blind eye to cultism that we end up feeding it, like nursing a young monster that’s taken up residence in our home.
In this case, the teachings, resources, organizations, fame, and lineages that CTR created are the prize, and the object of control. We feel separate from these things, and that’s where our desire to own and control them comes from. We play legal games and reorganize management boards, fire all the personnel who oppose our control, etc., etc., but it’s all based on fear and a feeling that we are separate from CTR’s teachings, lineages, etc.
My old teacher said that in a cult you become fascinated with the object of the cult but you also ignore and abuse it. So we could actively ignore someone’s basic, most famous teachings, while parading his photo around and using him as our credential.
This sort of thing has been going on for centuries, and fortunate are they who can recognize it– in themselves and in others– and chose a different way to live and practice together.
Doubtlessness…
I can’t help wondering if most of the confusion about “doubtlessness” comes from a confusion about Sakyong Mipham’s role, his job description.
If I sign up for a Level I weekend, how am I supposed to regard the Sakyong? Does he function as a would-be trustee or protector of the Shambhala Teachings, someone who aspires to be a master warrior, to model warrior behavior? That I can dig. That makes sense to me, and I respect it. And it fits with what I understand CTR to have said about the Sakyong’s job. Good.
Or, if I walk in off the street for a Level I weekend, am I supposed to pretend that I have taken intense, heavy vows of devotion to Sakyong Mipham, that I am required to see him as not merely an aspiring master warrior but someone perfectly enlightened, and that I’m agreeing never to discuss any of his actions in anything other than a favorable light? If I want to serve him in “an advisory role”, I should hold my tongue because that would be a horrible offense?
That doesn’t make sense to me, nor does it fit what CTR said about the job of “sakyong” as I understand it.
So it seems that the man known as SMR has more than role. But those separate (and very distinct?) roles seem to get all jumbled together, don’t they, resulting in a tremendous amount of confusion.
I’ve known people who’ve had more than one job, and sometimes they would use the resources of one company to handle business for their other company. That’s generally illegal of course, but why? It’s because it’s not fair to either company.
That’s all very different from how CTR operated, as I understand it. He wanted people to be able to take Shambhala Training whether or not they were his vajrayana student, or even Buddhist! He even wanted his own Buddhist sangha stuff to take place in separate buildings from the Shambhala studies, and to have separate organizations and finances. He was making plans for expansion, rather than for contraction. And perhaps his own students, not fully understanding his vision, opposed some of these things a bit.
And he definitely did not name SMR as his Buddhist heir, so far as I am aware.
Of course, I’ve only been to Level IV and read a few books, so I could be completely 100% off on what I’ve just said. In that case I sure hope someone will correct me.
I’m just trying to stimulate conversation, and I hope people will forgive me as a curious newcomer if I’ve said anything ridiculously off-base here.
Dear friend Mark Hazell, I’m not sure to whom you are referring when you “…ask people on this list to practice mindful speech”, but, since your post appeared just after mine, let me say that I, for one, devoted several hours of thoughtful reflection to my post before posting it; and listened to the tape of the community meeting twice. I’m sorry you are feeling offended, but my post was not mind-less speech, nor do I read many mind-less posts here, except for those of the occasional, self-appointed, Ratzingers.
And I’m afraid I don’t see disparaging comments here about Mr. Loebel. Rather, I see comments that are “critical” of him and what he said during this community meeting, which is a whole different kettle of fish from comments which would be “disparaging” of him.
This thread, and this site, is encouraging much discussion. Which is such a good thing. Are you saying that you think that critical comments are, in themselves, bad, and therefore by extension un-mindful, while complimentary or positive comments are, in themselves, mindful and therefore good?
You talk about a lid; but I’m afraid the only lid I’ve experienced in the past 15 years has been SI, whose implicit policy has been that if you can’t make nicey-nice, there’s no forum nor place for you.
Where are the flowers in all this? I refer to Rinpoche’s early community talk, “Lids and Flowers”, which I suspect you are familiar with. We need, this world needs, more flowers, not lids!
Moving on to a different topic altogether, I would like to suggest that perhaps a discussion could commence about the video of Richard Reoch posted yesterday on the new “Sakyong Ladrang” website. For me, this video created a much bigger impact than the Halifax community meeting tape. Or perhaps, after the HFX community meeting tape and subsequent discussion, this video illustrates a true paridigm shift having occurred within SI. I can’t ever imagine Dzongsar Khyentse’s organization producing such a video, never mind Tenga Rinpoche’s or the Khenpos’s or Thrangu Rinpoche’s or Dzigar Kongtrul’s organizations. What do you think?
In the letter posted on the same page I read: “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.”
I’m trying to read that sentence with an open mind, in the best light, but there’s something that isn’t sitting well. It even sounds almost parodic. What do others think? Maybe I’m just too short on sleep…
Also, if you click on the link which is supposed to enable you to “read more about our appeal, how the funds will be used to sustain and strengthen both our lineage and our mandala, and to find out how to make your offering,” all that appears is the last item, ie a form for sending money. No information at all on how it will be used.
http://www.sakyongladrang.org/retreat.html
Thanks Damcho, for this link. The video of R.R. too.
Not to pick on Mark Hazell, but I woke up this morning thinking about Mark because I knew him. You and I knew each other, Mark. We started out at Palo Alto Dharmadhatu and worked on HHK’s first visit to San Francisco in 1974 together. So, knowing how far back you go, and having heard you are now an acharya, and since you are one of the few people of that vintage that I can identify as a defender of SI on RFS, I couldn’t help wondering how that happened. I’m really curious.
How did someone of your vintage come to a stance where you can say, “I would like to ask people on this list to practice mindful speech. it simply is not helpful for people who have never met Mr. Lobel nor had the opportunity to study and practice with him to write about him in such a disparaging way. It does not encourage discussion, learning and insight, but is instead a lid. The topics raised here are too important for that.” (Mark Hazell on October 11th, 2009 10:34 pm)
You are speaking to your generational peers and telling us criticism is a ‘lid’ when we exercise prajna (discriminating awareness wisdom) about Adam’s talk? How in the world did you allow yourself to put Adam Lobel on a pedestal and to feel that you have the authority to tell us to practice mindful speech because we haven’t had the “opportunity to study and practice with him.” Good heavens, Mark, many of us studied and practiced wiith Chögyam Trungpa. So did you.
How did you develop such amnesia that you can give so much power and authority to a young guy who never met Trungpa Rinpoche, presumes to speak for how CTR would regard the current situation, and who clearly has a distorted understanding of our community’s history (which the Loppon tried to correct)? How did it happen, Mark? I’m really curious about how people like you, who started out with CTR, and particularly those who are now acharyas of our vintage, developed such amnesia and became enablers of the radical distortion of our heritage.
At my first interview with Trungpa, Rinpoche — 1972 — I asked him if “this” was all about him or all about Buddhism. He said that it was about Buddhism and that we didn’t need a “cult of personality.” I just looked at this:
http://www.sakyongladrang.org/retreat.html
Horribly embarrassing and shameful.
At the risk of sounding “unmindful” – after listening to the Lobel discussion and then the Reoch pitch, I have to say that at least the tele-evangelists do their fundraising efforts and deal with their controversies in person, rather than sending out proxies. Adam Lobel is smart and verbally adroit, but so what? Yes, he tried hard, but the lack of historical knowledge was pretty stunning. Richard Reoch is a skilled PR operative, but all that does is reinforce the impression of SI as a corporate-style marketing vehicle. Plus I find the “Nehru vest” is getting a bit old – or maybe it’s a personal branding strategy!! (sorry if the Nehru vest is some kind of samaya-driven dress code like ngakpas not cutting their hair or something!)
Trungpa Rinpoche did not go about trying to create a group identity. In fact, for years one of my koans was what do I have in common with all these strange and unique people? (crazy was my preferred word at the time)…later I realized that we were all crazy and strange and unique…that that was what we had in common.
The forms VCTR created were cultural terma…meaning they both were and transmitted culture. To me, it seems hard to see that the transmission is still happening…or who has it. It might all have been a miracle mirage of a future time. After the new Sakyong came in, everything started to change…it’s only natural. But, where’s
the beef? Like, where’s my genuineness, Dude? It’s quite simple, really, on an experiential level. I don’t have to study with Adam L. for years to
understand/hear how he presents himself….for me, it’s quite transparent.
And the site Martin pointed to just seems like marketing using Buddhist
jargon….pathetic, really
“When the outer barbarians of the kingdom begin to penetrate into the inner kingdom, the Twenty-fifth Rigden will become aggravated and that is when he will call his warriors into action.” Jigme Phuntsok
Dear All
God in some way I feel sorry for RR that he had to make that broadcast which sounds like it came out of some Billy Graham campaign -guess thats what you get when you get hooked into the party line -my advice to everyone is dont send a dime – and I do mean that – stop the fundraising now! and start using your mind about what Shambhala is and could be -dont trust – the whole thing is going quite loony.
So Mark will you be in or out at the end of the year -and do you really care now anyway coz the whole thing is descending into farce anyway – RR -talk about overplaying your hand – what happened -slow down -have a beer!
Thanks for all for the stuff on doubtlessness – Suzanne I will print that comment off and read it and ponder it – I dont think you will be heading for the harmony room will you! -god who thought that one up -are they employing a PR nutso on this.
Just cant get over that video -poor Richard!
Signing off from non-harmony Manchester -over to you ladies and gentleman of the sangha -do your bit -stop the dalek take-over!
Best and Love to Halifax -keep the questions coming!
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
From the above link: “Whenever you make your offering, we will arrange for you to have online access to regular short reports and photos from the Sakyong’s retreat, prepared specially for us by Rinpoche’s kusung…”
Goodness. I realize that to a devotee this sounds perfectly normal, simply a form of devotion. But I can’t help thinking it sounds like retreat (or rather Retreat) turned into celebrity show or spectator sport.
Shouldn’t a retreat, far from being trumpeted in any way, be just a very ordinary thing for a teacher? Part of the job description as it were, something students expect as a matter of course?
And that video really does come across as New Age messianic, I’m sorry to say.
[VCTR, Rigden House, Marburg, Germany, 29 December 85. For the Planned Annual Giving campaign and the last known poem Rinpoche composed, from the unpublished poetry.]
Nonconceptual Giving
Good dharma is good unconscious gossip
Good money flows through generosity
Let us be truly nonconceptual and truly dharmic
Let us have nonconceptual money-making and dharma as good generosity
Let generosity flow through nonconceptually
Let the best of the dharma flow through that way
Nonconceptual good dharma.
Maybe John C. could explain how this quote from VCTR relates, for him, to the latest posts?
I think it is disingenuous for Mr. C. to offer poems in this way…as if everything offered here could be explained away by somehow connecting VCTR’s poetry
obliquely to the discussion at hand. The request for
contributions here is not, IMHO, “non-conceptual good dharma”…it is the opposite. IMHO. IMHO, it is freeloading on the genuine aspirations of people who
truly want the truth.
John, i agree on the “iffiness” of “picking and posting” poetry by VCTR – John C was complaining about editing, but I would suggest that he is creating a sort of editing by his picking and choosing which topics to post CTR’s poetry in. Different situations…..
If he commented what HE thought and why he posted it, it would be different, but with just CTR’s words it is too easy to use those words as part of an agenda.
Ok, Michael…so, John, what do you have to say? Do you think we’re all demons waiting to pick your bones?
I got curious enough about this RR fundraising video, due to others’ comments in this thread, that I transcribed, roughly, what Mr. Reoch said. The topics he covered are these, paraphrased unless quoted:
1. Sakyong Mipham’s passionate vision for humanity and the planet, which he calls “Living Peace.” “We have the future in our hands. It’s up to us to prove that gentleness is the way to create enlightened society.” This is especially important when the whole world is trying to convince us that aggression is the way.
2. This passionate statement comes at a “critical juncture” for SMR, the world, the lineage and the wellbeing of our mandala. The “critical juncture” is that SMR is at exactly the same point in his life [same age?] at which Trungpa Rinpoche “left us – departing from the nirmanakaya and returning to the dharmakaya.”
3. It’s precisely now that the interdependency, the profound relationship, between us as students and him as our teacher becomes profoundly important for him and for us.
4. As the Sakyong Wangmo recently wrote to us students, it’s up to us to create the tendrel, auspicious circumstances, to secure the life of the teacher for the benefit of the world and all sentient beings. SMR himself has been deeply concerned with this, and has created a legal entity known as the Sakyong Ladrang. [At this point the fundraising pitch begins.]
What Mr. Reoch seems to be saying in #1 is that SMR’s passionate vision is that Shambhala vision – what he calls “Living Peace” – can save the world, and it’s up to “us” to prove that gentleness is the way, in spite of all the messages of aggression in the world. Comment: nothing really new here except that SMR is “passionate,” and is calling Shambhala vision “Living Peace.”
#2 is interesting due to its somewhat melodramatic suggestion that because VCTR died at this time in his life, somehow this is a “critical juncture” for SMR as well. ‘Why’ is not explained, just suggested.
#3 seems intended to impress SMR’s students with their responsibility for their teacher’s life at this ‘critical juncture.’
In #4 the sense of danger to SMR’s life is reinforced further with reference to the Sakyong Wangmo saying it’s up to “us” to secure the life of the teacher. RR adds that SMR himself has been “deeply concerned with this” [securing his own life?] and has created the Sakyong Ladrang, a “legal entity.”
In the letter following the video, signed by Joshua D. Silberstein and Richard Reoch, it says, “It is all the more poignant to reflect on this [securing the life of the Sakyong?] on the eve of our beloved Sakyong going into his year of deep retreat — a vital and life-preserving necessity for him and for all of us in his sacred mandala.” The Ladrang, it is explained, is intended to create a stronger ground for our lineage . . . and to strengthen the lineage.
Comment: I am continually puzzled by the reference to “the lineage.” SMR is the second in the Vidyadhara’s Shambhala lineage, as far as I can tell. Or is it the Shambhala Buddhism lineage that is referred to?
More ->
Cont.
If “the lineage” that RR and others in SI refer to is the new Shambhala Buddhism “lineage,” SMR is the first holder of that lineage. Can it be called a lineage yet if that is the case, since there is not yet a successor? Is SMR terribly concerned that he be known as establishing a new lineage? Why is he gathering all VCTR’s possessions and Vajradhatu’s assets into the Ladrang legal entity? VCTR held the Kagyu and Nyingma lineages and created a Shambhala lineage by passing on his Shambhala termas to the Sawang/Sakyong. I remain genuinely confused about what’s going on with the Ladrang.
However, what really interests me is whether there are any objective grounds for concern about SMR’s life and longevity. Is he ill, or is RR manipulating people’s fears as a stick to get them to give money. The letter says, as others have noted, “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.” Hmmm. I can’t imagine the Vajradhatu fundraising team ever dreaming up such a statement about the Vidyadhara.
To cut to the chase, what this video and letter caused me to wonder is whether the Sakyong really is concerned about how long he will live. Is he so concerned about his own life at this time, and what would happen if he dies without a successor? Or is his lungta in need of reinforcement? RR refers to “his year of deep retreat [as] a vital and life-preserving necessity for him and for all of us in his sacred mandala.”
Is it really money that SMR needs or is it lungta? If it is the latter, I can’t think of a better way to raise it than to go into a year-long SOLITARY, SILENT RETREAT – no business, no play, all Werma/lungta/stroke practice. No hanging out with kusung and kasung and cooks, etc. A real practice retreat in which he would supplicate the Vidyadhara/Dorje Dradul, repair samaya, and come out sparkling clean and ready for anything, especially for manifesting the Scorpion Seal. That would do it. Will he do it?
But who am I to suggest such a thing?
Am coming so late into this, there is so much to respond to, thank you so much to everyone:
- Bravo, wonderful people of Halifax sangha.
- Damcho, I applaud what you have said, particularly on 13th Oct, your words felt like arrows to the heart of it all.
- James Elliott: You describe so brilliantly:
. .. as he spoke it felt like a theoretical model/structure was projected for reflection and examination into an abstract intellectually pristine space. Within that space he could maneuver whatever theme, look at it from different angles and, free from other’s confusions, unbound by other issues that impinge upon the reality of the model, free of any other materialistic concerns, could then explain what he saw as the truth.
- And just a word for Mark Hazell, who is not an acharya but is a sweetheart. Indeed, let’s cultivate exquisite skills in being sharply critical without cutting off limbs.
I felt for Adam Lobel, it was an impossible place to occupy and I don’t think he expected to be moved by what he heard. But his responses seemed to me like those of a trained facilitator with a pacifying agenda (listen . . . reflect back), not a vajrayana teacher. I was also amazed how similar his use of pauses and tone to the Sakyong’s way of speaking, including certain intonations and clearing his throat in that short little constricted way. Martin Fritter, you’re right, he needed to have been better prepared, and if the agenda was to bring the sheep home, he is the wrong person (you said, ‘Eric Spiegel or Gaylon Ferguson or John Rockwell, you know, somebody who knew CTR and old enough to have credibility with the Halifax Sangha’). He spoke of working with the Sakyong on the curriculum and ‘envisaging the vajrayana path’, and I realised that this very widely-studied young scholar who didn’t meet the Vidyadhara may be substantially the author of the new curriculum. He is the face of the new Shambhala. I felt people were being asked to see and join in the benefit of what is happening, and that there is no place to say, it’s not broke, it’s glorious, stop fixing it, the dralas will leave.
For me, and I emphasise that it’s for me alone, he speaks from the oral cavity, the throat, out behind his head and below his navel, but not the embodiment. Because of this, what he said wasn’t heart-to-heart, open and straight across – which I experience as the Acharya’s way – but from above to below, from this curious overarching umbrella space where everything is purportedly timeless and transcendent. From this space, nothing was joined up, and I felt talked down to, because I was.
I also felt a kind of hollow space where my middle ought to be, and I remembered a conversation with a South African about the big gap in the truth and reconciliation processes: the burned village, the denials, the ostracising, then at last the sharing, the statements of respect, the apology and the forgiveness. And then afterwards, there’s this bunch of folks standing on the pavement without a home, and nobody pays attention.
With much love
Susie
More to follow
A little more:
. . . And to President Reoch’s video – secure the lineage and teachings? What from? We’ve heard this many times, and to me it doesn’t make any sense. Most of Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings are published (although I feel many more should be, including all the Sutrayana seminary transcripts) and the rest are presumably self-secret. But to lock things away? In this age when there is such a massive need for the open proliferation of his pure and resonant teachings? For me, the talk about security works against the way of the natural world. And regarding any paranoia about corruption, the mahakalas are surely perfectly competent already. This is something else, and yes it sounds desparate, and I hated it. But then I’m this idiot who wants to see the Sakyong wearing secondhand clothes, riding a bike and tending an organic garden (physically or metaphorically).
Security, security – it’s been my experience that when a vibrant, clear and magnetic vision is conveyed that is fully resonant for the Time, resources pour toward it like rivers, and it is carried out in bucketloads by a million parents. It’s also my experience that for those who’ve really burned their bridges through their vows – whether formalised or otherwise – dharma has this astonishing way of progressing on the path, clarifying confusion and dawning as wisdom in its own good time – and will continue to do so even if all the books and all the copies of all the termas and all the restrictions and copyrights and doors with locks and safes and requirements for seals and signatures and authorisations were burned tomorrow. When the student is ready, the teacher appears. Always, always, always. Nobody can stop that, but then nobody should ever try to.
There are still some acharyas in Shambhala who carry the juice, authentically and with all their commendable effort. I still want to talk to them, a lot, and when they talk to me, I feel fully and completely met. And I’m delighted to note that Pema Chodron is simply a student of Dzigar Kongtrul, and an Acharya. End of conversation. Above the clouds in quite a different way. But for some reason, Yeats has also come to mind today:
I made my song a coat
Covered with embroideries
Out of old mythologies
From heel to throat;
But the fools caught it,
Wore it in the world’s eyes
As though they’d wrought it.
Song, let them take it,
For there’s more enterprise
In walking naked.
With much love
Susie
losing vision in eyes so misread this as Heart in PAIN:-) Such richness, thank you Suzanne Vincent – haven’t listened to the 2 hour discourse, only following some of your responses. Any of you been exposed to the ‘Vajra Virus’?. [Attended this Boston event - last April with intention of playful connection with old friends] Transpired few present. As facilitator AL was way manipulative – cramping the spontaneity, warmth, and good humour that surfaced as we failed to follow his instructions and simply shared our stories working in dyads and triads. AL lprofessional border collie would attempt to summon us back to the circle like some old ‘scold’, heavy with ‘responsibility’ to keep order. Now ye all know those dakinis, rishis, dharmapalas are uncontainable sooo – gave Adam a BIG hug and split ..could feel the uh oh and oops of portending .denoument….
Jolly Good Show y’all and that includes all the nobodies – servANTS.
Vajra Virus:
an evening of spontaneous practice
with Acharya Adam Lobel
This evening vajrayana intensive explores our actual experience of the
vajrayana transmission. We will do this experientially by looking into
our immediate experience through contemplative practices. A number of
exercises will be introduced that uncover aspects of realization that
we may have already experienced. These practices aim to allow the
Vajra sangha to support each other’s genuine understanding and help
with our obstacles to that understanding.
Schedule:
6pm Vajra Virus exercises 1 (for people who can make it)
7pm Vajra Virus exercises 2 (people can join in)
It is not clear to me exactly what Richard Reoch’s fundraising is for — that is the problem. I don’t get the impression that “securing” the teachings or the lineage means less access — but who knows?
SI has done a pretty good job regarding disclosure for some projects. For example, I have requested and received financial statements for the Konchok Foundation. However, this project seems to be a black box or based on an assumption that gifts should be based on a personal connection with the Sakyong without a need to know more than that the project is something that the Sakyong wants to see happen.
I’m listening to Peter Volz’s first talk of the 12- class course at the Boulder Shambhala Center called Introduction to the Essential Chögyam Trungpa. Aside from the fact that Peter is an old friend and colleague, I am just delighted to hear him talk about Trungpa Rinpoche in a very personal, well practiced and informed way.
This course has been put together by four senior students of VCTR who live in Boulder, each of whom served (and continue to serve) their teacher in important capacities, each according to their own talents and passions. Besides Peter, the other teachers are: Clarke Warren, Sherab Chodzin, and Robert Spellman, all senior students of Trungpa Rinpoche.
These are NOT acharyas, so those who are interested might want to compare and comment on the differences in style and presentation between these old dogs and current official teachers. I wouldn’t know because I’ve never been to a talk by someone SMR has appointed to be an acharya during the current regime.
Here’s the link: http://www.chronicleproject.com/chroniclesradio_classes/index_classes.html
Please note that this class is sponsored by the Boulder Shambhala Center, and supported in part by a grant from the Chogyam Trungpa Legacy Project (thank you, Carolyn Gimian). There is also a syllabus of the course topics: http://www.chronicleproject.com/chroniclesradio_classes/essential_syllabus.html which will give you a taste of what’s to come.
If you are not signed up to receive announcements from the Chronicle Project, go to the home page http://www.chronicleproject.com/index.html and scroll down to Subscribe to Chronicles updates.
Enjoy!
Re: Jim’s comment about Konchok Foundation. (Thank you Jim!) sorry, I can’t resist saying this: It was founded by the Sakyong in 2001 after he first visited Surmang Dutsi Til Tibet at Khenpo Tsering’s request.
However, the Foundation is more under the umbrella of SI and is its own independent 501 c 3 organization.
Although the Sakyong has graciously run several marathons to help us raise money, and he is the President of the Board of directors; in actual operational practicalities, the Surmang Dutsi til shedra project has been quite independent. Running 1) on its own steam (the core working group and a lot of good people who love our cause and auspicious coincidence) and 2) plans about and work of building the shedra there under the guidance of Khenpo Tsering, with the consulting help of Bob King.
Ginny
Looks like they’re selling (marketing) merit in the Shambhala Times.
Has anyone noticed RMS’s finanicial situation?
http://www.shambhala.org/community/documents/Five_Steps2.pdf
http://www.shambhala.org/community/documents/Parameters_for_Shambhala_Mountain2.pdf
Dear John
Talk about a campaign re fundraising – if I was the editor of the Times I would definately be saying no to that article on offerings – but then again is the editor of the Times truly an independent person re printing stuff – or just one of the brothers and sisters.
Yeh as I said before dont send a penny, a dime, a what a yen, a peseta(?) – really its not worth the effort at the moment until you really start using your brain cells about an ‘enlightened society’ and massive fundraising wont bring that about in a rush. Sometimes I despair.
Have non-harmonisation parties and give your money if you really must to people who really need it in this present nutty age. Dont give SI any more money -its a bananas thing to do. Start thinking about these teachings for sure – start making people aware of them from the grassroots and dont ask for any more money for SI in Nova Scotia because that place is full of poor people – help them for a change! Throw a party for them – SI give money to Nova Scotians now!
Money, money,money,money – it doesnt make the dharma go round -you make the dharma go round – say no to the fundraising now!.
Keep asking questions -good people of Halifax!
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
I’ve been lurking on this site for some weeks. This provocative (where have we heard that before?) thread seems a good time to jump in.
The Halifax discussion seemed to me to be quite fruitful. It seemed to me that Acharya Lobel was genuinely trying to connect with people. He clearly didn’t have all the answers and in some cases may not have understood the questions. But he did seem to want to communicate, and that’s good.
I came into the mandala while the Dorje Dradul was alive, and I miss him very much. My heart aches in some ways for how things used to be. Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is himself part of this legacy as VCTR’s chosen lineage holder. Without him, would there be a Vajradhatu/Shambhala today? I don’t think so. I think we should cherish him deeply.
At the conclusion of the recent Vajrakilaya abisheka Sakyong Mipham spoke of how our unique sangha (clan if you will) was one of his father’s most important creations. He said it was our sangha that most distinguished us from other buddhist groups. He clearly cares very deeply about it. If you had been there, you would know. While he didn’t say so explicitly, I believe that this includes dissenters as well.
BTW, the current emphasis on receiving some kind of blessing in exchange for a donation rubs me entirely the wrong way. Yet I am going to make a donation to Sakyong Ladrong for the Sakyong’s retreat. Why? Because I believe the man deserves our support, and he will need something for his wife and himself to live on during a year in which he will not be teaching.
It’s good to see the names of some old friends I haven’t seen in a while here. I hope that these discussions continue.
This is in response to Edward’s post of the 13th regarding Shambhala Training, and a Level I participant’s proper attitude towards Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche.
A Level I participant doesn’t owe SMR any kind of fealty whatsoever. It’s not necessary for he or she to even know who he is.
As far as the separation of Shambhala Training and buddhism are concerned, there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides of this question. A disadvantage of keeping them separate was the very iffy nature of Shambhala Training’s “secularity” from what is now called the Sacred Path on. Shambhala Training is fundamentally a vajrayana path, with serious samaya commitments. The transition from the Heart of Warriorship to Sacred Path was therefore often a tremendous shock.
Dear Bruce,
You have no idea what you’re talking about. They were always seperate, according to the Dorje Dradul. You have to listen to the past, and get the
actual teachings, which are available in “The Sacred path of the Warrior”,
and other places. You speak from ignorance, I’m sorry….as far as what VCTR taught, which is not what the current Sakyong is putting forward.
We are seeing the evolution of bullshit…excuse me, all, but that’s what it is. I’m sick of this….Adam Lobel being a perfect example.
I want to say harsh words, but I will not. Now we have a token Sakyong.
His only job, to my mind, is to raise his male child to be a real Sakyong.
That is the only thing to look forward to here, to my mind.
I genuinely thought that I just posted a comment about the financial situation, and this has disappeared into thin air. If anybody finds it could they kindly let me know? Maybe I’m going potty, it’s more than possible.
With love
Susie
Robert, fascinating documents. Who wrote them? First meeting has happened, second about to.
Susanne, I don’t see any sign of what you thought you posted – maybe try again?
- Mark
Thanks, Mark. It will probably turn up on the Prince of Wales Save the Rainforests site, which I was also perusing, and cause a right royal scandal.
Yes, definitely Robert Chandler, we’ve noticed the Shambhala News Service announcement, and links to other statements about the financial situation.
A couple of years ago, on a discovery mission to try to get a handle on ‘head office’ governance principles, I listened to – and downloaded – some of the sessions at the Shambhala 2007 Congress in Cologne. Regrettably, I seem to have lost my download of Chris Tamdjidi’s presentation about Shambhala Europe, but I think it tied in strongly with President Reoch’s talk about ‘Shambhala Big Projects’ which I do have saved. Listening to those talks I was very uncomfortable to hear that about $30 million was seen as needed to spend on major building projects and financial stabilising out to 2012, and that the idea was to borrow about half of this. It was mentioned that as a community of about 8000 households (?), a raise of around $30 a month from each would cover the rest. Individual centres were asked to ‘raise their gaze’, think bigger, and not be fearful about taking such big steps as taking out big loans. I can’t see from the numbers how those loans would be repaid.
The size of the overall Shambhala sangha is really small – there are fewer than 7000 on the membership email list.
I’m also dismayed that when I now search for these downloads again, I can find no way to access anything from the 2007 Congress anywhere on the Shambhala site. A long list of material from the previous Congresses is available, and while the 2007 Congress is mentioned all over the place, there are no links at all. In the member’s area, and on Connie Brock’s page, there is a link, but it doesn’t work.
I just hate this.
Much love
Susie
Mark, I don’t know who wrote them but it seems that they had to come through Richard Reouch’s office. as you know, Bill Karelis has gone into great detail about all this. When RMSC goes broke the banks will take Marpa House and Dorje Dzong first because they are collateral for the RMSC buildout.
Dear Susanne: you can find talks again.
Go to this link
http://congress.shambhala.info/
then click on “Online talks from the 2007 Sham. Congress” , you’ll see a list of talks, and Chris Tamdjidi’s is there as well as other talks at that Congress in audio.
Oh, I get it! It’s a matter of who CAN and who CAN’T, which was Gyatrul Rinpoche’s core teaching to me. Trungpa Rinpoche is allowed to “fight, ambush, rape, attack, nurse, abuse, cultivate, and feed,” (“Memorial in Verse,” TR), but not me! No comprende vous! Is it misogyny, monarchy, authoritarianism, or all three of the above?
It is difficult to imagine how much SI expects from the Sangha, donation wise; and especially to have these two quite different types of urgent fund raising situations happening almost simultaneously. It seems out of balance to the point of being surreal.
Tara
I think they wanted you to stay on the topic of the thread. They gave you quite a bit of latitude but those last few posts were rather abstract and were miles away from the thread topic. This isn’t exactly a free-form site as far as I can tell.
Dear Robert
Robert – fascinating reading from Boulder and RMSC re the finances -hence I suppose the fundraising – is there any one out there who could write a report on whats happening re finances – its a minefield
I would say for sure now dont expand -consolidate what you have -start from the ground up again -listen to the dissenters because they seem to be the only ones who are pointing out factually what is going on-if you must go to these stupid meetings raise the finance issues – and before you go in go in fully armed as an informed group -dont let the speaker dictate the form of the meeting for you -you the audience decide on how this meeting should go -if you dont you will be bought off by platitudes and diktat.
Is SI disintegrating before our very eyes -perhaps it should fall because then only it will start listening to its people in the centres and realise that the shambhala teachings are not about creating a mega-empire but of ordinary people relating to their own minds directlly without the greenbacks entering massively into the situation. People wake up -send emails, talk, create a fuss, shout!
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockportuk
John Tischer, I entered the mandala via Shambhala Sacred Path of the Warrior. I’m not ignorant of its contents. Shambhala Training is very precious to me. I’m sure that it matters a great deal to you as well.
My remarks about the fruition of the Shambhala Training path being vajrayana and entailing samaya commitment are accurate, based on my experience. As someone who walked that path, and as an administrator who worked on many Shambhala Training levels, I know that the transition from Heart of Warriorship to Sacred Path could be abrupt and difficult. There was a sense of the great switcheroo, and not necessarily in a helpful way.
I’m not entirely convinced that the identification of Shambhala Training with buddhism is the best way to go. I simply say that there are arguments in its favor. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the Dorje Dradul communicated views about Shambhala Training and the Shambhala path to the Ashe Prince that he did not share with the general public.
Dear Mr Dodds
Thank you for last comment re your own path with Shambhala Buddhism.
However -it has been my own experience that shambhala can be accessed by people of all faiths not just by Buddhists, -there are a legion of comments on this site to attest to peoples experiences about this-indeed we have on this site a thread from a Christian Shambhalian about his connexion to the shambhalian teachings.
What do I mean by experience-well I think when I was younger that I caught a glimpse of Shambhala before I was even a Buddhist and soon after this experience a legion of Tibetan lamas entered my life -in fact I even have the lung for Gampopas Jewel Ornament which I received from Karma Thinley Rinpoche over four days and since that time I have gone through that book back and forward so I would say I have a good grasp of Buddhist concepts.
But I would say the shambhala teachings are unique in the sense that they relate to all peoples and the construction of an enlightened society which Buddhism hints at in parts but does not describe fully – really it depends which way you are coming at with the shambhala teachings as Bernbaum writes in his book -The Way to Shambhala -you can see them in a pyschological, mythical, or actual sense – and here we are talking perhaps of individual experiences and culture.
What does it mean when you join heaven and earth together? – Trungpa did that or we would not have had these teachings but how are we subsequently to do the same in this world which is full of so many diverse religions and cultures – perhaps only by the meditation process developed in all the worlds many religious and cultural contexts. My experience came from a mixture of poetry – beat poetry, introspection and perhaps music and I also tried out the koan method as well which is interesting so yes I believe people can access what shambhala is from other cultures.
As to samaya my samaya is with the truth not in the teachings themselves but with the experience itself which is spontaneous and almost like the wind – so if you are connected to that samaya you can never be lost-the teacher appears as if like magic in all our everyday situations not just in the formal abhisheka and this kind of abhisheka is Buddha which is Trungpa for a lot of us.
As to the Sakyong and CTRS relationship with him you are conjecturing -but even if you were right why should that be of concern to you because you have the power to connect heaven and earth yourself too.
So thats where I am coming from – these teachings are for every one -everyone should have them and they will have them despite all the massive hurdles that SI puts in their way with incessant demands for money -give the teachings for free, for a small amount even then they will grow for sure -but not the way that SI is following now -thats no way to go.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
\
Bruce Dodds writes:
I know that the transition from Heart of Warriorship to Sacred Path could be abrupt and difficult. There was a sense of the great switcheroo, and not necessarily in a helpful way.
I would be interested to hear more about this, if it’s appropriate to share. If not, a bit of indirect allusion might work.
I’m not sure what exactly the term “great switcheroo” refers to, but it reminds me of my old teacher, who was full of switcheroos of his own.
I’ll share a bit about my own experience with Shambhala training. The first three Levels I took were very magical; they were amazing. The fourth Level was not magical at all for me. The atmosphere felt different, and the director’s attitude felt different. Then at the end of that weekend we were asked to toast to the Sakyong’s ability to fearlessly persist in the face of all his critics. That was a red flag for me– how can I toast to something that I know nothing about? At that point I felt obligated to come to this website, which I had been avoiding, so I could find out what I was being asked to toast to, and to see whether I agreed with it.
In my opinion, making toasts one does not believe in, you know, that you don’t feel in your gut and in your heart, is one of the best ways to send the dralas away. It’s like taking a crap on a sacred text– it doesn’t feel respectful of the act of toasting. When I did toasting with my old teacher and his sangha it was a powerful act of invocation, not a pleasantry or a political device.
That’s part of why I asked what relationship is expected of brand new people towards the Sakyong at the beginning levels.
I’ve decided not to attend additional levels because I don’t want to make that toast again, nor do I want to cause a scene by refusing to toast. Nor do I want a meditative retreat weekend I participate in to be disrupted by having to worry about that kind of detail. I don’t like to worry about politics during a retreat.
Even if SMR were the best teacher ever, I wouldn’t want to suddenly, without warning, get asked to in a sense swear allegiance to him at the end of a meditation weekend. Something about that doesn’t feel right.
Edward, are you serious? Being asked to raise a glass to a man during a party really got you that flustered?
I won’t speak for Bruce Dodds but Sacred Path carries many Asian cultural tags that might make practices seem more related to Tibetan Buddhism than those practices probably are. It’s no longer the New-Agey, self-help 101 stuff that the Heart of Warriorship can easily devolve into.
Why not just take the leap? Why wait for some undisclosed moment in the future when everything’ll be tidied up? Even if that means grabbing some other tiger’s tail, sans Shambhala?
Concerning toasts: a lovely way of bringing more dignity and elegance into a gathering. But over time it can also become too rigid. I feel it is taken a little too seriously, myself. As far as your example Edward, what if, after the toast you mentioned, someone else were to stand up and say something like this:
“And I’d like to toast our critics, whose good heart, critical intelligence, and suggestions can only make us stronger. Without them any organization risks becoming ideological, dogmatic. Critics keep us on our toes, point out potential blind spots that all of us have somewhere or other. When they turn out to be right about something, we are in their debt, and must change accordingly. But even where we still disagree, their value is no less. And after all, in the end, “loyalist” and “critic” are not separable: they are simply the two faces of devotion. So, to the so-called critics: hear hear!”
And your comment reminds me of how the President always says “God bless America” and NEVER says something like: “may God, who loves all and is the very source of love, bless America, and all her friends, and all her enemies. May we all learn to grow in wisdom and compassion. May all beings without exception on this earth enjoy peace, happiness, and complete prosperity.” Okay okay, unlikely I know! But how about: “may God bless this earth”. So simple, so utterly uncontroversial, one would think. Yet they never do it. It’s always “God bless America”. (And the world notices.) Your example reminds me of this.
Hi brad,
Thanks for your comments.
I was delighted to toast to the Sakyong the first three weekend Levels that I attended. People talked about how much the Sakyong had helped them, and I really enjoyed the whole thing.
It was toasting to fearlessness being defined as “ignoring criticism” that I wasn’t sure about.
Is ignoring feedback the same as fearlessness? Is that how it is defined in this tradition? I suspect very strongly that this is what the current Sakyong believes. I’m not sure I can raise my glass to that, but if you can, good for you.
I refer people to the questions I raised earlier in this thread about George W. That was not a joke. I really want to know how principles of fearlessness apply to everyday things.
But getting back to the matter of toasts. I guess it has to do with why have toasts in the first place? What’s the purpose of them?
Do you have a living relationship with drala? Do you want to?
For me, these questions are all related. Maybe it’s different for others.
About Samaya
Mr. Dodds comments about the Shambhala path leading to a samaya reminded me of an experience our sangha had in the middle ’80s. The Vidyadhara wanted his students to receive the Kalachakra Abhisheka which he was not able to give us himself. So he supplicated Kalu Rinpoche to do this for us, which he did. It was a very large packed house and took approximately five days. The translator was Ken MacLeod who stood on his feet translating for the entire time. Kalu Rinpoche was a bit miraculous. While there was continual coming and going for all kinds of biology breaks among the strong, young participants, Rinpoche never left his seat except at meal breaks. He never went to the washroom or even stretched his body. His posture was perfect, and he was light and strong from start to finish.
It seems to me that when we come to the samaya oath part of an abhisheka given by such a master, that master may make the samaya in the best way he sees fit for these students and himself, the time, the situation the entire context. The samaya he gave us at that Kalachakra was that we should please not see him as too old or ugly!
Please don’t laugh too much about that, but rather think about it. This was VCTR’s (and many other students) sangha. The Kalachakra is central for Shambhala. Yet he made for us this very light and funny and loving samaya. I am quite sure that the Master can create the samaya between himself and the students, that he feels is just right. I would never put a definition on what the content of a samaya bond might entail because the Master decides this.
If anybody else remembers anything more from that event, or if I have remembered something wrong, please offer.
Thanks so much for offering you experiences and insight.
Madeline
Nova Scotia
Yes, maybe SMR has secret instructions from his father and maybe not, bur we’ll never know, will we, so why give him extra credence based on
speculation? The actions or inactions of the man speak for themselves,
just as giving Adam Lobel the title of acharya doesn’t automatically make
him anything special. He sounds more like a mouthpiece than a spokesperson…if you ask me. It seems there’s a lot of wishful thinking surrounding SMR, who remains untouched on the clouds. It’s easy for people to project their hopes on someone that they don’t really know.
Thank you, everybody (with a couple of obvious exceptions), for this very rich thread. I would like to speak to the financial situation of SI and the fundraising issue. I’ve had a little experience with fundraising, both within Vajradhatu while VCTR was alive and subsequently within 3 secular nonprofits, which taught me quite a lot. The main thing I learned is that integrity, transparency and groundedness in reality are essential for the longevity of any project for which funds are to be raised. I stress the *longevity* of projects for which funds are raised, because I’ve seen some projects fail for lack of integrity, transparency and groundedness in reality.
I began seeing red flags as soon as SMR began putting corporate-trained guys in charge of RMDC/SMC and SI. Corporate-trained guys, more often than not, are trained to ‘get around’ the need for integrity, transparency and groundedness in reality, while creating the appearance of said qualities. I’ve seen corporate guys take over nonprofits and destroy them – destroy the integrity, longevity and missions of decent organizations. So when I see corporate types take over organizations and projects, I step back and watch for the corruption to start eating away at them. This is what I think has happened to SMC and perhaps it is happening to SI.
I was on staff at RMDC for three years immediately before the corporate types began the “development” there. This was immediately following my experiences in fundraising departments of nonprofits, so I watched with dread. RMDC had been ‘my’ practice center for 20 yrs, where I’d done many retreats and programs as well as lived there. I loved it with a passion. I felt protective of it and distrusted the plans for development there because they were ungrounded in the realities of the US economy as well as realities of the sangha and the history of RMDC. But when corporate guys get their hands on something, they march in with an arrogant we-know-better attitude and won’t listen to anybody. “Growth” ideology renders them deaf.
So it happened. Bill Karelis has done an admirable job of being the watchdog for RMDC and the Boulder sangha, and has reported on the shenanigans of Jeff Waltcher, the “development director” at SMC, who mortgaged Boulder sangha assets in order to finance the build up at SMC – and put SMC massively into debt. In the process, “development” destroyed RMDC as a practice center for the Boulder sangha, and probably drove most of the dralas away.
Re: transparency, why did SI officials ‘secure’ the stupa, encampment grounds and kami shrine from foreclosure a couple of years ago if they didn’t know that they would probably have to sacrifice the rest of SMC? And how could they still talk about plans to build a $6-million Gesar Palace for SMR after they had done that? Didn’t any of them realize that an economic tsunami was coming? I did. A lot of people foresaw it approaching in the financial sector and economy.
We need to hold SI accountable for the lack of integrity and transparency, and the losses of sangha assets.
I spent 8 years at SMC in the 90′s and experienced the corporate takeover. Critics were gradually removed, including yours truely. We began to be paid salaries
and treated like employees. Abuse of power began to happen, leading to the director being kicked upstairs
eventually. It all became about the money, and it felt
like working for McDonalds. This was before Shambhala Buddism was put forward as an idea. So
corporification happened first.
Edward, c’mon. How much are you projecting your own stuff on otherwise relatively unremarkable events?
I’ve been to the schmaltzy post-program Shambhala parties. While you may hold the view that toasts are roughly on the same level as receiving the eucharist I’ll dare say it’s not a common sentiment.
If you feel edgy just say so but all these speculative twisty-turny allegories about golfing and refashioning the words of what was probably a corny, if not heartfelt, toast at a boozy party doesn’t do much more than reveal your own stuff.
If that observation’s worth anything to you.
I’m sure the day the Druk Sakyong showed up dressed as an officer of the British Indian Regency wasn’t exactly high on occasions of toasting his perseverance in the face of strident criticism.
When I asked ‘why not take the leap?’ I was asking why you indulge your own general reticence, I wasn’t asking about a definitive critique of a toast to the Sakyong, or the Sakyong himself, or of the present situation. I was asking about you. What’s the point of holding back?
Suzanne, I agree. It would be much more heartening to rcve straight talk from SI regarding the financial sitch. Something like ‘We are way way broke and in danger of losing treasured property and assets, please help as much as you can.’ The corporate-speak is confounding not only because it’s hard to translate but that it’s present at all.
I understand Edward’s point re making toasts. Folks are open and softened by that time in a Shambhala Training weekend. There is the beginning of a shared reference point, but very new. As in any ritual, a
common language and view is what makes it have power for the participants.
If that’s not the case, it’s a very effective set-up for an insider/outsider moment.
The toasts imply a great deal, and presume an allegiance that may not be there yet.
And Brad, you can’t point a finger at someone for not “taking a leap” when you think they should. Everyone’s leap comes in their own time. That’s why it’s a very personal path, no matter how many group retreats you do.
OK, now try to connect the dots: corporate types have been running SI, replicating the bubble (ie, boom and bust) mentality displayed in the Wall Street debacle over the last year. Connect that to the RR video appeal (date??) to the Shambhala community for every single member to give as much much as they can to gladden the Sakyong’s heart, implying that somehow this will prolong the Sakyong’s life and help the Sakyong Ladrang to fulfill the Sakyong’s “passionate vision for humanity and the planet, which he calls “Living Peace.” Remember: “We have the future in our hands. It’s up to us . . .”
Meanwhile, we have heard that this “legal entity,” the Sakyong Ladrang, is gathering all the Vajradhatu assets and the Vidyadhara’s possessions unto itself. Anybody ever wonder why?
Re: SMC, in “Parameters (notes for presentation to the staff consultation on 10 April)” http://www.shambhala.org/community/documents/Parameters_for_Shambhala_Mountain2.pdf it says, “We do not want Shambhala Mountain Center to close. Therefore, we are committed to doing everything in our power to make it sustainable, now and for the future. . . . If we continue exactly as we are today – neither raising any additional funds, nor making any cuts to our expenditure – we will be roughly $800,000 in deficit (with no money to pay this) by end of March.”
In the recent (Oct. 09?) “Shambhala Mountain Center: Cultural Change; Financial Change” http://www.shambhala.org/community/documents/Five_Steps2.pdf it says, “It is also abundantly clear that world conditions have changed around us and the previous assumptions on which our financial model were based have changed. To ensure that Shambhala Mountain Center becomes sustainable in this context and is able to provide the ground for the Sakyong’s forward-looking vision of a global centre for deep training in Living Peace, we need to make radical changes.” Meetings with staff have taken place over the last week.
On Oct. 16th, Shambhala News Service released this report: “President and Chagdzo Kyi Khyap report decisions on financial sustainability,” which begins, “We are writing to share with you decisions being taken at key points in the mandala to comply with the Shambhala Principles on Financial Sustainability. All involve significant cutbacks in expenditure, but are necessary to manage our precious resources as we steer our way through the continuing effects of the world economic crisis. . . . We believe this full package of decisions -– internationally, in Europe and at Shambhala Mountain Center -– though extremely difficult is necessary for the health of Shambhala’s own economy.”
I’m sure there are others who can connect the dots more accurately and fully than I am capable of doing. But I have questions:
Why has nobody in a leadership position admitted they f@#ked up in overbuilding and putting SMC into debt???
Are they pretending they didn’t know they might have to sacrifice SMC years ago?
Is RR’s appeal a thinly veiled attempt to get Shambhala members to ‘bail out’ SI, like taxpayers bailed out Wall Street?
Suzanne, I think the easy answer is corporate types don’t admit to screwing stuff up.
What I would hope, truly, is that incompetence is at the heart of all of this. It really seems the most plausible explanation in the absence of a straight public balance sheet. Maybe there is some more involved conniving but truly, stupidity is almost always the explanation once everything gets turned out onto the table.
March is not that far away. I hope they can get it together. The paucity of straight talk and the abundance of cheesy cheese-talk doesn’t really inspire much confidence. I think people would be more likely to do what they could individually if the picture had a bit more clarity.
Reallocating the ownership of assets could be a defense against bankruptcy or foreclosure. I know zero about non-profit bankruptcy.
Whether people admit to having fucked up or not. . . It is really more complicated than that. Some may remember the Goddard College fiasco (FUCK GODDARD) that lead to all of the tent platforms being built at RMDC in four months. The Gurus do not care about our ideas about obstacles. They just say do it. It was indeed the misguided attempts of a few well intentioned people that lead to the current financial situation. Debt service at SMC has been consistent, the problem is an operating deficit in the winter months. This is being addressed and is likely to be sucessful. The process of bringing the manifestation and the vision into line has begun, and will be painful, but sucessful. There are real people there, this is not about your petty vendettas. The aliens are still blinding you. And there HAS been public admittance of fault by the management and board, it just didn’t get to the spaceships yet. Heathens.
Dear benny hana, I find it ironic and bizarre to be called a heathen with a petty vendetta who is blinded by aliens. Heathen: 1. an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, Torah, or Koran; 2. an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody’s way of life, degree of knowledge, or nonbelief in religion. Alien: 1. extraterrestrial being, 2. noncitizen resident of a country, 3. outsider. But it is a telling projection of a true believer.
I won’t belabor the obvious applicability of those terms to what has happened to the mandala of the Vidyadhara/Dorje Dradul and his students. But one of the people who has commented on this thread put it this way to Sakyong Mipham a few years ago: “You are surrounded by bad people. You are getting bad advice.”
Yes, of course they are real people, just as those who post comments on RFS are real people. “The misguided attempts of a few well intentioned people that led to the current financial situation” were based on the same conventional delusions that are leading the US and world economy into a depression. And, just as in the larger context of Wall Street and Washington DC, the same people who created the problems in SI are still holding positions and still in charge. Well intentioned but deluded foxes are guarding the hen houses.
But the dharma is about truth, reality, karmic law. So questioning and critique to get at the truth are appropriate dharmic activities, although they are disturbing to deluded true believers.
Back to the ‘whining and raving’ comment by Yeshe Fuchs (1:48:24 in the talk.), and referred to by Christopher Hucks, Mark Bowen (Oct.11) and others.
I sympathize with Mr. Hucks who suggests that Ms. Fuchs should be removed. She could clean that karma, however, he raises legitimate concerns because according to Ms. Fuchs others told her “Halifax is not so easy because they all have different views”. We can deduce this is not just her opinion, but something she was warned about; a view held within the upper echelon, where we now know differing views are seen as problematic, even whiny and raving.
Talking about these kinds of issues in an atmosphere where, as Lynne described, ‘shunning’ is a real possibility, is not easy. (Many of us know people who have experienced that, so dismissing it as paranoid, neurotic or untrue is no longer viable.)
It takes courage to talk openly, but it also requires practice in articulating. These themes have been off the radar, or if mentioned receive decidedly unfavorable reactions (akin to Ms. Fuchs’), and so have never had a forum to speak of. As such there is in general little experience in talking about these issues.
Experience develops not primarily confidence, but rather skill in how to articulate: the core issue, the scope of concern, proper context, causes, results, outcomes, dynamics, what’s been ignored, denied or dealt with, how who and in what way people are responsible, and so on.
To stand up and talk about these without any practice is virtually impossible. Without a lot of practice one’s expression won’t be professional and so could be categorized as petty by those who stand ready to dismiss. That those who spoke out did as well as they did is commendable rather than a barb to hang one’s disdain on.
My experience in lodging complaints with the European/German administration from where Ms. Fuchs came, complaints I think even she would have to see as legitimate if she or anyone took time to listen, is parallel; a deaf ear and biased contempt for complaints/concerns and the members who raise them.
That attitude should never have been allowed ground to take root.
Ms. Fuchs asks at the end “Why can’t we just wholeheartedly join in magnetizing new people?” ala Rodney King. A questionable aim she did not exemplify.
Paradoxically the point made many times in the responses was that many wish they could, and a good number are no longer present who used to wish that. It seems Ms. Fuchs was focusing on the whiny raving quality of the already infamous Haligonians, rather than listening to people in the room.
Many people in the 70s, fed up with harmonious bullshit, were attracted to Vajradhatu and Trungpa Rinpoche in part due to his unflinching openness about his unconventional lifestyle. I honestly think wrestling with these issues openly rather than squelching them could be equally magnetizing.
In any case, if we don’t or cannot, what does Shambhala International honestly have to offer to anybody? Smiles? Books?
In the inspiration that “anyone who sins in hell ought to be canonized.” (S.J.Lec)
Benny Hana
RFS did not just happen overnight, nor is it where a few disgruntled people come to complain. The problems discussed here have been going on for
Twenty Years! And many of the people who post here tried to work with
Vajradhatu/Shambhala for a lot of that time. From the sound of you, that must be most of your life time.
My favorite Japanese Restaurant.
Yes, Illegal aliens in spaceships.
“Benny Hanna” does that mean “green” or “brown “stains in underwear in Japanese?
And John, the financial problems which were the immediate matter of discussion have been going on for around six years. The buildout began in 1999(you were there, so was I) The real trouble started when the second lodge was built. Jeff W was trying to fulfill what he thought was the Sakyong’s vision against the advice of Many. The community also suffered greatly over this, and I do agree that his leadership was not in line with Shambhala Vision. To lump the next two directors in with his style is ignorant at best. Also, it was actually lack of business savy that caused the finacial problems to go unnoticed until just now. Bad Bookkeeping. Alan Cross was hardly a corporate type, and Jon B, while having a business background is not either. You see to lump everyone into the category that Suzanne did is ignorant and petty. Real people are getting hurt in this situation and the ‘I told you so’ bullshit doesn’t help.
I was responding to her comment, not to the MP3 which is very interesting. The problems RFS adresses have been around for fourty years, you all just blame the recent past. Every complaint leveled against SMR on this site has been made before his time as well. I am not a child, though thank you for ignoring the matter of my post. You however are a drunk, and I can tell your sober posts from your late night agression. John, this site is bad for you, you change your opinion all the time. It stirs you up and undermines your mindfulness. You are a good teacher and a great person. This is making you worse, not better.
Susanne V., I loved your thoughts on “security”. Beautifully said. Also, I too thought when listening to the recording that Adam Lobel sounded so much like the Sakyong. Uncannily in places.
Listening a second time, I felt all the more that there was (and perhaps could be) no fundamental engagement on the part of Adam. A key moment for me came when he suggested that perhaps one way of dealing with the question of doubt could be via the delek system. He thought the group might break up into twos or threes, and that this would be a good moment for expression of doubt. But to me this was a kind of “therapist” answer, where what was needed was a direct “administrative” answer, an answer amongst relational equals. Doubt is already expressed amongst friends–this isn’t the point. The point is: where could that communication within the deleks then go? Or is the delek meant in this case to *contain* any criticism?
James, thanks for your posts. Re “whining”: it’s really such a negative word when you think about it. Not only does it convey the idea of self-centeredness, but also of the comments and feelings being irrelevant in the first place. “Whining” is what children do to achieve their aims; the people in that room were seasoned practitioners who were–as Robert put it–truly putting into practice the teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche. And I agree it was a comment which surely does suggest the view of the upper echelon.
Also, you say: “My experience in lodging complaints with the European/German administration from where Ms. Fuchs came, complaints I think even she would have to see as legitimate if she or anyone took time to listen, is parallel; a deaf ear and biased contempt for complaints/concerns and the members who raise them.” My experience too, and then some. It is all immensely sad.
-These problems have not been around for “fourty” years. These problems have been around since this community allowed someone with no training , to put on robes and then systematically dismantled and destroy CTR’s legacy.
- His mouthpiece has never practiced in this community, did not know CTR.
- this is not about “style” or dharma, this is about duplicity, lies and disinformation.
- It is about Benny Hannna , cowards, who hide behind aliases who come on this site defending SI.
- This is about the pain and suffering caused by SI, not CTR.
No, you’re wrong…the build out started with the first lodge, which was in the late 90′s that was Jeff Walcher…Alan and John were playing catch up…YOU ARE WRONG about the basics of this. Walcher was chosen by SMR because he thought he could do it all…or something…which includes the 9 Mil. Sakyongs palace, which will never happen…Walcher was promoted to head fundraiser for Shambhala because of a threatened lawsuit…DON”T YOU KNOW ANYTHING? Obviously not…I just wonder which of the white tulkus you are really… I have much a right here as you have, buddy, and your slurs, whether they have a drop of truth in them or not, are certainly
showing you for what you are. And why the F*** would you say that I’m a good teacher in this context, except for the wind up onto your next slur?
Believe me, you are seen here…as I am, I’m sure.
You’re right about one thing…this site is all I have…what do you have except family, money, and alleged position?
I remember back in ’73 or ’74, the Vidyadhara essentially expropriated the houses that had been built by the pygmies, little a-frames, plus Jeff Ellis’ and Paul Shippee’s more substantial places, most of which are still in use. The whole place still has this hillbilly vibe. It’s a very harsh environment, resistant to improvement. One of its strengths, I think.
I suspect that Benny, despite being an obvious troll, is right about the details, although his treatment of Mr. Tisher is vulgar.
I think SI may suffer from too little professionalism rather than too much. There were half-way decent financial controls constructed during the CTR’s lifetime but I suspect they fell apart during after the death of the Regent.
I might point out that Rinpoche (the first one) while obviously not risk adverse and not personally interested in money was interested in building a real corporate organization. We were very good in our relationship to the IRS, insurance and the like.
He was also personally involved in fund raising, both at programs and in working with large donors. His teaching activities, including seminary, were the principal source of revenue for Vajradhatu.
Incidentally there never was very much money. Back in the late ’70s and early ’80s the Court in Boulder never had much food and VDH didn’t have much money. The Voglers wolud have to come over and get a couple of hundred several times a week.
I raise these points out of a (probably pointless) effort to humanize this discussion, which has become ad hominem and abusive. Most relatively impoverished non-profits tend to have wretched institutional memories and repeat the same mistakes over and over.
Perhaps SI should have anticipated the global crash of 2008, but many much more wealthy non-profits with professional fund managers didn’t. I suspect that SI has become more dependent on large donors, many of whom took it on the chin.
From a “business” perspective, it is foolish for SI to alienate older students, and alienate many they have. We’re the ones who have accumulated assets and will be making bequests in our wills. It wouldn’t take much to patch things up, I think.
Love you, Martin….
Thanks.
J.T.
Always a class act, Martin, though it’s never been an act with you. Thanks for your sanity.
CB
Damcho: I’ve adored you from the moment I first read your words on this site. I’d love to know what name you usually go by!’
What I felt from your last is a sense that there’s a much easier way to do all this, and it’s just by being authentic with each other. As a management consultant with PWC (yes I was !) I remember feeling tacitly expected to carry the corporate interest line out into relationships. I intimately know the texture of the separation that is automatically created by this. It has to be dropped or there can’t be enlightened society, within us or in community, because we do have to be nakedly, unashamedly truthful, no agendas. Only then can sweet co-creation ensue. When any ‘framework’, even dharmic, is used to regulate and filter open connection, then it is inherently disrespectful, does not say, ‘you have the same rights as I do’.
But I don’t think it’s disrespectful for one party to say to another how it seems to them: e.g ‘you cooperatively hold a massive sacred trust, which you have sequestered without the full agreement of much of the family. We are all Mukpos, he said so. You are messing up’. And if they don’t listen, don’t talk about it, and just keep doing it, then equal relationship and real dialogue with such brothers and sisters can’t happen. It’s not an attitude thing. It’s in the behaviour and the bones, and in the Shambhala path, it comes out clearly in Level 3 the Ground of Daring – Genuineness, and when we touch the world with respect, and levels 4 level 5 . Naked to everything, nothing filtered, open, showing up fearlessly for the whole catastrophe.
Dorje Dradul’s note cards for level 5 happen to be right by me:
November 1979, Talk 3
Wisdom: one has certainty in wisdom and hierarchy.
Because there is discipline of body, truth in speech, and mind without deception, there arises a king who joins heaven and earth.
How interesting. Kings have to be very grown up. And when we see someone who is very grown up, they radiate humour and inclusiveness for a big radius. They have big invisible warm paws and they scoop us in. And if people feel that someone has usurped the worldly mantle of One Who Should Manifest In This Way, and that the air seems full of misleading propagandas, then the sense of injustice goes beyond the personal. You – samaya-sworn of Trungpa Rinpoche, you unsung special guard, maintaining your posts for life, without sangha, without teacher, could never simply be ‘reconciled’ into by a process like ‘sharing in triads’. Why is this not understood? It is as clear as daylight to me.
Give it respect! I propose the Daoist post-Jungian Arnie Mindell could facilitate a meeting between an ambassador and such Stakeholders, I think he did Latinos vs New York, two murders nearly took place, and everyone ended in tears. As it should be.
I feel someone with Acharya Lobel’s office who has the job of framing of the core teachings of an essentially mahayana lineage would show a wide open heart, and shed tears at what he heard.
Great sadness. Great joy.
Much love
Susie
Martin, very well said.
However, when you say: “Perhaps SI should have anticipated the global crash of 2008, but many much more wealthy non-profits with professional fund managers didn’t…” I must disagree.
In this instance, the seeds of financial distress were sown early on at RMDC with the appointment of the esteemed Mr. Waltcher, who was already carrying with him a record of what I would describe as abject failure at TGS Systems, in Halifax.
The crash of ’08 was all about ridiculous levels of leverage (read: debt). The young “Masters of the Universe”, per the prescient 1987 movie “Wall Street”, equated leverage (debt) with growth. Unfortunately, that was a lie; DEBT=RISK, a lesson Mr. Waltcher apparently never learned in his business classes at CU in the go-go ‘80’s.
If you build optimistic, rather than REALISTIC, models to satisfy your appetite for growth, you will, ultimately, meet your Waterloo. Because, when enough time passes, the world, at some point, won’t continue to dance to your tune. And this is what we have seen the last two years.
What’s happening at RMDC/SMC was inevitable.
I love RMDC, too. And it all makes me very sad.
This needn’t have happened.
I Googled Jeff Waltcher and Shambhala Mountain Center out of curiosciy. I was kind of shocked readiing some of of the stuff that popped up, but I guess that was the mentality of fund raising and publicity SMC was going on a few tyears ago.
i’m just curious: why is it when people disagree w. those on this site it’s called projection but when those on this site disagree w. others it’s called wisdom, insight, the ‘real deal’, how CTR would have done it, etc.
i came to this site expecting a little sanity and a place to sort through my own doubts. i’m a different position than most in that my samaya is with SMR. i’d hardly qualify myself as a ‘true believer’ or any of the other rather distasteful things suzanne d. used to describe students of SMR. those descriptions in and of themselves are rather shocking. i’ve been around since 1988 and have ridden through some tremendous ups and downs in this community & tremendous doubt. the essence of the teachings have always brought me back round. and the doubt has served me well. my husband and i have a saying that we check our shoes by the door, not our brains.
the tone here has decidely shifted since adam lobel’s appearance in halifax. unfortunately it reminds me of bitter splits that occurred after carl jung died: some said the true teachings of jung lay w. marie louise von franz and others believed jung was the real deal. so they split up and went into different buildings and each lay claim to the genuine teachings. or the battle between the real rolfers and those who do ‘structural integration’. each group claims to be direct descendents of the true teacher.
mr. lobel doesnt speak to or for me, as some of the acharyas do not speak to or for me. i dont ask ‘how high’ just because someone who has ‘acharya’ as a prefix to their name says ‘jump’.
it’s a bit too convenient to simply write off those of us who have genuine heart connection to SMR as hapless pinheads. it is cowardly and heartbreaking. it’s heartbreaking particularly because so many of us could use your guidance and experience. it’s a challenge to sort through the bitterness and listen for the soft spot here. i come here because i feel you are part of my vajra sangha.
dear meg
there really is no problem whatsoever! Be glad that you have a genuine teacher. I don’t believe anyone might think of you as an hapless pinhead! Follow your heart and forget about disgrunteld farts on this site! Trust yourself (and your husband) Practice what you have been taught until you realize for yourself what is true and really real! How great to read that you are not a “jumper”.Again, just practice what you have learned and trust and forget about this site!!!
Hi Meg,
Rather amazing how long these threads get.
I too go back to approx your vintage, somewhat earlier, but with very strong feeling of samaya through the Regent. I think there may be some similarity between the intensity expressed at this web site and the questioning of the Regent in that era. I really have to wonder what kind of effect it has on a student like yourself, who expresses openly and honestly her allegiance (this isn’t quite the right word, is it? maybe “devotion” is the right word).
I think one of the good things going on here has been the interviews and efforts to illuminate factual information about the new legal structures and so-forth within SI. But it is frankly difficult to evaluate the significance of most of these developments without first hand knowledge of the intentions of the relevant actors.
Regarding your comment about sorting through your own doubts: can you imagine if I asked you what are your doubts? … Hopefully you can do sitting practice and emulate the Buddha. Trusting yourself and your experience with the teacher is obviously the best guide.
I guess all this is just a way of saying that I don’t write off SMR’s students as hapless pinheads. It would be unfair to single you out for that honor!
Dear Meg,
You say, “i’d hardly qualify myself as a ‘true believer’ or any of the other rather distasteful things suzanne d. used to describe students of SMR. those descriptions in and of themselves are rather shocking.”
Where have I ever on this site said that all students of SMR are ‘true believers’? I have referred to the writers of specific posts that are juvenile and insulting as true believers. The latest such reference was to benny hana, who repeatedly said that critics of SI are controlled by aliens, have a petty vendetta and are heathens.
In such a context, do you really think that calling such a person a true believer is so shocking?
You also say, “it’s a bit too convenient to simply write off those of us who have genuine heart connection to SMR as hapless pinheads. it is cowardly and heartbreaking.”
I don’t recall anyone saying or implying such a thing on this site. I think you are getting carried away and are misrepresenting the exchanges by taking them out of context. That is a bit too convenient.
In previous posts, you have seemed like a reasonable and intelligent adult and I have been interested to hear more from you. I encourage you to engage in the dialogue, but to do so constructively, I believe we must be able to accurately read and respond to what is being said. I know you are capable of that, so please join in and share your wisdom.
Best wishes,
Suzanne
Dear Benny Hana,
You’re right…I’m a drunk…I’ve been thinking of going full time lately, you
know, like start when you get up in the morning…I haven’t done that yet, and it might be interesting to write about in my blog. Not much else seems worthwhile.
We built SMC for seminary in ’85 and we were drunk (It wasn’t Goddard….
VCTR wanted seminary at RMSC…he went around the entire board of directors who were against it…yes, the Loppon, Ken Green and all the rest of them, and had Nick Espeset go forward with the construction)…we built 4 buildings in ten weeks, and we were drunk….and we taught Shambhala brilliantly with raw truth, genuineness and magic and we were drunk. We were drunk, but we weren’t
phony…at least we weren’t that.
I think it’s good to have RFS as a critical eye. I don’t like it much when I express anger here…it really does no good and isn’t going to affect any change.
Of course, there’s sadness behind it…there’s a lot of sadness expressed on this site…which has nothing to do with taking the right position.
So, maybe SMR’s students are “good-er” than we were….but watching what’s happening to VCTR’s legacy….and I don’t know how one can call it progress or
“furthering the vision’…..but what?
“Some years ago, when we were planning to expand our facilities at Shambhala Mountain Center, people in the administration were hesitant. They came up with all sorts of reasons that building was not a good idea. they asked me, “Are you sure this is all going to work?” Underneath their hesitation was fear. I told them that, as elders in positions of power, they had to be fearless, because our intention is to benefit others.”
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, Ruling Your World, Chapter 23 at 180.
I think it is fair to debate the Sakyong’s vision for SMC and the methods for carrying it out. My own view is that debt financing is a dangerous way to build a dharma center — it doesn’t create the connections and benefits for students that are created when funds are raised through gifts. However, it is a way to build quickly and to expand the capacity to reach new students.
I haven’t been to SMC in ten years, but the long range building plan there was very beautiful and well thought out. It was obviously the work of many people sharing a strong common vision.
If people have issues with that vision, I think the issues are with SMR.
Beside SMR the senior students are the most inspiring people alive in SI.
Please stay on board and don’t leave us alone with the “bad ones, giving bad advice”.
Infiltrate it with your basic G. and be vast-minded with them.
Make love not war!
Jim Wilton writes:
My own view is that debt financing is a dangerous way to build a dharma center
In case it’s of interest to others, my old teacher, who built several land centers, said that the properties must always be purchased outright, and that the organizations had no right to go into debt. If you are to construct a new building or even a tent, you have to raise the money beforehand.
He said part of what makes a place sacred is that it is owned and not under threat of being lost. If you mortgage a place of retreat as collateral for a loan, it’s the same thing as not taking proper care of it.
Well, that sounds all well and good as a principle, but implementing that vision was extremely difficult at times.
The kind of fundraising that we sometimes did would shock people*, but there was always a genuine feeling to it, even a celebratory feeling, and that made it seem reasonable. Because we felt things were done in a genuine and honest way, we were willing to make sacrifices.
With genuineness, everything feels different. (Speaking for myself here.)
*heavy drinking was sometimes involved, and you had to know how to hold your booze! I recall my teacher saying once during a fundraiser, “It’s not about thinking, it’s about drinking!”
I think the only safety net we had was some level of genuineness. And a sense of celebration.
Now I wish I hadn’t written that part.
My teacher said that the only way you can get away with drinking alcohol is if you have a very disciplined attitude toward life in general, including sitting practice, service to others, and so on.
Otherwise it’s too easy to use alcohol for adventures of self-glorification and self-destruction.
Dylan Thomas’s last words at age 39 were something like “Hey, I just had 18 straight whiskeys, I think that’s a record.” He gave in to his depression, I think, because people didn’t understand his poetry.
Sorry for the tangent.
The stupa fundraisers in the past many times involved serving alcoholic
beverages…it’s a known fundraising tool. Heck, if SMR offered me a drink, I might even give him some money!
Re: Dylan Thomas….at least he went out on top!
I did google Jeff Waltcher, which was fun. You know, people tend to think very ahistorically. We, the founding generation, so to speak, weren’t really all that much better these guys, I mean, we can out of money — literal cash — four weeks into the first five-week session of Naropa which was both hysterical and insanely stressful.
Lots of people had serious problems with one or another of the Board of Directors, who were seen variously and chancers, hustlers and con artists.
If SMR made a mistake choosing Waltcher, couldn’t one argue that CTR made a mistake choosing Tom Rich? Certainly one way of reading “Dragon Thunder” is as a effort by Diana to exonerate Rinpoche for making this choice by pointing out how much he regretted it but was too sick to do anything about it.
As I founding member of the hard drinking early generation I must say that I don’t think we were all that great. I mean, we were OK, but, really, we were pretty young and more than a little foolish and self-indulgent.
When the Regent thing happened we basically fell apart. It was a kind of civil war. Essentially, we lost the ability to work together. I was out of the administration at the time so I don’t know all the details, but we came close to losing everything.
It was Khyentze, Rinpoche, who negotiated the selection of Osel Mukpo as the head of Vajradhatu. He had the unqualified respect of all factions especially given the contemporary problems at Rumtek. He also took the now Sakyong under his wing and saw to his continued training.
I’ll stop here because I’ve run out of details.
But it is these specific historical events in all their messiness and ambiguity that are Rinpoche’s legacy. It’s not as though we ever had it all together and lost it. We were always in the process of getting it together and losing it all at the same time.
Personally, I don’t care about mistakes. We are, after all, the mishap lineage. Now I don’t think we need to create them, or drink ourselves to death: but, as Rinpoche said “Accidents will happen.”
You’re right, Martin, we weren’t all that great, but we did stuff. Until the “Walchers” moved in, all the centers were built with volunteer labor….I bet you earned s*** at Naropa. We did it out of principle and love. That’s the big
difference, it seems to me.
John T., I skipped all but your posts just to get to the apology. I am sorry to insult you. It was actually a response to being called a child for holding a different opinion. The facts were close, I said ’99 you said late nineties etc. And Goddard College was the place where 85 seminary was to be, before DDM sat up in bed and said it was to be on the land. I am also not opposed to being a drunk, necessarily. I sincerly meant the compliments I made to you. And I have no status, money, actually no family other than this sangha, But I felt that people were more interested in being right that caring about the future of SMC or Shambhala. It seems like many have a loop playing in their heads that no amount of heart or fact will ever change, you are not one of these people. That attitude is quite unlike the statements Lynn Friedman made on the tape. Lynn does seem to want positive change ewhere many do not. I apologize also for the pseudonym, I have my reasons and they are pretty good. Again John I am very sorry for the way I responded to you.
Hey, Benny, don’t apologize….it’s juicy to really get down in this way. This is
actually what I, and I presume others, miss. Also, it wasn’t an insult, because it was true.
I must say, I’m really curious as to who you are.
That’s so sweet of you Susie V. Well, from where I sit, you’re the poet of this site–I enjoy your posts as much for the brilliant language as the many insights. So there!
Meg, I’m so sorry you feel “besieged” in a sense by this site. I know that is definitely not the intention of its founders. But I can imagine that it might be a tough site to read regularly as someone with much devotion to the Sakyong and the current direction of SI.
The way I see the site is like this: anyone who has lived at a dharma centre knows that three times a day in the dining room, everyone sits around tables and talks about (mostly) Shambhala. They talk about other things too, but Shambhala quite naturally is the main topic: teachers, who’s doing what, who’s teaching where, what they’re saying, administrative questions, etc etc. And I think if all those conversations were to be transcribed from all those people, three times a day, day after day, you would quickly exceed the amount of material at this site.
The point of which is: I see this site as the electronic equivalent of those daily chats in the dharma centre dining room. It’s just an ongoing conversation. And since it was intentionally set up to provide a forum for those who feel unable to express themselves and be heard within SI itself, then quite naturally you will be getting a kind of critical counterpart to those dining room chats. This is the one place online where those of us who are uncertain about or troubled by various aspects of SI meet to share thoughts and feelings.
This is why I think some who come here misinterpret. They see all this material (from their standpoint of: “what’s the problem with SI? I don’t see any real problem with SI.”) And so they are overwhelmed, and can only think things like: “sheesh, enough already. You guys have already said it all but you keep going on and on.” But again, it’s just a continuing conversation. Contexts change, new things happen, new questions are asked, new people join in. And yes, sometimes things are expressed in ways I don’t necessarily agree with, but that’s all part of conversation too. And I always remind myself of the things I’ve heard from the mouths of, say, many of the SI defenders who have posted here too. And some kasung, and acharyas…
John, I thank you for your post this morning (the 9:43 one), and wanted to give you a bow for this:
“we built 4 buildings in ten weeks, and we were drunk….and we taught Shambhala brilliantly with raw truth, genuineness and magic and we were drunk. We were drunk, but we weren’t phony…at least we weren’t that.”
Yeah! You know, the first time I stayed at a retreat centre, 12 years ago, I was surprised at how distinctly hinayanic and indeed somber the atmosphere was. And right at the end of my stay, I found myself sitting next to a long-time sangha member who was visiting, someone who went back to the 70s. And she turned and said to me something like (and pretty brusquely), “there’s no tantra here anymore, it’s been lost. It’s just good-boy bad-boy hinayana now, and not even a lot of mahayana, not really. Not a lot of warmth.” And I’ve found this to be more and more the case. A kind of “superego” vibe has taken hold, in my view.
So even though I’m not a big or frequent drinker, I’ve certainly experienced a lot of beautiful magic in alcohol, and enjoy it immensely. And I sort of resent always having to defend its use within the sangha, defend even real celebration in general. If I *don’t* start each sentence involving alcohol with some kind of disclaimer, the person I’m speaking to will interject with it, no question. It’s gotten really predictable that way… Anyway, so bravo to you for getting so much excellent work done *and* enjoying it all the more! Trungpa Rinpoche’s talk was not entitled “Alcohol as Poison,” of course; it was entitled “Alcohol as Medicine and Poison”. Maybe current SIers need to go back to more (mindful) drinking–ugh, there it is again! Longer hair, more physical intimacy, who knows? It just feels so, so tight to me these days…
(Sounds of soapbox being replaced in back of cupboard…)
Dear all
I did my seminary at RMDC or RMSC as it is now known – I really enjoyed the experience and made many friends there and got in contact with myself a bit! -but I am not really sure about the place now for people to practice at -for example it takes about half a day from Boulder to get there -why would people go there when they can access ‘new-age’ courses at other more closer places -that doesnt make sense re budgeting. Also if you see it as a dharma centre it is still a hassle to get there – so what really was the long-term aim of Rinpoche in establishing this centre. What were his plans about this -or does RMSC have a shelf-life – I just dont know about that?
Re dharma centres persay I think they should be close to towns where most people are -you could have a dharma centre in a secluded area watched over by people -I think re next ventures in the building of centres -the whole thing needs to be thought out more closely.
Re the stupa build also I thought that building was put up much too early after Rinpoche died – I thought that process could have been delayed because I believed at the time that you had to look after the sangha first.
This is also my take on the founding of religions and movements aswell -they start small and then the buildings come – so it is a long growth process – also religions too have many teachers processing the founders message in the context say of Christianity – so the whole lineage thing with one lineage holder seems to go against what has occured in the west.
As to samaya and brads interjection of leaping which I have briefly thought about (I know they are not linked in the thread but they are somewhat linked in my mind) I would say that samaya is almost pre-leap because it has no conscious will to it -thats where devotion comes in -its just whooosh – Could we have a discussion on samaya?
Anyway re leaping I think the older students have leapt and thats the nub of this whole debate too because we are already in Trungpa’s world -certainly I cant get him out of my head! So thats why his emphasis on the shambhala teachings being for everyone is in our blood almost -its not a decision to be made -CTR already made the ‘decision’ on that for us.
Aka financing for religious organisations in general – in the UK -things are
decided by a body of people – I was thinking of the Church of England Synod in connexion to this where all churches send members to it – so the financing is co-ordinated properly and is gone into with due process -looking at the whole thing in great depth – so the C of E is corporate in this sense, for example they are run by the Church Commissioners and are close to national government offices in London. So I can see where CTR was heading with his corporate ideals in this sense.
Re toast – it depends in what way it was said we are all conjecturing up a situation , it could have been an affront, a boozy remark, or a put-down comment – who knows? – best may be to have a tactful toast in future – dont you know your manners as old people say in the UK!
best rita
Martin, when you say, “It’s not as though we ever had it all together and lost it. We were always in the process of getting it together and losing it all at the same time,” I totally agree with you. But at least we students knew that – or at least some of us did, because that was the atmosphere Trungpa Rinpoche created, it seemed, intentionally. There was always a sense of impermanence in nowness that was inseparable from the way we practiced.
But when you say, “But it is these specific historical events in all their messiness and ambiguity that are Rinpoche’s legacy,” I would qualify that. The messiness and ambiguity are PART of Rinpoche’s legacy. Yes, we belong to the mishap lineage. But at the same time, I never doubted that he wanted to leave a legacy of teachings, and institutions that represented his teachings, including a sangha that represented his teachings. At least from where I was in the administration at various times, that seemed clear. Would you disagree with that? Do you think he only wanted to leave the messiness and ambiguity? I doubt it.
However, this brings up an interesting question. Could it be that one of the major differences we older students have with the students of SMR is that the latter haven’t gotten the messiness/ambiguity/impermanence/ openness transmission? Could that be one reason they find us so disturbing? I don’t really know. It’s just a question.
It’s funny. Last week I gave a talk at a meeting in which we were drinking the whole time. We were talking about the drinking/sexuality question, and what the essential Vajrayana elements of that were. The audience was mostly non-tantrika with a couple of older students. We were very much palying with the energies that were spoken of above here. I also had a conversation in the early years of the post SMC construction phase with Acharya Lyon, and I was lamenting the lack of that energy at SMC(maybe around 2001 or 2) she said very plainly ‘this isn’t a very vajrayana place right now’ The point, I think is that she did not say ‘anymore’. There has been a shift back in recent years. Embracing chaos, etc. is very much a part of the newer students’ education, but there is also a sense of discipline and conduct that was present all along, though not always adhered to. I see the thing as very workable. The response to many here has been a result of being called sheep and children. Again I point to the voices on the MP3 who made it clear they did not want to undermine the experience of others. That is often absent here.
I also think that the various immediate financial and other problems have made questions like the feeling of disefranchisement (is that a word?) by senior students a bit less pressing. I did feel genuine concern from Adam, and I hope that more such dialouge will continue, and become more fruitful. I personally have never had a problem with disagreement, we must test our experience and our own understanding constantly. But when someone is convinced that the only way to make things work is to get rid of the Sakyong and call his students lackies, there really is no room for improvement(for those wgho haven’t said that there is no need to deny it, but there are amny here who have). But I believe that any of the less agressive people on the site, if they sat down with me, and some of my contemporaies(older students of SMR) they would find that more of what they think is lost is actually right here. I do love you all.
I sitill believe some are under the influence of aliens.
My alien overlords counsel me to mention that those old-timers can also choose to vote with their wallets…. That would not bode well for the financial commitments it appears SI has , unless SMR can attract enough young wealthy benefactors – and that just leads to the feudal / retro-Tibetan model of a landed aristocracy surrounded by peasants. And no matter how that is cloaked in Shambhalian spin, that still sucks.
From the outside, SI certainly gives the vibe of being waay overloaded with pitches for money, especially in comparison to other sanghas.
benny hana said:
“But I believe that any of the less agressive people on the site, if they sat down with me, and some of my contemporaies(older students of SMR) they would find that more of what they think is lost is actually right here.”
Edward, I know you didn’t directly address my “leap” comments but I don’t want to use the third person so I’ll clarify directly, perhaps for the others who’ve addressed it.
When I say leap I mean jumping in, abandoning speculation and sentiment and suspicions and testing benny h.’s above quoted statement. Gather actual field data. Make a note about your impressions that you might otherwise believe to make you feel edgy, reticent, register those uncomfortable curiousities and keep going. Do level 5, go on to Sacred Path, whatever. Suspend judgement until you get the goods. Take the leap.
I appreciate that people are opened up and softened by the end of two full days of sitting and listening and interacting, especially in the middle of a dense and fast urban life as it happens by me. And while newish practitioners may not know exactly what to do with elevated sensitivity neither are we made of wax.
Maybe it sounds like I’m saying “grow a set”. Maybe that’s what CTR was saying all along in so many words.
But what I’m actually saying, without it being lathered up with a bunch of interpretation and deflection and so on, is a few short pointed questions which are “Why hold back? Why not take the leap? Why wait til some undisclosed moment in the future when everything will be tidied up?”
That’s all I’m sayin’.
Brad, that sounds a bit like “trust me, just drink the kool aid”. There are alternatives to that.
Growing a set doesn’t mean throwing away critical intelligence. Suspend judgement until you have spent many hundreds of dollars and years of your time? please…
It seems like many on this site have gathered a lot of field data, are asking a lot of questions, and are getting proxies and spokespeople telling them to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
That said, if you or anyone has samaya with SMR, that is wonderful. But if people have samaya with CTR, it isn’t automatic that they have it with SMR. That needs to be acknowledged and honored.
Michael, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m speaking to Edward’s current situation of being stopped in his tracks after level 4 and also his endless specualtions, suspicions, ruminations, and speculative naysaying.
I’m not making a general statement or even trying to address everyone’s individual current situation with some sort of panacea. I’m asking Edward a direct question, not asking a question of all readers here.
AFAIK Edward doesn’t have samaya with CTR. He is, like I am, a Shambhala newbie. I’m asking him why he fulminates on and on and on. Sorry for the third person Edward, it’s tacky, mea culpa.
I honestly don’t know why this is such a hot-button question.
I apologize, Brad – I didn’t get that it was directed at only Edward.
Hi brad,
I feel reluctant to get too far into a discussion about my own situation on this website, though I appreciate your concern. I’m glad you clarified what you meant by “taking a leap”. If you’re wondering why I am whining and complaining on this website rather than taking more levels, maybe I could comment on that.
VCTR reminds me a lot of my old teacher. His Shambhala teachings feel 100% compatible with what I learned from my teacher. And I like interacting with CTR’s students.
SMR on the other hand, feels different to me, and his style / teachings / etc. do not feel compatible (to me) with what I learned from my old teacher. That might sound odd, or wrong, or inappropriate, or utter crap projections on my part, but that’s my experience. If I can reach for a metaphor, it feels like playing a musical instrument with another person whose instrument is tuned differently. The notes sound bad when played together. Whereas something inside me feels good, resonates when I read CTR’s books or talk to his students.
I don’t think it’s a matter of right or wrong, it’s just a question of compatibility. A man and a woman are not evil if they are unsuited as marriage partners.
Part of my purpose with all of this is to try to digest what I went through with my old teacher, who was a complex man. He had no shyness about sex or alcohol or playing tricks on people or (at times) embodying the fantasies people projected onto him.
Anyway, I took Level I, and liked it. I took Levels 2 & 3, and liked them. They were magical. People had tears in their eyes during the toasting, every time, and one man said it was the most amazing weekend of his life. I don’t believe he was exaggerating.
Then I started running into problems. When I (very politely and humbly) asked questions of people at my local center, for instance about SMR changing CTR’s teachings, for one thing I tended to feel very out of place, and was often met with anger for having asked the question at all.
That’s fine, I don’t feel it’s my job to impose my views on others, or even to bother people with unwelcome questions. However, the owners of this website seems to tolerate my presence here so far, and I seem to get something out of this discussion. It’s interesting for me to hear about the experiences of a different sangha. Perhaps people find my comments interesting once in a while too.
If I was going to take a leap, I’m not sure which direction I would leap in. Bill Karelis made me a very kind and personal invitation to hook up with his organization, which I’m very grateful for. However I’m dealing with some challenging new territory in my life at the moment and I’m not ready to make too many new leaps all at once.
Yes, making leaps is good. Going beyond reluctance is good. Perhaps rumination could be good as well? Are you saying that rumination is bad, brad?
My old teacher did not have a high opinion of most contemporary Buddhist teachers, but he had an extremely high regard for Trungpa Rinpoche.
I’m not sure what else to say here. I guess I feel that CTR’s work is something worth talking about, worth preserving. And I’m not convinced that more levels is purely the answer.
I suppose if I was going to take more levels, I’d have to make a slightly big deal about the fact that I’m signing up for the training itself, and not because I feel SMR is my teacher.
Then my local center could either accept my attendance on those terms, or not.
Then at the end if we’re asked to toast to SMR– not because people are grateful to him, have learned from him, are inspired by him, but because he is able ignore all criticism he receives and that that’s how fearlessness is defined– in that case I might ask for a refund of my money, because my contract was violated.
I guess it goes back to why does a person want to do levels in the first place. I would want to do them as a weekend retreat, not as an opportunity to go into “battle” with people who might not really want me there.
I’ve been told that I have no right to post messages on this website and do not belong here. It’s easy to take that from an online discussion.
It’s more difficult to receive anger and hostility after being softened up from a weekend of sitting.
(Sorry for the three posts.)
Just to clarify, I’m happy toasting to SMR. I LOVED toasting to SMR at many events I went to.
I just don’t want to toast to the idea that his apparent refusal to listen to feedback is an example of fearlessness. I believe we teach more by our actions than by our words, so I can understand why someone would say such a thing. I happen to disagree with it, that’s all.
Also, I used to live on a land center for years, so I’ve already been through certain experiences, and am not looking to repeat them, particularly.
I hope that helps address your curiosity a bit, brad.
Ed, regarding rumination, et alii: If I didn’t say it I didn’t say it.
Which particular teaching of the Sakyong that you attended turned you off? Was it more than one?
You wrote: “I just don’t want to toast to the idea that his apparent refusal to listen to feedback is an example of fearlessness.” I think this might be your own idea, not an accurate description of the toast which you said was stated as fearlessness in the face of criticism. Frankly I think you’re off on this one Edward.
brad writes:
Which particular teaching of the Sakyong that you attended turned you off? Was it more than one?
Well, I’ve only read 1/2 of one of SMR’s books, and that was a few years back, so I’m not sure altogether. But here’s an example that comes to mind:
A couple years ago I went to an intro event at my local Shambhala center. There was sitting and then a lecture. During the lecture, the speaker said “The Sakyong has told us that we have to say that the goal of practice is to attain a calm state of mind.”
When the opportunity arose to ask questions, I raised my hand and said “if the goal of practice is to attain a calm state of mind, and if someone– for instance our wife or our husband or our boss or secretary or whatever– disturbs our mind, is there any danger of seeing those people as our enemy?”
The speaker said that was a good question, and launched into a response.
I enjoyed the discussion. It was good. I felt like there was some sort of dialogue happening.
The following week, I went back for another intro event, and the exact same thing happened! A different speaker made the same statement! Except this time I didn’t have the energy to ask my question (and instead spoke to the speaker privately afterwards). The wind had gone out of my sails. I realized at that point that I was debating with an entire organization, not with a small handful of human beings, you know, with their own ability to make up their own minds.
First of all, I found it bizarre for someone to say “The Sakyong has told us that we have to say…” Why not just say what’s true for you, why preface a teaching that way? It was almost as if the speaker didn’t believe what he was saying, but was dutifully rapping out a party line. I’m just saying it was weird, I don’t know what the purpose of it was.
Secondly, this idea that the goal of practice is to attain a calm state of mind is definitely not compatible with what my old teacher taught, it’s not compatible with my understanding of life, and I could be wrong but it seems to obviously and dramatically contradict the most famous teachings of the Venerable Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who is claimed to be the founder of all this Shambhala Buddhism stuff.
Attaining a calm state of mind is not the goal at the beginning, it’s not the goal in the middle, nor is it the goal at the end. In my opinion. For me to play around with contrary views would be highly disrespectful to my old teacher, and just would feel very very wrong to me.
Also… this whole belief about trying to be calm and perhaps brush aside people who disturb our mind seems to be more than just an academic question. It seems like 90% of the comments and arguments on this Radio Free Shambhala website stem from this difference in view about the purpose of practice.
Good question (just kidding).
As been taught, I can’t begin to think of books right now (somebody help me out), calming the mind is a good chunk of the goal, but kind of move forward. Have you read MUDRA by CTR (Shambhala Publications)?
It has the Japanese prints in it. Taming the mind (or Ox) seemed to be the halfway point. I haven’t read the book in years, so don’t quote me. Of course there is Santideva to read.
I was going to rat more on past SMC efforts to make money, but I think we all need a break right now.
Ed, I meant a teaching *given* by the Sakyong himself not another teacher or director giving a teaching.
I’m happy to take this off this thread Ed, you can find me at wll dot wait at gmail dot com.
“The goal of practice is to attain a calm state of mind.” SMR
Edward, if you can, would you please clarify the circumstances in which he made this statement? Commenting on such an apparently paradoxical statement without some context seems a little risky. The implication, as I read it here is that SMR maintains that achieving a particular mental state is the ultimate goal, even over egolessness as the goal of that Journey Without a Goal. I can’t see that.
I’m reminded of Arj Baker satyrising supermarket buddhism recently, “The instructor just told us to do a 45 minute meditation–I nailed it in 10!” as he preens himself outside the mediation hall, relaxing on the inhale of nicotine smoke.
Suzanne- as a “new student”, I can confirm that some of us have received the transmission on messiness. There was total confusion recently as the new curriculum was presented before The Sakyong announced his intention to retreat. While I wondered that he may have inherited some of his father’s humour, I have total faith that he is sincerely honest to Chogyam Trungpa’s vision of creating enlightened society, style notwithstanding in either case.
Wasn’t Trungpa always making you uncomfortable, trashing expectation, experimenting wildly, bashing into furniture, while loving everyone infinitely, teaching that we are all the Directors of our lives and that we invite and disinvite, love, fight and suffer only because of that tortured can of worms we call ego?
Clearly the good fortune of being a direct student of Trungpa befell too few yet such is our karma in this time. With respect, it seems as if the challenge is to dissent again, without attachment, within a sangha still recovering from the last elephant’s trampling and in fear of another. As I understand, Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche said of it, “What crisis?” and surely the nature of our world is that there will be adjustments?
The tenderness expressed in Halifax on September 9th. is very moving and I admire Adam’s committment to it tremendously. Had I been there, one question I might have asked is, “What is the relationship between the sangha and our need for comfort in either consensus within it or samsara generally?” I guess this speaks to temporal power and its inevitable corruption, the effective transmission of teachings, our desire to help others while not pushing the river and, among other things, the knowledge that the Buddha’s and Trungpa’s teachings are still being profusely disseminated in increasingly creative ways which we can’t predict and which we are honoured to facilitate for all present and future sentient beings.
I also recognise that this speaks to the deep devotion of decades and mean no offense in suggesting there may be a “simple answer”. Without that devotion, us newbies would be without Trungpa, endless crazy wisdom and joy in every day. So thankyou for carrying him thus far!
Dear Edmund Butler,
Thank you for taking up my question. I’ll respond to that in a minute, but first I’d like to say something about your question to Edward: “Edward, if you can, would you please clarify the circumstances in which he made this statement? Commenting on such an apparently paradoxical statement without some context seems a little risky.”
I think Edward made it clear that it was the speakers at open houses who said that SMR told them to say that the goal of meditation is to achieve a calm mind. Edward said it seems to be the party line. If representatives of SI have it wrong, then SI needs to correct its representatives. Your mention of Journey without Goal is appropriate. I would say that a “calm mind” – a self-reflective mind that can deal with itself first of all – is the effect of shamatha meditation, not the “goal.” Goal orientation has been warned against by many great meditation teachers. I got it during my first dathun at RMDC, where CTR had Suzuki Roshi’s Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind read to us.
You say, “Wasn’t Trungpa always making you uncomfortable, trashing expectation, experimenting wildly, bashing into furniture, while loving everyone infinitely, teaching that we are all the Directors of our lives and that we invite and disinvite, love, fight and suffer only because of that tortured can of worms we call ego?”
Well, he was actually quite a lot subtler than that. He inspired wakefulness in almost everything he did. He was totally present in embodying the unity of prajna and karuna, wisdom and compassion. His tenderness and warmth were always present, along with his humor and sharpness and fierceness. Those of us who entrusted him with our minds and lives loved and respected him. For me, my relationship with VCTR was both very personal and utterly egoless. I’m sure many others experienced him in that way as well.
So, no, I didn’t experience him as “always” making us uncomfortable and trashing expectations. But then, he warned us at the very beginning that there were no guarantees. I read that as ‘no security,’ don’t get too comfortable. If people got too comfortable, he would do something to make them uncomfortable – that is, to wake them up. But he was very skillful and precise. Anyway, that was my experience of quite a lot of personal exposure and contact with him over a 12-yr period.
This is a good question and gets close to what I have been wondering: “What is the relationship between the sangha and our need for comfort in either consensus within it or samsara generally?” You mention “a sangha still recovering from the last elephant’s trampling and in fear of another.” I have wondered whether the people who have come to SMR are looking for a bit more comfort and security than CTR offered. I feel I need to tread lightly here because I don’t really know. I got out of the organization (Vdh/SI) over a decade ago. In fact, I began charting my own course shortly after Trungpa Rinpoche died. I felt I had his blessings to do that. So I’ve been watching the sangha from afar for a long time.
->
Cont. to Edmund Butler:
In other words, this is a question, not an assertion. Has SMR been trying to meet the need for more security and comfort than the Vidyadhara offered? Both among students who formerly studied with CTR and ‘newbies?’ If so, what have been the implications and consequences for the transmission of the dharma, the mandala, and CTR’s legacy? I leave it as an open question.
Thank you, Edmund, for your questions and your recognition of “the deep devotion of decades” and that “the good fortune of being a direct student of Trungpa befell too few.” I appreciate your eloquence.
Bowing,
Suzanne
Mr. Butler,
Maybe I imagined both of those comments by the “long-time students of the Sakyong” who made those same remarks at back-to-back open houses. In any case, I’m just a single mostly-anonymous witness on an internet chat board. Certainly you should look for corroborating evidence.
But what about this?
“Adam Lobel didn’t fully listen to me! He mainly sat there calm during the meeting, trying to calm other people down.”
Well, maybe he doesn’t have bad intentions, maybe he’s not intentionally trying to blow off people. Maybe he’s just fulfilling his guru’s highest teaching? Maybe he’s trying to remain “above the conflict” or “above the problems” and to teach you how you can do the same?
We sometimes assume people have bad intentions when they don’t act the way we think they should act. But maybe for Adam Lobel to remain calm and try to get other people to become calm (at any cost)– maybe that’s him doing his practice with a supreme dedication and commitment? Maybe he’s giving you the best of himself, according to his own religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are nothing to laugh at, nor are they anything to underestimate. It’s very dangerous to assume that everyone shares your personal beliefs, just because they are also Buddhist. There are many forms of “Buddhism”, and history is filled with stories of the conflicts between them.
If remaining in a calm state of mind is more important than everything else (full-disclosure, protecting dharma centers from debt, having genuine but disturbing discussions) then we shouldn’t be surprised when people fulfill their practice in an exemplary way, in the midst of criticism or desperate pleading to do otherwise.
If you’re asking people to tolerate RFS or to have more meetings like the one in Halifax, or to listen to people’s doubts and concerns, maybe you’re asking them to violate their own highest spiritual purpose?
I’m not saying this as a joke or to be funny. Don’t assume that every Buddhist has the exact same understanding of what the purpose of practice is. They don’t.
If having Shambhala training separate from Buddhist studies is potentially confusing, or if there’s a history of conflict between the two going back to the 70s, then let’s combine them into one.
That will help us attain calm.
The list goes on and on.
I highly doubt that SMR or Mr. Lobel or any of these people have bad intentions. I think they just have different intentions than CTR’s students.
Rita Ashworth (October 19th, 2009 2:38 pm) said:
“Re dharma centres persay I think they should be close to towns where most people are -you could have a dharma centre in a secluded area watched over by people -I think re next ventures in the building of centres -the whole thing needs to be thought out more closely.”
Rita, I think we need some historical perspective re: RMDC/SMC and the location of rural practice centers. I agree that “the whole thing needs to be thought out more closely” now, but we should realize that RMDC, at the time it was purchased, met the needs of Trungpa Rinpoche and his students. It was a time when gas was cheap and the economy was healthier than it is now. That time is over. Also, time and distance were experienced differently. Things were more spacious and relaxed in the early 70s. We drove around a lot, didn’t think much about driving cross country. So a 2-hr trip to RMDC was not a big deal. Time in general seemed to move considerably slower than it does these days when it actually seems to be speeding up. Everybody is more rushed these days.
But there was another element to the choice of that land, RMDC. I believe CTR wanted it to be as remote and wild as possible, while still accessible. This is my personal point of view but it received many confirmations in things CTR said. He wanted to get his students out of their comfort zones, out of their domesticated urban habitual patterns, and in touch with the elemental nature of reality – or the elemental reality of nature. Hailstorms and hard winters, hot summers, field mouse infestations, and rainbows. CTR had a deep personal connection with the elements, loved the mountains, and loved the wild quality of RMDC. It was where his shamanic nature could manifest most fully. He also loved what he called “tent culture,” which was traditional in Tibet. Whole monasteries left their buildings and lived in tents in the summer. He recreated tent culture for us.
Another thing to remember about RMDC – and I do mean remember – is that it was meant to be a place for serious practice. It was a place where serious practitioners could do solitary retreats, as well as where group practice and study programs took place in tents. It was raw and rugged, and many of us felt completely comfortable with that. It started in the ‘hippy’ days and many of us were hippies (I was a ‘weekend hippy,’ meaning I had a full time job). That was before the ‘yuppies’ – young, urban professionals – took over the mandala.
Things began to change in about 1994 when the ‘development project’ was announced. New ‘leadership’ was put into place. RMDC got a new name, lost its function as a place to go for solitary retreats, and the peace and quiet and ecological integrity of the land succumbed to bulldozers.
If that hadn’t happened, if RMDC’s future hadn’t been put at risk by debt, who is to say that it could not have continued to be a practice center soaked in drala? Who is to say it couldn’t have been a refuge for the sangha during the dark age with proper management?
->
Continuing in response to Rita:
Rita wrote: “Re the stupa … also I thought that building was put up much too early after Rinpoche died – I thought that process could have been delayed because I believed at the time that you had to look after the sangha first.”
My pov: if they hadn’t done it when they did it, it would never have been built. Why? Because conditions have changed, esp. in the economy. The devotion to CTR, the money and the labor were available. The Stupa was built by devoted CTR students who had the money and the skills and were in the prime of life. For some of us, it was a focus that held us together in our grief. I can’t imagine it happening now. 20 yrs is a long time in the life of an adult. The people who built it are now past their prime. And the boom time in the delusional free-market economy is over.
Though it’s unpopular to say this, and I don’t want to argue all the reasons I believe the economy will not “recover,” I do think it’s important for the sangha to wrap their minds around the possibility that the economy may get worse, not better. A worsening economy will foreclose all possibilities for future expansion and development. It may be what Richard Reoch is not telling people, and it may be the reason for the Ladrang. I am speculating here.
To put it briefly, after studying the issues for over 20 yrs, I believe we have collectively hit the Limits to Growth AND Peak Oil. These are non-negotiable, and they will determine everything that happens on every level of human society. So we do indeed need to rethink everything within that larger framework.
Now I’m going to go back to working on my website, which will explain all of that. I have to go on an RFS fast in order to get the website up. So long for now, and jolly good luck.
With love,
Suzanne
I highly doubt that SMR or Mr. Lobel or any of these people have bad intentions. I think they just have different intentions than CTR’s students.
Actually, I think we’d ALL prefer to be calm.
After CTR died, with all the chaos and pain surrounding his regent, I would expect that many of CTR’s students wanted calm more than anything else, at least in moments.
Rather than pointing fingers at people and saying “that guy is not an acharya, he’s a this, he’s a that” maybe we could ask “what part of myself would rather be calm than truly open up to other people?”
We can all nod our heads and say “oh yes, I completely believe in the Journey Without Goal and the Path Without Goal, I completely agree with these teachings. (In fact, I agree with all good teachings. I want the Rigdens on my side, and just in case, I want God on my side too.)”
But until full enlightenment, it’s a bumpy road, I think. There’s a difference between admiring certain teachings, and having fully realized them.
There’s a difference between verbally agreeing with certain teachings when social circumstances require us to do so, and with truly being willing to embody those teachings. I believe CTR embodied the teachings he taught, and he really paid the price for it.
Dear Suzanne
Thanks for that perspective on RMDC now RMSC -it puts the history of the place out there for people to think about and thanks also for your pov on the stupa.
Best
Rita Ashworth
The Magic of the Dralas remain at SMC, as does DDM himself. They play with us every day. Even in the most difficult times.
Edward, you’re equivocating.
As Edmund mentioned it can be risky coming to firm conclusions based on half-spoken and half-understood, mmmmm, stuff.
It can certainly be your conclusion that based on a toast and a couple of talks that you found yourself at loggerheads with an entire organization. I just can’t go there with you. It’s pretty shaky police-work, imho. Not enough field data.
In any case I thought the conversation between AL and the Halifax tantrikas was a great thing. Hope it doesn’t dry up, hope it keeps on.
I want to refer back to the role Adam Lobel has been assigned, referred to also in the thread “Shambhala Buddhism and the New Curriculum”.
In that thread and this interview it’s explained Mr. Lobel, a ‘Buddhist Minister’, has been appointed as the lead of a small group assigned to re-construct the path (yet again). I gather he’s combing through the Shambhala teachings, using his studies in Buddhism, philosophy and religion, and referring to Sakyong Mipham as well as Ms. Mandelker and Ms. Cashman, members of the team, to develop a logically clear curriculum based on what they understand as the structure and purpose of progression along the hinayana mahayana vajrayana Shambhala path.
What I heard, according to Mr. Lobel, is a simplification and editing, (one example: each level concentrates on just one aspect of a particular dignity). Mr. Lobel said this was to get students to focus on what he and the team have decided students, or homo-meditatus needs to focus on.
(Homo-meditatus is derived from homo-economicus, a theoretical amalgam of what ‘everybody’ thinks they know about humans, used to develop economic theory. It’s a joke in economics because it’s widely understood homo-economicus doesn’t really behave in any of the ways presumed, with often disastrous results. Let’s hope we can share only the humor.)
Traditionally the teachings and practices of one as realized as many believe Trungpa Rinpoche was are considered sacred. When such a one presents something, (terma mark) it is what it is (terma mark). If there is deeper broader realization of those teachings, it would be discussed in tris, further teachings, maybe other practices would be developed.
As I understand it, the existing teachings would never be altered to fit unrealized zeitgeist assumptions. (Do any on the team claim high levels of realization?) This isn’t simply a convention of respect. If this were not the case, lineage, regardless how many times the word gets used, would simply not exist. It would dissolve into completely new forms every generation, and we’d have no idea what came before.
I’ve heard vajrayana described as a culture. One can’t have an accurate overview of any culture off the bat. A culture requires a good amount of time swimming around in it before it works on us or can be grasped: the meaning, depth, inherent wisdom and aims; to realize it might take at least a lifetime. While there may be flexibility in some aspects of presentation (weekend formats, schedules, etc.) efforts to simplify the substance of the teachings reduce the richness and depth that was originally presented.
I suppose the question is how do they know? How much do they truly understand the culture Trungpa Rinpoche presented? How much insight do they truly have about the students and their needs, how are they determining the intelligence or insight of students, or are they only associating with homo-meditatus? Can this sort of simplification and rearranging be undertaken without losing essential aspects of the Shambhala culture as originally presented? Who is deciding? How? Why?
James, that was a brilliant post. It gets to the heart of the matter – the modification of CTR’s teachings. The last word is the real conundrum – WHY????
WHY? It’s called delusion. Living for some future that never comes instead of in the perfect moment of the here and now, i.e. enlightenment.
There’s an e mail floating around….and on Sangha Talk., about SMR’s
support for what’s called the “Gobal Summit for Ministries and Departments
for Peace.” I recommend that everyone take a look at it. It’s a fantastic idea,
and SMR is eloquent in his words about it. Maybe SMR’s place is on the world stage. Many rulers have been better at foreign policy than domestic…
so, maybe that’s where SMR’s strength is. In any case, I’m glad he’s using
his title and position to support this.
Maybe the next Dalai Lama?
John,
I did see that post, and read just a bit of it. You may be right, but my first take was: He is talking about Peace, and yet look how he handles his primary responsibility as leader of the Organization left to him by his father, and to work with the Sangha as a whole.
He doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “peace” in that context… as we have so often discussed here on this site. So many things he has done over the years have been divisive, including most recently, having 2 and 1/2 days of the upcoming Shambhala Congress be taken up with a powerful practice that wrathfully removes obstacles. (at a time when criticism has been running rampant.)
No one can say for sure, but this seems to cause the possibility that people will feel that any criticism of how things are being done will be seen as obstacles needing to be destroyed. Not a healthy way to begin a World wide Congress that is supposed to welcome diversity.
Also, sorry to be so cynical, but I find the use of the word “Peace” to be symbolic of something really great on many levels, but it is sadly over-used in his case and seems superficial to me.
Tsondru
Tsondru
You may be right, but it is a positive action, and SMR has spoken at Aspen Institute, so, maybe some people are listening to him that have some influence. Maybe he is the Deepak Chopra of Tibetian Buddhism, but maybe that’s all common folk, (meaning ones not into the dharma seriously) can hear. It’s not that we should not look at anything else he does, but… jeeze. if the guy does something good, that should be acknowledged. And I think the cause itself stands alone and is a wise thing to support.
There’s nothing negative about wrathful practice and trying to establish ground before the congress…..but, I agree, a day and a half of actual
congress does seem like lip service.
Dear James
Although I have left SI -the presentation of the shambhala teachings still concerns me.
I feel these teachings belong to the world and everyone should have equal access to them despite even paying for them – a sense of the good news perhaps.
I have been up to Warriors Assembly re the Shambhala teachings – I found Warriors Assembly a bit chaotic and diffuse -if that feeling is of any relevance to any one, however up to Warriors Assembly I found the teachings easy to follow – I particularly liked the Golden Key presentation.
But I think even following this path of weekends is quite long for some people -how would you James construct the way people receive the shambhala terma as you seem by your posts to know a lot about the educational process.
Re the present changing of the curriculum by a selected few individuals I dont think that process is right when you change a curriculum you have to have many inputs on this from the users who will benefit from it. This is the case when laws are changed in the UK you have to go through a consultation process with people in the electorate – in fact I have done that summing up of input in the Department of Transport on issues for government. otherwise you get chaotic laws like Margaret Thatchers thing
on the poll tax.
So yes via this forum how would people devise a path for the shambhala teachings -just throwing a question out or is the way that CTR presented them absolute (James you did say the formats could be changed tho not the essence).
As I said before I think there will be more terma coming from the Rigdens
to this sangha and not just to the Sakyong – do we see the shambhala teachings developing(?) and how would we decide on changes to them.
What am I really saying?! I think I am saying that people want the shambhala teachings but not so much in the SI way perhaps not the buddhism aspect -its difficult there has to be a path but for everyone -could there be a ngondro for everyone – or is it culture-based? I am open to having lots of conceptions of the King/Queen aspect for example -would love to hear peoples opinions.
Best
Rita Ashworth
I don’t know where new Shambhala terma will come from…Regggie? John Perks? No Way. SMR is not really a terton either for that matter. I think you may be a little confused, Rita, about what terma is.
John,
I respect your appreciation for “Peace.” I know very little about it as a world wide movement, so I am obviously ignorant, and merely operating on my baser cynical assumptions. Perhaps something will come of it beyond platitudes and good feelings. Certainly it can’t hurt!
I have a personal sort of idea that sometimes a famous celebrity will be really great in the eyes of the world, but not a very good parent at home. Only a few examples that I know of… a few “mixed up” kids…. so who’s to say? these guys were great for the world, at least.
The Peace Ministry.
I saw that letter too, John. I have my doubts.
One screaming example of that sort of thing, which Shambhala International unfortunately has indirect ties to, is the initiative for “Gross National Happiness” (GNH) a term coined by the Bhutanese royalty as an alternative to “Gross National Product” (GNP) or “Gross Domestic Product” (GDP).
Many have said that sounds like a good thing. How could it be bad? Good words equal good intentions, might influence people and therefore will have good results, that sort of thing. But some facts on the ground do not support that optimism.
This term was coined as a response by the Bhutanese royalty to detractors of Bhutan’s absolute monarchy. NGOs, governments and investors were concerned about giving aid or investment to an absolute monarchy with one of the poorest populaces in the world, and were requesting some level of economic transparency and accountability in order to ensure aid was used wisely and investments had some promise of return. The royal family said “We don’t care about GDP; we care about Gross National Happiness.”
The Bhutanese, as they coined this phrase, were also involved in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. You can just feel the happiness, can’t cha?
But also if we look further into GNH and GDP which it was said to replace, it becomes clear it is merely propaganda which does in fact nothing to replace a tool of economic measure any complex society would need, and proposes as an alternative measuring things like educational, old age, or health indicators which are already being measured in all kinds of ways anyway. It does nothing, except create the impression that the elite really do care… as they carry out ethnic cleansing.
As to a peace ministry, I haven’t looked into it yet, but my suspicion is that most modern governments, as an adjunct to their military, in addition to all kinds of diplomatic and economic ties, have a good amount of resources devoted to maintaining peace and avoiding war already. I heard the Pentagon, has done research and written reports for the administration that list the greatest dangers for the future, and top of the list is global warming, not Iran or Afghanistan.
Whether a new department would actually have any impact on the underlying dynamics of policy development, or causes of conflict, seems to me highly unlikely. It’s my suspicion that any such ministry would serve pretty much the same function as GNH. It would serve as a flag to wave the stated intent of peace, in order to salve the nerves of the populace, without actually doing anything about the underlying sources of conflict, which will inevitably come about due to dwindling resources and exponential population growth and just craziness.
I haven’t delved into that enough to be sure, but for the conflicts that will come, regardless what one’s good intentions are, a Ministry of Peace might actually exacerbate problems, through obfuscation.
If I was going to push a ministry I thought would alleviate the most strife and suffering, it would be Science.
James wrote: “If I was going to push a ministry I thought would alleviate the most strife and suffering, it would be Science.”
That was wonderful!!!! A surprise ending, and very astute!
Dear Rita,
I know much less than my posts may seem to suggest, but… as easy as the levels are to follow, I found the texts, Letter of the Black Ashe, The Golden Key, and others, extremely rich with ideas and allusions about culture. I could go along with it all, and felt I got something, but am sure I have not understood those texts in their entirety.
As to the chaos, there is I think inevitability a certain amount of chaos in the advanced levels. They are in part, or were anyway, about experimenting with manifesting small scale enlightened society, so they were never as scripted.
I wouldn’t propose how to reconstruct anything. As I went through it all there were ups and downs, waves of understanding and oceans of ignorance. I don’t have the insight to know how much of that was a natural and healthy process, or extraneous confusion caused by incompetence, nor even whether I’m a better person for it. But here I am.
The distinction I meant to point out was that some of what we know as “Shambhala Training” is actual terma, which should be left as it is. Some of what we know as Shambhala Training however is simply logistics, like how long we sit, the format of interviews, whether we dine in house, coffee or tea, and whatnot. I think that’s also true for the Kagyu lineage, which it seems Shambhala Training is being grafted onto.
Without knowing what Trungpa Rinpoche’s specific instructions were, I myself if given the task would delve long and deeply into the teachings and all his communications about Shambhala Training, the teachings and terma, calling together as many senior students as I could, to look into what was actually presented by Trungpa Rinpoche, what aspects were ‘teachings’ or terma, and what aspects were simply logistical concerns, and take it from there. If there were cause to do something other than what he presented, then I guess I would make that clear.
I’m not sure, but it looks like the levels of what we have always referred to as Shambhala Training are now the beginning of a vajrayana path for Shambhala members that ends with the Scorpion Seal retreat, and that is now to be the main path for any who enter, is that right? Is there a ‘Shambhala Training’ as such anymore? If I haven’t completely misunderstood, that is a major restructuring of anything I myself heard presented about either the Kagyu path or Shambhala Training.
From this remove though I have no suggestions about how things should be changed, I am only somewhat agape at the Lego approach, with very little senior student input or explanation about the processes gone through to arrive at the next new curriculum.
Re: terma
Rita, John, I don’t really know where terma comes from, but heard talk in the early 80s that there could be people who would serve as something like oracles, don’t remember the Tibetan term, who would add in some way to existing terma. It was also said that oracles were often people who were not fully committed sangha or community members, maybe only on the fringe.
Thank you Divine Lake. I found the copy I had , Hookham, CTR trans. of Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche on “” Meditation”: “….”.without effort, without strain, without attempting to control or force the mind, without trying to become peaceful”
re: terma;
I went to a wonderful CTR Legacy Seminar in Boulder in 2006. Acharya Larry Mermelstien gave a wonderful small workshop on “terma.” My notes are difficult to read, but one thing I remember was the incredible series of coincidences and prophecies that all happened around the various many ways in which Trungpa Rinpoche was a Terton from the age of 6 or 8 years old.. It was inspiring and mind boggling.
I will try to give just a few small sets of basic ideas about terma, taken from my scribbled notes: Any scholars out there feel free to correct me or add information. It is a fascinating topic, especially if it really happens!!!
In the Nyingma tradition there are three types of lineages. 1) Kama 2) terma and 3) Daknang
KAMA is oral transmission.
in the TERMA lineage there are stringent conditions that must be present for terma to occur properly:
teacher, teachings, place, environment (of people, retinue, students, dakinis,) and time.
The original teacher knows the teaching will appear in the future, the time and person who will receive it, and how the circumstances must come together. The original teacher PROPHESIZES this. So, the terma lineage involves a huge gap between teacher and receiver.
In the DAKNANG lineage, (or sacred outlook) there is a visionary occurrence that comes in a special way, It is a valid revelatory experience. Both Terma and Daknang are considered special, but terma is more special because it was prophesized and has met all the conditions. .
Mind terma comes into the mind fully formed and pre existing.
The Vidyadhara’s Shambhala terma was mind terma based on the terma of the Scorpion Seal of the GES. ASHE is a mind terma.
there is much more, but it is very elaborate too confusing to sort out from my notes.
I was pondering that perhaps Rita’s idea of people receiving terma could possibly be of the Daknang type. ??
James,
I see it as a new paradigm. That governments could have a peace ministry…which is something that has eluded the aggressive discursive minds of every government we know so far. That’s all. Tell me what’s wrong with that? Naive? Not necessarily, given world parameters of survival. Even in the last two world wars, there was a perception of infinite resource that no longer applies. Of course, right now, it seems like a joke,
given natural tendencies…but the civil rights movement is an example of how an idea that is not familiar can gain traction. Believe me, it will happen, or humankind is doomed. Intelligence, (intellect) is the biggest obstacle to seeing what needs to be done..
Thank you Tsondru G! That’s fantastic, maybe LM could be persuaded to publish his talks on this.
I recall the story of a very young VCTR meditating in a cave in Surmang for some days, then spinning his fly whisk in the air over his head and gallons and gallons of yellow terma scrolls falling out of the ceiling.
Also the story of him rcvng Shabhala mind terma, in meditation during retreat, seeing the air filled with bees, each bee carrying a letter… Casa Werma?
Very old, very deep and very very magical stuff. If I can say so without sounding cloying I really can’t imagine how much you folks miss him.
Are there also one or two Ministry offices in Shambhala? What are they, and who run them? Could be wrong.
Rob
John.
It is not a new paradigm, and has been pushed by others a number of times in the past. The function of creating peace, however, already exists within the government of any modern nation state. That’s why America, for example, has Embassies all over world even in some countries we find reprehensible. It would be interesting to see how many millions of dollars are spent in trying to maintain communications and peace. I’m sure it’s high. Every modern civilization does that. It’s in their best interests. Already. Only a few right wing xenophobes would say it is not. Even O’Reilly wouldn’t dis’ peace.
The formation of a ‘Ministry’ would only serve to make that function more public.
What would making that function more public serve?
First, it would say to the public at large “Look, we’re working on it.” (They already are, so a change in presentation is Ipso facto propaganda.)
Second, it would externalize that function into another ministry, creating further internal conflict and intrigue between departments. (It would be naive to believe the formation of such a department would change governmental political dynamics. It won’t.)
Third, it could give the impression of weakness or a new handle for manipulation by nation states that are not friendly. If Daddy says no, you go to Mom, and get them fighting each other. Pretty predictable. Already happens, That’ll make it easier.
Fourth, it would give the impression that a nation state could have as its number one priority peace. I don’t think a nation state by definition can do that. A nation state has borders to protect, enemies to fend off, an infrastructure and economy to maintain, acquisition of resources, the care and well being of its own citizens, and so forth.
Fifth, if we assume the idea is to motivate people not involved in the Ministry to also pursue peace, then we are propagating the idea that the drive for peace is something external to us, hence someone else’s responsibility. If we are not finding peace, the Peace Ministry wasn’t doing their job. (See second, third and fourth points.)
A nation state can and should we all agree do those things peacefully. I just think it counter intuitive and probably counter productive to create a separate department that would be responsible for that. The skills and desire for peace should belong intrinsically to any department… already. A new department won’t actually integrate that into other departments, it will take the responsibility away from them.
This also reminds me, incidentally of the problem with state sponsored religion creating the idea that the government is responsible for my happiness, and how people at Congresses in Shambhala Int. are split up into various special interest groups. While focusing on one interest: communications, diversity, curriculum, accountability, external affairs, community, or which ever, it seems that a holistic understanding of how each one of these themes affects the others is lost in the shuffle.
Dear James,
Your 5 points seem true enough…a good reflection of the status quo.
Peace is a loaded word…maybe the wrong one…maybe they should
be called “Department of Learning to Work Together as a World Community
so We Don’t Loose Our Asses Because of Our Intrenched Stupidity and
Selfish, Anacronistic, Self Destructive Behavior”…or something…but that
title may be too bulky. The points you raise seem to me based on a view
that does hold sway in the world, but is increasingly being seen as the
cause for destruction of the planet. The League of Nations didn’t fly
because USA didn’t want anyone else suggesting what it should do
and had seemingly secure borders. With the advent of nuclear weapons,
the United Nations gained traction because nations started to realize
that they HAD to talk to each other because of fear of these weapons to
a large extent. You seem to be saying that the world crisis is held
hostage to entrenched views and their normal problem solving techniques….I agree. It’s only when there there is enough understanding
of the danger that people (nations) are moved to action. It’s easy when there is a quantifiable enemy. But power is indeed worried about what is happening to the world. It appears that solutions that are at the forefront
are somewhat the equivalent of “circling the wagons”, so to speak…
solidifying centralization of power even further. So, even a modest
attempt to change the focus, the p.o.v., to a unified campaign to deal with
the world crisis is a step in the right direction, seems to me. Saying it
won’t work, or it’s been tried, or nations are already working on the peace
issue seems to me irrelevant. There will be and already is radical change
beginning to occur…albeit of the involuntary kind. That radical change has to be met with a radical change of mentality. And it has to start somewhere…now.
Best, J.T.
Dear Tsondru Garma
Thanks for the stuff on terma by LM –yes I was thinking about both kinds of terma.
It seems to me that now that the world is turning from materialism somewhat and embracing spirituality that more terma will come. Interesting the kind of prophecy aspect of terma that you mention. Yes it would be good to have an essay on terma from LM –I would like to read that.
I was also considering Mark’s post about Trungpa’s comment of making people in this present age terma –that was intriguing.
James I agree with you about more senior students having an input into how these teachings should evolve set against how SI is dealing with the path now. I feel the present way of evolving a new curriculum is not adequate – I don’t know perhaps the older students who are devolving from SI could have some input into this process.
I am not completely following the arguement about a Peace Ministry but from what I know of the war process – war happens because people are not treated right by their government and governments – as in the reparations that Germany had to pay to Europe after WWI – so economic instability is one cause of war. What would remove war – I think to a large degree prosperity, a sense that everyone everywhere had an equal stake in the country and how it was managed. So peace to me can not be achieved without economic prosperity –those two go hand in hand.
I think I heard a talk about this on Radio 4 quite recently from an economist from the UN and he was stating that the last President who had tried to have a vision for a more wholesome world was Kennedy –do you know anything about Kennedy’s economics – I believe he was advised by that old academic J K Galbraith. So yes if you had a Peace Ministry it would have to have within it academics of many disciplines and perhaps the support of many nations. It could be possible in this present age –because people know now for sure that other people in the world impinge on their lifestyles –they can no longer be isolated as once was the case in the US.
Well I think that is all
Best
Rita Ashworth
Rita,
Thank you. Yes, it would be great if LM could offer his views and knowledge on terma. He is a goldmine of interesting and fascinating information about practice and teachings.
I am embarrassed to ask, but do you (or Mark?) happen to know under which article Mark posted his comment about Trungpa’s comment “of making people in this present age terma ???” I missed it, as I sometimes miss days of posts and can’t catch up. (thank you!!)
Tsondru
John.
You’re making my point for me.
“Department of Learning to Work Together as a World Community so We Don’t Loose Our Asses Because of Our Intrenched Stupidity and Selfish, Anacronistic, Self Destructive Behavior” is perhaps ironically clever, but if we don’t really understand how the problems alluded to came about, then solutions we pull out of our hats won’t help either, regardless of good intentions.
The presumption in that is that all our problems are created by stupid, entrenched, selfish anachronistic, self destructive behavior.
While there is enough news to know this is a problem that can’t be ignored, and indeed isn’t that why we have a justice system, the horrible nature of human beings is not the cause of the problems like global warming, economic collapse, or end-of-oil and all that presages.
To assert these are due to our fuckedupness is the religious approach which has been taken for millennium; that people are stupid, entrenched, selfish, etc., victims of original sin according to some, and the Church, an externally imposed institutional authority of ethics, is the way, the only way, to fix people. Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it.
You suggest that the radical changes going on in the world should be met with a radical change in mentality. Maybe so. But a change in institutional titles, moving functions that already exist within modern governments into a ‘Peace Dept.’ is not a change in mentality. At all. It’s another layer on a highly stratified system that may be approaching collapse due to over-complexity. And it’s only a change in label. This is Buddhism 101, man. You don’t change people with credentials and titles. Doesn’t work.
What I believe Shambhala’s involvement with this initiative is really about is acquiring for Shambhala political heft by associating themselves with higher level political platforms than they would otherwise have access to. I think this is why the partnership with Bhutan was entered into as well. Acquiring power, rather than supporting any particular agenda.
I understand how this accrues power, am not suggesting that sort of strategy is completely bereft of value, though wish the home base was as well attended to. I am dismayed, however, that the issues Shambhala has decided to associate with are so poorly thought out. Bhutan, GNH and their ethnic cleansing, was that a good choice? The push for a Department of Peace, which is a way for religion to enter politics through the back door, as if institutionalized religion or ‘ethics’ were the answer.
Science is where it’s at, if fixing our global woes is the problem. As you say, if people can see the problems, they will respond differently. Most people are only marginally aware of some of these global issues if at all. Education and science.
A department of Peace? We don’t need any more elitist nonsense. They have enough toys already.
In the inspiration that “The tooth grows with the appetite” (S.J.Lec)
As if to confirm James’ point that education and science are the answer, Karmapa XVII led the second environmental conference for Kagyu monasteries and centers earlier this month, where he taught science to the monks:
SECOND CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR KAGYU MONASTERIES AND CENTERS
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW
DAY 1 – SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE OPENS
DAY 2 – GYALWANG KARMAPA EXPLAINS THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW OF COSMOLOGY
DAY 3 – FORESTRY CONSERVATION PRESERVATION BY WORLD WILDLIFE FUND OF INDIA
DAY 4 – GYALWANG KARMAPA ON PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE
DAY 5 – QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND TESTING
DAY 6 – SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND PRACTICAL RAINWATER HARVESTING
GYALWANG KARMAPA’S CLOSING REMARKS
http://www.kagyuoffice.org/2009.conference.environment.html
There are some lovely pictures on this site.
James, While I don’t disagree with your points, could you give me some direction regarding Bhutan? You used the term “ethnic cleansing”. I don’t want to quibble over words, but whenever I’ve heard that term used before, it was in the context of mass murder, genocide, etc. I’ve been to Bhutan and am somewhat familiar with their concept of GNH as well as the historical problems between the ethnic Bhutanese and the Nepalis. Unfortunate for sure! I don’t want to digress off point, but if you could clarify more specifically what you mean by “ethnic cleansing” and/or point me in the right direction to better understand the history? Thanks.
Re terma, here is a video of the scholar Gene Smith discussing the various types of terma. The subject came up in the context of his remarks on Terdak Linga and the Mindrolling lineage.
Terma
Gregg
James,
Education and science…exactly.
Education: There’s not enough time to educate people…the dumbing down of he USA has taken a couple of generations and is still in progress.
Propaganda is quicker and for a public (at least in the US) that will believe almost anything now it’s the way to go. That’s why if only a few countries sign on with the Ministries of Peace idea, it’s already moving towards a desired effect. You can’t change what people think, but you can change how they perceive, and the thoughts will naturally follow.
Science: Obama’s idea of stimulating private industry to develop
ecological solutions is good…but slow and inefficient. Private industry did not make the atomic bomb…it was a government effort. Of course, it was a survival/ego battle between USA and Germany, which is why it worked.
A “Manhatten Project” type situation could come up with the right solutions…but there has to be the will for that which doesn’t seem likely at the moment.
I don’t know what SMR’s agenda is with this thing, but getting Buddhists
like the Dalai Lama, the XVII Karmapa and SMR more into the public eye is a positive thing….part of the positive propaganda. A “Department of Peace”, even if it doesn’t do much, has an effect because of it’s existence.
The idea is not about more government, but rather, raising awareness…
and that is what we need.
James…regarding Bhutan, I think I have the picture. No mass killings or genocide, but forced deportation, relocation, etc. Not a pretty picture.
James has done a great job on the “Department of Peace” notion. I was going to stop posting, but, boy, I have no discipline. From the Shambhala Times web site here’s what RR has to say:
“To the Leaders of All Canadian National Political Parties,
“I have the honour to transmit to you the following aspiration from the Sakyong, Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche, the supreme head of the Shambhala Buddhist lineage, headquartered in Canada, in support of the initiative to create a Canadian Department of Peace.
“This statement has been issued in conjunction with the Global Summit for Ministries and Departments of Peace held in Costa Rica in September 2009:”
I’m sorry but it might as well be coming from the Unification Church – the “Moonies”. I mean who would take a suggestion couched in such language seriously? If one could say “retarded” in this day and age, that’s what this would be.
I still think it’s a great idea….though the language Martin points to is bloviate. If enough countries take it
up, it won’t remain as solely Shambhala territory.
“What I believe Shambhala’s involvement with this initiative is really about is acquiring for Shambhala political heft by associating themselves with higher level political platforms than they would otherwise have access to. I think this is why the partnership with Bhutan was entered into as well. Acquiring power, rather than supporting any particular agenda”
To even discuss that SMR and SI has even the possibility to associate with higher level political platforms to acquire power is insane jibberish and delusion and the sign of being still in a cult..
They are creepy money grubbing idiots that have foooled no one except Bhutan and some people on RFS.
Lots of luck, See you in April 2010, after the March Armegeddon.
Robert Chandler
Dear Tsondru Garma
I found the quote from Mark which is below – I have edited it somewhat
Mark Szpakowski on July 28th, 2009 8:56 pm
On Differing Views and Paths
1. “My experience is that people, including myself, connect with CTR because he speaks the simple and direct truth, and connects with that part of you. He was a deeply truthful person, and was able to pull truth out of situations and objects and people – because it was already there. That intention is what enables what we can sometimes after-the-fact bless as terma or whatever, but frankly doing so is unnecessary and too easily becomes both kind of ersatz mystical and controlling.
CTR certainly never emphasized that. Re the Sakyong empowerment of CTR, here’s how it worked. First, CTR empowered Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. Then, DKR empowered him right back. Someone’s got to make the first move We’re all invited to do so.
“I will turn you into terma.”
– Chögyam Trungpa at a meeting of the Standing Committee in Halifax, November, 1981.
I’m also beginning to realize the extent to which so much of this is already out there – people, individually and in groups, are starting to act from our global heritage of depth traditions of many times and places, and using those as starting points for meeting each other, mutually waking up and seeing how to be in a more aware world together. We can contribute to that, and share its non-ownership.”
That sort of sums up my own conception of terma already in what was it you called it the daknang sense of terma – you find that sense of revelation in all religions – and I think I got a glimpse of it as well when I was younger – so all I am saying is that the shambhala teachings if they were open to people in their entirety could allow people to touch their own true brilliance whether they were religious or not.
Really yes I do know that is possible so the Sakyong saying you have to be a Buddhist and have samaya with him to get to that stage goes against my own experience and I think the experience of others -thats why the teaching were made so open for people by CTR I believe.
Tibet doesnt not own the concept of terma -its a universal concept -if you study religious history you will find this described in many places.
So in some respects CTR embraced ‘not’ being a Buddhist -he embraced in the Shambhala teachings greater humanity. So thats why SI is not for me as it is at present -it goes against my own mind and apprehension of things beyond even having the label of Buddhist –
So thats where I am at – it would be cozy to remain in SI and follow what is happening but I would be going against my very being doing that and in some respects I just cant remain in SI with this emphasis on “their path” of doing things – I am an individual I just dont go that way.
Well I hope we can have more comments on Marks post.
best
Rita Ashworth
John Tischer writes:
There’s not enough time to educate people…Propaganda is quicker
John,
If we are too lazy to be responsible for ourselves, and too lazy to teach other people how they can delight in their world, with gentleness and confidence, then Ministries of the Peace will be just the beginning.
Pretty soon we will have curfews, restricted travel, and who knows what. The government will always step in to fill the vacuum created by our irresponsibility. We just might not like the result.
…it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside.
- Teddy Roosevelt
Edward,
We’ll have those things anyway if we don’t do something soon. What I meant by propaganda, ( a loaded word), is image. symbol. mudra…the quick hit, as contrasted with education, which takes more time. Ministries of Peace could easily be the opposite in Orwellian double-speak…sure. I don’t think I conveyed my idea very well. Maybe it’s just a ruse and I’m being naive. Many people here have gone beyond criticism to condemnation of SI. Maybe they’re right. Maybe every action that springs forth from Shambhala is about power and money and has nothing to do with the true dharma….but I’m not ready to say that yet
Rita, thank you for the quote from Mark. Reading it again, I loved it again.
Oh yes, John T, nature abhors a vacuum. Astrologer, Caroline Casey, said about Saturn in our charts and psyche – if we don’t become our own authority on the inside, we will invariably create people on the outside to do it for us.
After the strange video from Richard Reoch, as a Shambhala member, I soon got an email which I am reproducing below.
It’s been a while since I’ve considered writing to Richard Reoch directly, and to be honest, I’m not sure why I haven’t done so on a weekly basis. One activist site this week told me to phone my president and my local rep every day and tell them what I want them to do. Years ago, I decided that honesty involved complaining directly whenever I was given a bad time from a shop, restaurant or an airline (viva D Carroll – ‘United Breaks Guitars’ on Youtube!!) Complaining to my friends when I haven’t spoken to the one I’m complaining about always gives me indigestion.
So I wrote to him. And that’s no big deal! But because a few people are urging me to share it on RFS, I’m doing so. It will take a few posts, so please forgive me for monopolising. It expresses what I feel, but shouldn’t be a vehicle for vicarious sniping. (Yeah, sock it to ‘em, etc.) Such a response would indicate a puerile level of disempowerment, a neurosis about authority figures and obvious poverty mentality, so of course this sangha will not respond like that.
For those who didn’t receive it, here’s the text of the email I received:
Dear Susie,
I am writing to you, as a practitioner in our Shambhala mandala, 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.
We have been requested to do this by the Sakyong Wangmo. I hope you saw her heartfelt message to us all last month. In case you missed it, please click here.
The days of practice are being organized by the directors at every centre. If you have not heard from your Centre Director already, please contact them direct so you can find out what is being planned. There will be practices for the vajra sangha, and community meditation for all other practitioners.
Part of the day of practice will also include a presentation on the mandala-wide effort we are making to strengthen the lineage and the mandala throughout the Sakyong’s year of retreat. This is a combined initiative of the newly created Sakyong Ladrang and the leadership of Shambhala. To find out more about this before your local day of practice, you can click here to visit the website of the Sakyong Ladrang.
As you know, the Sakyong has reached that point in his life that corresponds to the same point in his life that the Vidyadhara reached before he departed from the Nirmanakaya and returned to the Dharmakaya. It is an extremely poignant moment for all of us and I hope you will be able to join the practices at your centre.
Yours in the radiant vision of Shambhala
Richard
Cont/2
Cont/2
So here is my letter back:
Dear President Reoch
I’d like to preface this with warm greetings to you, and my sincere appreciation of the sheer extent and dedication that is evident in your work for Shambhala. I feel a certain connection to you – not only because you and I share a background in Amnesty, and the practice of Chi Kung – but also because I see goodness and sincerity in your face and manner and have felt for you often when I have heard and seen you speak.
The reason for writing is that I feel bewildered by this message. I have watched your video recording several times, and feel disturbed by it.
Yes, I think I have probably missed the messages about the practices I am asked to undertake to ‘remove obstacles’ before the Sakyong’s year of retreat, and certainly I am unsure that ‘we’ know about this in our local sangha. I also have no knowledge about the nature of these obstacles. Why should there be obstacles? What obstacles?
I surmised about whether the Sakyong was unwell, or that his life was in danger in order that it needed to be ‘secured’ – a strong point is made of the Sakyong having reached the same age at which his father ‘passed from the nirmanakaya to the dharmakaya’, but for me this is not poignant, merely a coincidence. He has to be 47 or 48 at some stage.
One can only think that the word ‘obstacles’ refers to financial crisis, or a sense of impending financial crisis. In your video presentation, you said that the Sakyong Wangmo has said, ‘it is up to the students to create the tendril, the auspicious circumstances which can secure the life of the teacher for the benefit of the world and the benefit of all sentient beings’.
Auspicious circumstances are not normally ‘engineered’ – they are subject to dependent arising. The cosmic mirror invariably delivers its response! We do not say, ‘it is up to the students to knit the guru’s rainbow body’, or ‘it is up to the students to ensure the dralas follow the guru’. Auspicious circumstances are the vehicles that carry us continually; we don’t ask them to do so, or attempt to manipulate them. They are perhaps the signal that we have ceased to do so!
The tendril mentioned here is money, I have got thus far. But am I to understand that there is not enough money to support the Sakyong on retreat? Is this what is being implied here? We have heard about the crisis at SMC: I can only assume that in fact, there are currently insufficient funds for the Sakyong to carry out the retreat. If this is the case, this is certainly difficult news.
Cont/3
Cont/3
I listened with dismay to the recordings of the 2007 Congress in which the mandala seemed to be exhorted to raise its gaze, to take brave steps and borrow money to fulfil ambitious expansion plans. I felt great discomfort then. Nearly all the governments in the world appear to base their measures of success on growth of this kind; I live in a country that is now considering mining our protected wilderness in order to keep pace in the GDP competition, and yet for many years wise economists have pointed out that growth and prosperity are not the same thing, and that indeed it is growth, or our perception of growth – based on more buildings, more consumption – that is daily destroying natural world, sacred world, and leaving no room for those who live in simple, sustainable connectedness to survive.
I have always found that when a vision is truly relevant, and is clearly, coherently conveyed, then that vision attracts resources, hearts and minds like a magnet. They say that a great vision has a million parents. I remember conveying a new vision to the Board of Amnesty here, and the Treasurer at the time broke down in tears and stated he felt almost inadequate to serve it – and I am just an ordinary person. But that vision doubled our small membership (actually to about the size of Shambhala’s!) Vision is a very, very powerful thing.
You say that ‘the Sakyong has come (to the West coast) in recent months to work with a growing network of philanthropists and activists who are committed to supporting him in his passionate vision for the mandala and humanity which he calls Living Peace’. Who is this growing network of philanthropists and activists? I would love to hear what they are doing. You say ‘We heard the Sakyong talk about Living Peace this summer all over our mandala’. Is this true? I have heard nothing. To be honest, apart from a very few books and a tiny number of recordings and interviews, I do not feel I have have even heard the Sakyong teach, and I’ve been practising in this mandala for nearly ten years. In comparison, I probably have 100 recorded hours of Trungpa Rinpoche’s talks, and dozens of his written works, of which I continually receive news of others that I have not yet seen.
I regularly visit the Sakyong’s website and can find nothing there about this vision. There is a link to a blog site that purports to have something on it about Compassionate Leadership, but I can find nothing about that either. I watched the recent Harvest of Peace video recording and heard very little of a passionate vision for the mandala and humanity. What is this vision?
Cont/4
Cont/4
I hear the word ‘gentleness’, and I revisit Level Three! When we truly perceive our world as it is, we cannot help but respect the world. When we ‘touch back’ this world, we cannot help but touch back with gentleness. Gentleness and kindness are a sign that we are practising shamatha/vipashyana. But there is more required from us than gentleness. We need to raise windhorse fearlessly. We need courage, primordial confidence and absolute openness. We need prajna. We need to be warriors in the world; we need to be the change in the most powerful way we can manifest – even if this is just to manifest by modelling simplicity and by treading very lightly on this beautiful earth, at least this is a model. Or to be courageous enough to stand and directly witness the devastation, the aggression and alienation that is occurring, and to do whatever is in our power to show people the nature of what is happening as a result of unrestrained consumerism and denial in a world where ‘vision’ means Blackberries and fashion icons. To watch the degradation of the world’s glorious forests and the deprivation of gentle sentient beings who have made their living there for thousands of years, to watch the devastation of sustainable communities and livelihoods, in a world of throwaway resources, throwaway species, throwaway people – more is needed from us than only gentleness. Sometimes, fierceness is also required, tremendous courage is required, swiftness, responsiveness, vulnerability, transcendental generosity, total inclusiveness and uncompromising truthfulness.
You talk about ‘strengthening the lineage’, and perhaps here I find myself most out of synch. When I took refuge, I was quite clear about the lineage into which I was stepping; but to me (and this connects centrally to my sense of what Shambhala is) the Kagyu gurus have never needed me to strengthen them! If we are to strengthen the lineage, then let us do whatever we can to support HH the VII Gyalwang Karmapa who is in the worrying situation of being monitored continually by the Chinese government. If you mean ‘funding the Sakyong and Sakyong Wangmo’, including houses in expensive quarters and extended families, this is something that is too remote from me. It doesn’t touch my heart. I would sooner see them both living simple, humble lives, tending gardens, caring directly for students and refugees, walking into boardrooms and government departments, teaching heart-deadened leaders to dance with the elements.
Cont/
Cont/4
I am sorry, Richard: I had to write this because I feel that somehow we have lost our way. I felt the sense of urgency conveyed in your video talk, and I was very concerned. But I feel that what is required most from the centre of the mandala is to consider – how are we really serving this world in the Dark Age? What does it really mean to be a Shambhala warrior in the Dark Age? What is really being asked of us? The inspiration is at hand, it is rooted firmly within ‘our lineage’. It is unequivocal, it is uncompromising. It requires us nakedly to face the truth of what is happening in our minds and hearts and in the world. It may require us to weep until our hearts feel they could bleed. It requires the ‘Big NO!’ It demands love that has no boundaries. It walks in places that are off limits. It tames the untameable beings. It is immune to the obstacles: we do not need protection; there is no obscuration. It has vibrant energy and power. It is needed very much, and for me, Shambhala needs to manifest it because unless we do, then we truly waste the vast inheritance of this glorious lineage. It would be better to lose all our wealth and do this from a tent encampment, than to be wealthy, secure and self congratulatory, and yet not to do this.
I hope you understand.
Your servant always, warmly and in the vision of the Great Eastern Sun.
Susie Vincent
Auckland
Rich,
If you’ve been there, any corrections are welcome.
Ethnic cleansing is what several human rights groups, including Amnesty International, say occurred in Bhutan. Amnesty International is renowned for impartiality in taking pains not to imply or exaggerate claims of abuse. They have been accused on occasion of taking sides with oppressors for not confirming abuse when no evidence was available. I take their assessment as valid.
There is an ambiguous border between genocide and ethnic cleansing. When large swathes of the population are killed regardless of race, it’s called genocide; if due to race it’s called ethnic cleansing. But ethnic cleansing means simply getting rid of a particular group. It very often does involve violence and bloodshed, but not always. Kosovo for example, was a mixed bag.
In Bhutan these people were landed immigrants who had been invited in to clear land for farming. Some had been there for several generations. Due to pressure from aid organizations and other governments, they were given citizenship; I think it was around 1985 or so. Then due to other pressures, shortly thereafter they began rescinding citizenship, forcing people many illiterate to sign papers renouncing citizen and any claims, removing people from lands they had farmed, businesses they had founded and houses they had built, packing them off mostly to Nepal.
These people who have now been ‘camping’ in refugee camps for going on 20 years with no country that will let them be citizens (The Nepalese rejected their return, saying they had been in Bhutan so long, they are Bhutanese Citizens.)
Their government has claimed it was a few malcontents that were spreading disruptive dissent, but it was well over 100,000 people, men women and children. I can believe there were a few malcontents, but the scale of this ethnic cleansing indicates something else.
The Royal family has not denied any of this, but would rather their actions be called ‘cultural cleansing’ rather than that ugly word, but… it is what it is.
I’ve heard apologists claim their not having used outright violence somehow ennobles the Bhutanese royal family. I don’t see how that changes anything about treating large numbers of people who helped build and shape the country as non-entities.
I have some suspicion the Royal family could see the writing on the wall, the end of their absolute monarchy and the introduction of democracy, which has now begun if only nominally. We can conjecture it was in their best interests then, to remove a substantial part of their population which would likely not be amenable to whatever the Royal family, still very much in charge, would suggest.
Shambhala a few years ago at a conference supporting GNH suggested a partnership with Bhutan, in which, according to one talk, Bhutan could help Shambhala in showing the world what enlightened society looks like.
Considering Mr. Reoch’s connection to Amnesty International… a bit of unresolved cognitive dissonance to work with.
Gregg
That video was a fascinating introduction to terma.
Talking esoterically about terma -ho-hum- I suppose I am pointing at the possible karmic link that people who are attracted to Shambhala and Buddhism have with these teachings – thats why I was pointing out the probability of more terma being ‘discovered’ in the West – for example did not CTR receive the Shambhala teachings in the west.
I dont know we are all looking and being in this Cosmic Mirror so eventually we all be touching/feeling the bare essence of what is – and from that who knows what will come.
Re terma also I have a query -can you have it in song……..or maybe a heightened sense of seeing something and reciting poetry as people do in the west. (America please put up statutes of Allen GInsberg and Jack Kerouac!). Just a small aside query – are you the person who did the karmapa film?
Re Susans post -great that you did that – I hope Richard gets more feedback through his emails -yes I would definately write to Richard if I was in SI! Send those emails people!
As to the continuing argument about a Peace Ministry and SI joining some vehicle promoting peace -the whole thing needs to be investigated by the sangha in a formalised way. And really to do that you have to have a consultative body as the National Assembly that CTR wanted – big projects from high do not succeed if you can not take your people with you.
In fact if I was ever the president of something like SI I would insist on a voting process being held by the sangha on all projects undertaken in its name. I would also want the membership through its elected representatives to decide to a larger degree on the budget of the organisation -this way you would avoid corruption – or the sense of possible corruption.
Where does the King/Queen factor come into this -well you would put the whole thing to the monarch for his/her final sayso -and if it was a well-constructed plan the monarch would have to say Yes.
I am not totally against the King/Queen role in an organisation -some people even wanted Cromwell to be a King -but the bulk of the decisions have to be taken by the constituents after much examination. Yes and I agree with Ms Vincent the monarch has to be modest perhaps in the sense of an African chief or elder in a tribe. Robin Kornman goes into the
formality of a court on google video for example if you want more information on this.
I also still think people devolving from SI can somewhat embody the court principle aswell because here the main teacher is a representative of CTR ……..it will take time to work everything out but this can happen in the different organisations being established – for surely in even our own
‘democratic’ countries we know who to trust because of their qualities -otherwise why is Obama President?
Hope we can have some discussion on terma and the construction of a shambhala government -the principles of that.
Keep posting and definately keep posting to Richard – I hope he gets 8,000 emails! ho-hum!
Best
Rita Ashworth
susie, did you get a response?
Dear Susie, thanks so much for sharing your letter. Beautifully done, and an inspiring teaching!
I must admit I have tried writing with similar intent in the past and received not even an acknowledgement, let alone a response. However, your letter is really special, so hopefully… But in any event it was definitely worth the writing, as it will continue to reach people here.
Hi James,
Thanks for the input and insight. My gut reaction was that GNH was a refreshing concept. It’s disappointing to consider political motives behind it, but so it goes. When I was there, I didn’t have contact/interaction with ethnic Nepalese. The Bhutanese “locals” I interacted with were, I believe, genuinely sincere and opened their homes to us westerners. Children were incredibly charming and friendly. On the other hand, I was heartbroken at the plight of the Indian workers who came up north to work on renovating the highway between Paro and Thimpu. Anyway, I sensed that the “basic goodness” of the Bhutanese is there. Some I spoke with acknowledged that the desire to preserve (enforce!) Bhutanese culture was extremely unfair (cruel) to the Nepalese. There may have been changes, but apparently there is a long way to go. Hopefully, real compassion by the Bhutanese for the Nepalese refugees isn’t out of the realm of possibility. thanks again
Rita,
Re terma also I have a query -can you have it in song……..or maybe a heightened sense of seeing something and reciting poetry as people do in the west. (America please put up statutes of Allen GInsberg and Jack Kerouac!). Just a small aside query – are you the person who did the karmapa film?
I’m really not much of an authority on terma. From what I gather, it really has more to do with the person doing the receiving and discovering of the terma that it does with a thing’s form. Kind of like an Eastern analog to the sword, Excalibur, being in the stone. Lots of people can walk by it. Takes someone special to make real use of it.
Re the film on Sixteenth Karmapa, yes that’s my project. Since many people who read this site have a connection and deep interest to the Kagyu lineage, I’m very confident that they’ll find Recalling a Buddha quite engaging. The contributions of the Shambhala community play a significant role in the story.
There are two hours of Extras material that explores many lineage issues. The details and trailer are on the film’s website.
Gregg
Hi Benny: no I’ve not received a reply from Richard Reoch, although he has told someone else that he has sent me one, which I was very pleased to hear, so clearly something has gone woolly. I’ll drop him a line.
Thank you Damcho, I do appreciate that.
Incidentally, dear sangha, if you do decide to write to him, or anyone else in Shambhala, I’d be so grateful if you would write personally, rather than saying you’re writing in support of Susie’s letter, as has happened already. I didn’t write this as a campaigning petition, and I resign from being Mother Duck of the Revolution with immediate effect!
Namaste
Susie
Many, many posts back, Chris Huck had this to say that caught my attention:
” I would like to suggest that perhaps a discussion could commence about the video of Richard Reoch posted yesterday on the new “Sakyong Ladrang” website. For me, this video created a much bigger impact than the Halifax community meeting tape. Or perhaps, after the HFX community meeting tape and subsequent discussion, this video illustrates a true paridigm shift having occurred within SI. I can’t ever imagine Dzongsar Khyentse’s organization producing such a video, never mind Tenga Rinpoche’s or the Khenpos’s or Thrangu Rinpoche’s or Dzigar Kongtrul’s organizations. What do you think?” (end quote)
About RIchard Reoch’s comments in a recent Shambhala News Service about the Sakyong Ladrang, it begins “Dear Friends throughout Shambhala, “We have the future in our hands,” the Sakyong told gatherings throughout the mandala this summer. “Shambhala is the paradigm shift the world is waiting for.” The future he talked to us about was the future of the human race and the future of our planet. “We need to prove that gentleness is the way to build enlightened society,” he said, “especially when the whole world is trying to convince us that aggression is the way.”
I watched only part of Richard Reoch’s video on a beach in Southern California and started to feel increasingly revulsed, so I never made my way to the end. I’ll post the link here:
http://www.sakyongladrang.org/retreat.html.
I’m afraid of losing what I’ve written so far because I have to go back and take another look at some of the organizations in Orange County (I’m not kidding …) that the Sakyong is involved with. Stay tuned for part 2.
Barbara Blouin
The Sakyong’s vision for the future, part two
To continue … After my husband, Denny Blouin, saw Richard Reoch’s video, he sent an e-mail to the President with questions about the kind of work the Sakyong is doing in California. Richard Reoch replied promptly and mentioned two organizations the Sakyong is inspired by. I decided to check them out.
Here is one, Team Kids:
“Team Kids staff implement school-based service programs alongside police and firefighters to inspire students to help others. It’s a beautiful thing when children discover the power they have to make a difference in someone else’s life – and in their communities. … Representatives from the Irvine Unified School District, local service agencies, the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Fire Authority work alongside students to enhance community health and safety. … The Team Kids Challenge is a month-long direct service-learning experience which challenges youth to meet certain participation and fund-raising goals to benefit other nonprofit agencies. Representatives of the Irvine Police Department, Orange County Fire Authority and UC Irvine athletes serve as mentors, while student leaders organize their peers to achieve program goals and objectives. ”
The chair of the board of Team Kids is the deputy chief of the Irvine Police Department. Other board members include an “investor,” “philanthropist,”
lawyer, businessmen, banker, etc. In short, a mainstream, clearly conservative, organization in one of the most Republican parts of the United States—Orange County, California.
The second nonprofit that the Sakyong is involved with in Orange County is the Orange County Center for Living Peace.
http://goodhappens.org
Here is what little I was able to learn about this so-called organization. One page of their site is called “our affiliates.” One of these is Team Kids. A second is yoga for kids. The third is Sakyong Mipham. There is a link to his personal web site:
http://www.mipham.com
The really interesting part is that this nonprofit doesn’t even exist yet, except possibly as a legal document. Its founder is one Kelly Smith, described on the site as a philanthopist. (Decoded, this means that she is wealthy.) She lives in southern California, she’s young, and she gave $300,000 to found the Orange County Center for Living Peace. If it happens, the doors are scheduled to open in the summer of 2010.
Oddly, when I tried to copy a page from this site, I wasn’t able to do so.
So you can check it out for yourselves. All I can say is that the goals of this so-far-nonexistent organization are hopelessly vague. And yes, the tone of the rhetoric may sound familiar to us.
Barbara Blouin
Robert,
Your pissed-off-ness precedes you, solidifying fronts and making enemies of allies.
You know Trungpa Rinpoche’s Kalapa Assembly transmissions. Creating enlightened society is not merely about teaching pure dharma, it is also in some way about how to govern a society. That will invariably involve politics, which by definition means relating to other political bodies. Unless you propose we all dwell in dharmakaya, you’re not going to get around that.
There is precedent and reason enough not to immediately yell foul at every twitch that reminds us of our own opinions.
We can see how the Dalai Lama for example has made efforts in this direction in order to alleviate the plight of Tibet. Make one’s presence felt at higher levels of government, make oneself welcome in those halls, and then one has some opportunity however slight to push policy one way or the other. Trungpa Rinpoche talked about and sometimes demonstrated how one could use political power in enlightened ways.
We can argue whether what Shambhala does is wrongheaded or productive, whether the current regime has any talent with these things, or anything of value to offer, but noticing that such dynamics are afoot is not insane jibber jabbering. It’s common sense.
Talking about possible reasoning of Shambhala Int. is not automatically an attempt to justify or rationalize. If we examine without preconceived blinders smeared with devotional gel or a thick black fog of hatered, we might be able to discern why things are being done as they are. Having done that the possibilities of being heard and indeed of making sense and possibly bending ears becomes greater.
Decisions or policies made by the Shambhala administration assume by proxy the weight of the entire community; however no attempt at leadership or explanation to the community is made. Referring to external affairs, there is enough unrest within the community itself to wonder what the upper echelon believes they can show anyone. Adding to that, the themes chosen to support are poorly thought out populist propaganda which always has repercussions of distrust down the line. I am not an apologist.
However, in general, unlike your self, I have to assume there is some amount of reasoning behind the decisions made. Clearly in aligning Shambhala Int. with an absolute monarchy involved in ethnic cleansing, they cannot have wanted to sanction ethnic cleansing. The only reason that decision might make some sense is that it was meant to associate Shambhala Int. with heads of state, or to enter a stage of international politics. Stupid? Pointless? Perhaps but I can see no other reason it makes sense.
Maybe that assessment is wrong, but there was some process gone through, reaction to pressures, response to perceived needs, some concept of how to instill certain principles, denial of certain things, exaggerations of others, and so on. People in the administration and SMR, as much as we may disagree, are not psychotics working in a vacuum.
In the inspiration that; “Cultism transforms people into objects.” (S.J.Lec)
“We need to prove that gentleness is the way to build enlightened society,” he said, “especially when the whole world is trying to convince us that aggression is the way.”
This might be a good time to point out that I, Edward, have more gentleness than anyone else in the world. Something I thought you should know.
And, because of my unsurpassed gentleness, I can see how bad the world is. Everywhere I look, I see aggressive enemies, and I feel like I’m swimming in molten lead. But on the bright side, I at least feel superior to everyone, and I even delight in feeling victimized by my world, because it reassures me that I’m important.
Dear James:
People with aliases , , can cowardly come on here and call people drunks, or little despotic children can come on here and call people every kind of name (this may be all the same person) but that is fine by you. Unnatural, dysfuntional hierarchy is still alive and well.
In my opinion James, after years of listening to this community discuss everything but the elephant in the room, they did it during the Regen’ts situation, and they are doing it now here, it is the people ,who talk all around the situation ,that are the most dangerous in a time of crisis. Because they distract people from the real issues. We have just seen an RR fund-raiser, that was so desparate in its appeal to send all the money now to the Sakyong, while SMC is crashing for lack of funds, a move more in common with a dictator/despot of a tiny African state than Bhutan, for example, and you and many others would rather discuss some theoretical possibilty of the Sakyong’s role in World Peace. This would be laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that SI has counted on this kind of distraction to not notice what is really happening, ever happening, internally. In fact, the whole “peace initiative” by SI is one big distraction itself. The realpolitik and only agenda, of SI is on that fund-raising film. And so encouraging long-winded discussions such as SI’s relationship to Bhutan, or the Sakyong’s role in “world peace” etc are “insane jibberish” when Rome is burning or the ship is sinking and the captain is the first overboard, asking for us to throw him the last of the doubloons, and , in my opinion, is actually enabling SI events to play out behind one more smokescreen. hoping that no one notices. .
Dear James:
Also:
Thank you for your words of counsel and advise. It may be possible that you truely believe that SI would be consulted on issues of World Peace. As I say, it may be in the realm of possiblility that you believe this.
You may truely believe that some country or organization would consult a charlatan, his fabricated administration, and his bankrupt organization on such weighty matters as Peace or any other matters of state. I don’t believe such delusional entities exist. I am sorry if you misunderstood or thought I was in a dialogue about this or that I was seeking allies. Are we clear on all this?
Yours,
Robert
I’m posting Richard Reoch’s written reply to me in the next box: it takes up the whole 3100 characters exactly. I am very happy with his tone, and although I don’t think the content advances us much further, there are definitely some branches there to fly from, so to speak. His offer of a phone call is something I certainly would like to follow.
Barbara, I so appreciate your posts just now, felt huge resonance, and intend to respond to what you’ve shared. As it’s 2.45 pm here, this will occur sometime later when I have churned three bags of compost into the vegetable garden in a symbolically meaningful gesture.
Loads of love
Susie
From RR 22 Oct
Dear Susanne,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me — I really appreciate that.
And thanks for asking me these questions!
I do want to assure that the Sakyong is not ill, nor is there a huge financial crisis (other than the effects, which are serious, of the current world economic crisis). So the auspicious coincidence that the Sakyong Wangmo has been talking about is the supplication by the students to the teacher “to remain for the benefit of beings”. The Sakyong has spoken about what he calls his “family karma”, which is that his father departed from this realm at 47 years of age, largely because he has used up his life energy in planting the dharma and taking on the consequences of doing that in the west. Years ago, Lady Konchok, the Sakyong’s mother, had a divination done about what the Sakyong should do at this same point in his life and the answer was that this would be a year of obstacles (all manner of energetic difficulties) and that he should spend it in retreat — which he is taking seriously. So, I hope this helps clarify (which was clearly I was not specific enough about on the video) that this is not about illness and lack of money.
At the same time, there is a huge vision here, and I am very sorry that in some way this has not been adequately communicated to you, of what the Sakyong is trying to achieve, and his vision for peace. I am wondering what the best way to share all this with you is… I could send you a couple of documents relating largely to the Living Peace Award and also the links to the Center for Living Peace that he has started working with (which I mentioned at the outset of my little video)…
It is true that at the 2007 Congress there was surge of energy around funding and doing our best to meet the challenges we face. That, of course, was before the crash in 2008 and now the focus is more on stabilization (as you may have seen from the recent letter that Connie Brock and I sent out — do you see these things on Shambhala News Service?)
This may not be addressing what you feel is the key point, Susanne, which is “What lineage are we?” We do embrace, within Shambhala, a confluence of lineages — Kagyu, Ngyingma, Shambhala and, to a certain extent, Zen. So we do have a very distinctive heritage handed down to us by Trungpa Rinpoche. Now the Sakyong is particularly focusing on the most precious gift that his father gave to us, which is his mind terma (gom ter), and it is clear that for some time he will be instructing us in this particular stream and practice. But as his recent giving of the Vajrayogini abhisheka and the Vajrakilaya abhisheka (both at Karme Choling) show he is not abandoning any of our rich inheritance. I don’t know if this is what you were particularly addressing, but I got the impression that you were talking about this when you wrote to me.
If you would find it helpful to talk about this on the phone, rather than on email, which is rather impersonal, I would be happy to call you. It would be my pleasure…
Please just let me know…
With every best wish,
Richard
If there are two copies of Richard Reoch’s letter above, then I do assure you I wrestled with it for some time, but I don’t think I managed to get rid of the second one. Sorry. Or perhaps I did. Time will tell.
x
Thanks for sharing that Susanne. He seemed to address two of your points well, but you made about four, so we’ll see if you can get to the heart of things in future communication. Again, thanks for sharing your private concerns publicly.
Well done Susanne for getting some words of wisdom (?!) from RR -when I asked him some questions about the National Assembly that CTR wanted us all to have – I got a short three line paragraph – so obviously he takes your points somewhat in tow better than others, however if you do phone him -could you record the call or at least may be bring up some of the points raised by others on this site.
Barbara thanks for the information on the orgs that Sakyong is ‘working with’ – perhaps someone could google something on that Kelly Smith to see how rich she is?! I dont know even members of parliament in the UK have to make their interests known when they are serving as politicians but it seems you have to drag this information out of SI all the time.
And anyway what if people in the sangha did not want the Sakyong to work with such organisations -how would they make their views known on this -by a letter or email that gets lost in the system?!
No I think all dharma orgs that are evolving from CTR’s teachings should be extremely formal as he wanted them too be – I dunno when I was a member of London Shambhala Centre we took minutes on everything because Rinpoche wanted it that way.
If people have problems with these philanthropists – they should email RR most vociferously -personally any org that I was involved in I would want to know the full details of the people that were contributing to it.
Its because there is no assembly that the Sakyong can act so imperially-
for example why would you need philanthropists if the org was doing ok anyway – what is he going to do with all the dough he gets. Questions should be raised about this.
No any orgs that do come about with CTRs teachings will have to observe due process as he wanted.
I hope you keep posting to RR people -he needs to be questioned much more than he has been in the past.
best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
-
Getting back to the original discussion about Adam’s talk, I was struck with his articulateness and his ability to keep his seat and hang in. In addition, I was really moved by the comments of the Halifax sangha.
Two of Adam’s comments disturbed me though.
First, Adam’s assertion that SMR is choosing not to get involved out of some sort of drala principle. Is it being above conflict (the true meaning) or just avoiding conflict, especially with irritating old dogs? These monarchist ideas about the ruler being above it all are interesting up to a point, but frankly I’d rather have a teacher that I felt cared about me. Having a king who doesn’t care is not helpful to me, and I’m rather grateful my ancestors rejected that kind of system. This is reinforced by the second comment by Adam, that he saw people feeling tortured by the whole business. Is this compassionate leadership? If so, can someone explain how this benefits beings?
Moving way down the comments, I really appreciate Barbara Blouin’s investigations into SMR’s peace activities. These may be all well and good (particularly if he’s trying to help Orange County Republicans, heaven knows they need it) – but my question would be, is this truly providing unique leverage to create this great paradigm shift, as the fundraising message would imply?
Paul Hawken http://www.blessedunrest.com has documented literally millions of individuals and organizations working for peace, social justice and environmental sustainability.
I still argue that the fundamental reason for so many people’s problems with SMR is a fundamental belief in monarchy/tulkuhood. It seems many people don’t dispute the principle, they just don’t care for the new management and refuse to accept things as they are and make their own choices. At the risk of sounding like I’m a heretic and don’t belong in this discussion (which someone accused me of last time) I would urge people to look at their own assumptions and to value their intelligence and not permit self-torture over these issues. Yes, I know CTR proclaimed monarchy. He also said that everything he did was an experiment. I just don’t think this one worked out so well.
Living in Boulder these days, there is such a ferment of ideas and action about social justice, spirituality, sustainability, peace, socially responsible business, etc, that it seems to come from an infinity of sources, including many spiritual paths. I’ve met so many great people who studied with Osho, or with Werner Erhard, etc, both of whom we were encouraged to revile in the old days, who all offer so much.
So, I found the latest fundraising appeal (Reoch on the Beach) a bit over the top. To my way of thinking, if the world’s paradigm shifts in time to stave off disaster, it will be because of the actions of millions of people listening to our greater collective intelligence, not one teacher/saviour in particular. We need all the help we can get.
To my way of drinking, Dan, anything can be used as propaganda. Language is the most inefficient form of communication. As I was trying to convey earlier (still am, I guess), one could use the concept in a positive way. Even “Nothing Happens”, or, “Basic Goodness”, is a type of propaganda, in this sense. So, “Peace Ministry” could be that or it’s opposite.
From that standpoint, what attracted any of us to the dharma? Could have been a talk, could have been a photograph, could have been, (and was,
on my case), a stranger describing the teacher. All propaganda, the way I’m using it.
It attracts you…it hooks you to look into it. Then, what follows should be trying to understand it.
I wonder if I’m in trouble again?
“Ministry” and “Department” are the loaded words here, because they mean very little. If the concept was to start “Ministries of Nothing Happens”. that wouldn’t fool anybody….except, I feel sure the Mexicans would embrace it.
10/11/09, Suzanne D. writes: “What seems clear is that students of SMR do not have the sense of unshakable, heartfelt devotion that students of the Vidyadhara still have after all these years. From what Adam said, and also Richard Reoch in his interview, one can only gather that they don’t get the experience of lineage and devotion that we got with VCTR…. They don’t get that personal, intimate experience of the student-teacher relationship, in which the student feels seen – often seen through – and cared about by the teacher. They don’t seem to get the personal sense of mutual love and trust. SMR projects a sense of unshakable spaciousness, of inscrutably being above it all, of being in Lha-Lha land. How very impressive. But do they get the milk of loving kindness and caring on a personal level? It seems not. That warmth, that heart connection, that golden glow – that is what we got from VCTR and the Kagyu teachers. So SMR students dismiss it, denigrate it when it’s expressed, with intellectual put downs. They don’t even know what they are missing, what’s been lost, so they put down the sorrow with snide insults, and entertain themselves with intellectualizing about doubt and doubtlessness, time and timelessness. But heartfelt expressions of devotion? They don’t recognize, much less empathize with that. It freaks them out.”
Just talked to CTR. He’s kinda busy right now but he said for me to tell you you weren’t THAT special, so quit bragging. I see your aorta. It’s very tempting.
Dan Montgomery writes:
These monarchist ideas about the ruler being above it all are interesting up to a point…
In my opinion, a monarch is someone who joins heaven and earth. Someone who can’t or won’t do that is not a monarch, as far as I’m concerned.
Is the problem with CTR’s teachings, or is the problem with us, the people who claim to carry out those teachings?
Just playing the devil’s advocate here.
I’ve observed people in positions of authority who really embodied true authority, or dignity, or whatever term you want to use. And it was very beautiful to observe. I was very grateful that circumstances allowed them to have those positions of authority, so I could see their actions more clearly.
On the other hand… the comments Mr. Lobel made about “being above conflict” revealed a lot to me about both him and his teacher.
I think we can’t help revealing ourselves to others, no matter how hard we try not to reveal anything. In that sense, trying to be “above it all” might not be the most successful strategy, from a purely strategic viewpoint (aside from other things one could say about it). So if there are any skilled PR people listening, please reconsider this approach.
If Suzanne D. did say. : “What seems clear is that students of SMR do not have the sense of unshakable, heartfelt devotion that students of the Vidyadhara still have after all these years.” is somewhat pushing the envelope if not presumptuous. . Believe me. CTR students aren’t all that way. They were just as confused as everybody else.
However… I would like to address Dan’s letter.
I was disturbed when I read Lady Diane dismissed people who questioned the whole direction of where Shambhala (International) was heading and said they could leave, totally forgetting that most of his students have made vows and commitments to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s vision. I have also heard off the record a couple of acharyas express the same thing. Not exactly recipticity.
If we recall CTR’s will, he did say we should lisen to her as an advisor, but she had no absolute say.
How easy it is to dismiss people. I’ve seen this in other religeous groups. One of them, ironically, was Kripalu, which SMC was arm in arm with for a while. I know two people who were deeply hurt by Kripalu as well.
Rob
Rob
Edward – point well taken. A true monarch would unite heaven and earth, and that’s not just your opinion. CTR spoke of this, and the idea is firmly rooted in Chinese political thought. But, in this time, it has become a theoretical and propagandist construct, without being actually put into practice. All heaven, no earth to the idea.
http://www.joemarquis.com/videos.htm watch dis shit man, it’s over if you don’t wake up.
Zapata, that was the most horrifying website. It bit me. Please alert the world at once.
Barbara: “Shambhala is the paradigm shift the world is waiting for.”
Yup.
This is where the Vision needs to come in with a brass band playing. Currently seems to be Peace (sic) – the hook is fine but what’s hanging on it? What is presented is vague and insubstantial.
Have searched Shambhala and SMR websites exhaustively for clues. Most sites I find SMR on, are fundraising sites. There is a photo, a few words, and the rest is about donating. As a prospective spiritual punter, I could feel confused about this teacher.
Sporadic peace missions recorded, e.g sitting on a sofa with Queen Noor and Rabbi Whatisname, Sitting at a table with same persons. Making a statement in support of a peace initiative. Appearing on a website that asks for money, so as to give it away to obscure community groups, without any apparent due diligence. Talking about a thangka on Harvest of Peace video. Supporting an idea for Ministries of Peace. Come on, somebody, help me out here.
As Earth Protector, produced 550 word Earth Day address, and encouragement to sign Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change if people wish to do so.
I know of corporate CEOs who do more for peace than this.
There is a mandate, thousands of warriors. The monarch joins heaven and earth. The monarch, the leader, knows how to make the vision manifest (How To Spot a Leader: Rule 1). Knows the road sufficiently confidently to walk in front, and show the way. The vision for the realm and the energy for its manifestation emanates from the ruler: it is the gift, the ‘deliverable’ that signifies rulership. It is fundamental, borne out countless times, in countless areas.
Whoever can manifest and embody the Shambhala vision for enlightened society is a monarch. (NB: “I will turn you into terma.” – Chögyam Trungpa. Reggie says he was trained to be a teacher. Were you?)
The politics? Many great movements have turned into tepid bureaucracies, because people want to tie things down. You can’t tie rivers down. And even the greatest rivers mostly flow in alignment with the natural shape of the terrain, they don’t create lah lah lands. The enlightened ruler sees and empowers the vanguard people, and turfs them out of their nests with a beak up the bum.
Edward said: I’ve observed people in positions of authority who really embodied true authority, or dignity . . . And it was very beautiful to observe. I agree. And at times, followers feel dragged thru chaos by the nose, always just one step beyond their limitations.
I think great vision is the progeny created by the wedding of the king to the land. I think currently within Shambhala, the principle of enlightened political power still lies in the ‘principle’ zone. It needs to be birthed.
PS to benny: I want to get his view of the Shambhala vision. He is the CEO, and it’s his job to be clear about it. And how skilful means, engines and alliances are being inspired and harnessed in pursuit of same.
Much love
Susie
Zapata
An interesting and frightening video.
Couple this with a global organization that is now training people in what is known as “”stupid shamatha” which has been known to make people numbed and dumbed down, ( we are seeing the results) in a group that values psuedo-harmony and group conformity, where critical intelligence is wiped out, and no one dares express a contrarian opinion, where a rich oligarchy is running the show, and the leader is determined to connect himself with an even more expansive rich oligarchy and you have a very frightening scenerio of what can happen when buddhism is connected , not to liberation, but to conformity and a peaceful world order.
What is it going to take for us to see that is is the inverse of CTR’s vision? That this is a perversion totally of his vision.
Not surprising at all that peace initiatives are connected with Orange County rich donors. SI has much in common with oligarchic, rich corporate values.
Do you know that dathuns now have conceptual “themes” that people should be contemplating while practicing? “Calm Abiding” as a theme for example.
Compare this with D. Khentse Rinpoche teachings on meditation, translated by CTR and Hookham:
“Meditation is always perfect, so there is no need to correct anything. Since everything that arises is simply the play of the mind, there are no bad meditation sessions and no need to judge thoughts as good or evil. Therefore one should not sit down to meditate with various hopes and fears about the outcome-one just does it, with no self-conscious feeling of “I am meditating.” without effort , without strain, without attempting to control or force the mind, WITHOUT TRYING TO BECOME PEACEFUL.”
In fact, the more you “try to become peaceful” and push away “bad thoughts” cultivating “good thoughts, the more you are actually feeding aggression.
I can’t think of anything sadder then CTR’s name being attached to what is happening now. We should be outraged, once we wake up, and see how “meditation” is being used as an arm of corporate, oligarchic conformity and that his name is attached to this “global movement” to numb the masses even further to become slaves, sending their money to further enslave themselves. I think there couldn’t be a more perfect partner to this global “peace ” initiative than a 14 c oligarchic, tulku/monastic repressive system that makes people fear shunning or worse if they protest. I would imagine that the global corporate oligarchy would find this “meditation narcotic” the perfect pill to keep the masses “content”. No wonder they like SMR and his message.
Purity of Essence! Precious Bodily Fluids!
Just like Elvis, Ron Paul is everywhere. And don’t forget the Jewish Bankers and Al Gore and the New World Order. Lyndon LaRouche will not be ignored.
Seriously, take a look at: Infowars: http://www.infowars.com/
There’s a real case to be made concerning the state of the world and the role of multi-national capital – Krugman, Brad de Long, Calculated Risk, Naked Capitalism, Felix Salmon — but Alex Jones isn’t it.
Gregg thank you for your further comment on terma and the mention of excalibur I am contemplating that in the light of my own spiritual experiences in the 70s – a very pertinent image for everyone involved in dharma I believe.
Dan your post intrigues me – are there many people in Boulder who think like do about SI and spirituality generally? I was wondering also did you work at RMSC – I am sure I have heard your name popping up at other points in my dharma life.
I dont know I am getting a sort of fin-de-siecle sensation about SI at the moment I have feelings that it could crash, slowly disintegrate, or just meander for the next twenty years or so. Re the Sakyong personally I just think he is going the wrong way…….what could bring him and others back from the brink cos I dont think I want the whole thing to go belly-up perhaps he will have to really empower people to take the shambhala teachings out into the world – CTR’s way and maybe his way aswell -that means allowing people to found their own takes on the way they see the shambhala teachings evolving…….diversity truly in action…..with SI as an umbrella perhaps.
But then again maybe the disintegration has to occur -the org has to fail to birth many orgs in all the countries of the world……perhaps this is the way that shambhala comes about……I am thinking of the lone shambhala person in Kazakstan who suddenly tweaks into basic goodness and the kingdom begins to be born – a romantic dream but then did not the shambhala teachings come from this area of the world originally?
I think the meetings are swell, times when we can be enraged and entertained about each other and each others take on things. But I think
the party is beginning to be over aka SI but I think there will be other parties coming so that will not be bad.
Well best
Rita Ashworth
Chris – I’d like to hear more about “stupid shamatha” – I used to be an MI but it’s been a long time now, and I don’t know what they’re putting out there now. You mentioned it involves “themes” – do they also play soft new age music as well? Seriously, what do you see as the key difference in instructional technique?
Rita – I was around Boulder in the late 70′s, worked at Naropa/Nalanda for a while, hung out at RMDC a lot but never lived there. Lived in Halifax for 16 years and moved back to Boulder. I don’t know many SI people in Boulder who think the way I do, because so many who are still involved are either crippled with resentment, scared to say what they really think, or true believers. Any of you out there who don’t fit either category I’d love to talk with. A lot of ex-SI people around here, as well as back in Halifax, are following other tibetan teachers. I do know many people, however, who followed completely different paths (Osho, Erhard) back in the day, or now (Adyashanti), and don’t seem to have these hangups. I think our sense of exceptionalism has turned us into fools.
I love the image of dharma spontaneously manifesting in Kazakhstan. If there is basic goodness in human beings, this will happen. I don’t worry about this particular lineage crashing and burning – the dharma is still true, and spirituality is alive and well on the planet.
Dan -yes I thought Id heard of you in passing.
Interesting to hear your take on what is happening in Boulder.
Yes I think the kingdom of shambhala could come about in other ways from SI
I am not sure about other teachers who are not Tibetan – I will have to think about that – I suppose it is possible for some.
Maybe not crashing maybe just meandering for people in and out of SI ……..for a generation or two – may be for the older students that process has started already -personally I think its a good way to go. Creating the kingdom in a more leisurely style than the formal way of SI -getting back to the initial connection with the teachings.
best
Rita Ashworth
Robert,
Again, your pissed-off-ness precedes you. I didn’t say you sought allies. Allies – people who see things similarly – are around. Your Calvinistic approach is very off-putting.
I have never used an alias. I am not responsible nor condoning what that person may have done… if they exist. Bring it up with the moderator.
I don’t call people names. Labeling people insane, delusional and cultist, is parallel with the mysterious alias of many faces you describe. It doesn’t matter to me how righteous the cause, in this instance you have become what you denounce.
Ugly is as ugly does. It isn’t any braver to insult people without hiding one’s identity. It’s only more foolhardy. Your accusation that I sanction such behavior by anyone is literally out of nowhere. There is no basis whatsoever to project that onto me.
I too would prefer a rule disallowing name games. Mark indicated there was one. Ask him.
In general every single one of your assumptions about what I believe or support are demonstrably false. They are not supported by anything I’ve written, and are not how I view these issues. I could go through your accusations point by point, but have already taken time to explain myself.
I begin to feel manipulated and drawn into a petty process of explaining how each of your assumptions is false. I am beginning to think you are so angry you can’t read properly, so further explanations would be futile.
Please, does anyone else think what I have written so far has supported SMR and Shambhala International in any of the ways Robert tells me I have? Have I in any way sanctioned insulting behavior on these sites? I honestly don’t get it.
As far as discussing these issues (present company excluded?) being a waste of time and indirectly supporting SMR… that too is demonstrably false. During the Regent debacle, talk was not the same as now; there was no forum of any kind then.
During the European Reformation the reformists were spot on about the decadence and profligate corruption of the Vatican. In their hatred and denunciation of the church, their approach unfortunately completely ignored the heart of the scriptures they claimed to be protecting, the New Testament. All teachings of a loving god, brotherly love, gentleness, forgiveness, tolerance and so on were ignored. They developed a pedantic and horribly cruel approach which echoed the practices of human sacrifice in order to please a wrathful god: burning witches, beheading choleric children, executing dissenters, jailing people for fashion faux pas, on and on. It was truly despicable.
If nothing else, Robert, please understand that I will not be a party, as supporter or foil, in any way I can prevent, to your Calvinist approach to reform. As much as I agree with you about the decadence and wrongheadedness of Shambhala policy of late, and I assure you that is what my posts were about, your denunciation and stubborn projection onto me of values I do not hold is disturbing and uncalled for.
In the inspiration of: “Love your enemy. Maybe it will hurt his reputation.” (S.J.Lec)
James,
I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed the sane, well thought out and well stated ideas of your posts in general, and in particular, in this case about the “peace issue.” Robert’s anger was palpable, oozing out of the words , in between the lines and going out of the lines.
It made me sad to see it, and reminded me of my Father’s verbal and emotional abuse of my sister (earlier on in our lives) … an anger that never thinks twice or self examines. Just keeps raging on.
In general, in this forum, for that sort of personal attack, or even just crack pot stuff (like so called “vetali”) I feel perhaps it is best to just give that kind of anger, or weirdness, a lot of space. (Easy to say and not so easy to do at times!!!)
What did CTR say early on, in one of his first books? something about being so angry and one pointed, that it was like trying to move forward with only having one eye (in your chest?) and falling over.
I cherish this forum for its richness of points of view, and its pointing to the variety of issues involved.
In any case, you have my whole hearted support in those recently expressed views.
Tsondru
What I am about to write is from my heart and if I offend anyone I apologize in advance.
We all miss our beloved Trungpa Rinpoche and in some ways feel impotent in regards to what is now happening.
There is a very simple way to solve this matter.
That way is simply to go get Trungpa Rinpoche the 12th from Tibet.
It is that simple and we can first start creating a fund to free CTR the 12th.
There are Tibetan people in Canada , the United States, India, Nepal and Bhutan who have the means and contacts to do this. They know people whose full time occupation is getting people out of Tibet.
For roughly $50,000.00 CTR would be reunited with His Holiness the 17th Karmapa and his Karma Kagyu family.
He could meet and reconnect with H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama. In very short order Trungpa Rinpoche the 12th would be back in Canada and the United States meeting all his former students and reassuming his true position again.
I find it strange that with the millions of dollars in the hands of SMR and SI they have not liberated CTR.
Here is a simple and direct manner in solving all these problems.
What do you think?
John,
I so appreciate your heart! and your devotion. Many people have said things like this to me, as one of the core working group of the Konchok Foundation. I am fortunate enough to be somewhat aware, at least, of the 12th Trungpa’s situation. At this time, in spite off all that has happened re: the Olympics, etc… there has been no sign of danger for him or for the Surmang monastery in Tibet. Furthermore, he is currently studying and training (in the Surmang tradition) to be the leader of the Surmang monastery, which, I think, needs him more than we do. And that education and training is essential for him as well.
KF is trying to raise money to rebuild the Shedra there, which will be for his benefit as a leader, and for the people there as well. We also use our funds to support him in his studies and living situation. In fact, some people specifically donate towards this purpose. (supporting him.)
Dharma is still alive and well in Tibet, Khenpo Tsering has shown that to us. There are many excellent teachers there, for example, where the 12th Trungpa Tulku is studying now. (HH Jigme Phuntsok’s Institute at Serta.) And many of us here have met Trungpa Rinpoche’s brother, Damcho Thenpel Rinpoche and his nephew Karma Senge Rinpoche. And there are good people at Surmang who provide strong support for the 12th Trungpa as he is coming of age, and for the success of the shedra effort, and all that we hope will entail for Surmang..
No offense,,, (None AT ALL!!!! You are so sweet to appreciate him that much!!) But we can’t just pluck him out of that situation. I think many of the other ideas for dealing with our crisis as students of the 11th Trungpa Rinpoche that have appeared on this site are more practical and organic, especially at this time in history…
I may be wrong but I believe that the Konchok Foundation is firmly in the camp of SMR.
As long as CTR the 12th is in Tibet, SMR will remain in his position of power.
When and not if CTR the 12th returns to his throne here (not Tibet) it will be a new and different world for the followers of CTR.
It will also be a new and different world for SMR and his followers when SMR’s father returns home to see what his son has done.
It reads like a typical Greek tale from days gone by.
Sorry Ginny but I and many others want CTR the 12th here with us again.
Your statement, “He is currently studying and training to be the leader of the Surmang Monastery, which, I think needs him more then we do.”
With all that was and is happening here and now your statement is shocking to say the least.
Who else believes that this is where our beloved CTR belongs? Would first on that list be SMR and his followers?
Why does SMR refuse to spent some of his millions of dollars to bring the reincarnation of his father back to all of us?
Is it truly better to rule in hell, then serve in Heaven?
Dear John (whoever you are;)
I’m really sorry that I wrote this post. I tried to delete it, but was not insightful enough to do so in time. I really should not have brought up KF. My mistake, and I’m really ashamed to have involved it in this way, that makes it vulnerable and under atack by people such as yourself. I am sorry if you (and possibly others?) feel this way, as it is unfortunate and actually, somewhat delusional to say the least for many reasons.
Your argument is theistic and paranoid. sorry. We, as Trungpa Rinpoche’s students have to work with this situation of saving his legacy ourselves. We can’t count on a deus ex machina to come down from the sky and save us. And we are CAPABLE of rising to the task at hand. Also, I think you have a very over simplified idea of Tibet, and the Tibetans and their needs.
I’m really saddened to think that there are large numbers of people who think as you do. I hope this is not true.
Ginny L
Dan: I’d also like to understand the differences in shamatha technique, can anyone clearly describe these?
John: oh such an inspiration ‘simply to go get Trungpa Rinpoche the 12th from Tibet’. I felt the same when I first saw footage of him. But didn’t he say he wasn’t going to incarnate as a Trungpa Tulku? Where was that? Mishap Lineage?
About ten years ago we (my non-Buddhist community here) hosted a travelling pipe-carrying elder of one of the Canadian tribes – a strong, humble man in his 60s, he did a lot of personal healing work for people, ran sweatlodges for violent youths, etc etc. One night, his van was stolen, including all his ritual gear: pipes, drums, medicine bags, power and totem objects. He was devastated, completely ripped apart, because he felt these things defined him and his authority. He recognised that the biggest test of all was required from him – to walk naked, as he was, and derive the power to fulfil the obligation of his legacy entirely from that. For me, this is what the Vidyadhara did, and in doing so, he tore down the barriers between the essence of his own exotic heritage and the future of Buddhist teachings in the West.
I just posted this quote on Bill Karelis’ thread.
‘The expectation is that eventually I won’t have to give any more seminars. You will be able to help yourselves. Not only that, but you will be able to develop American Buddhism, to teach other people, to teach the rest of the world. In fact, you will be able to go back to the Tibetans or the Indians and teach them what their earlier understanding was all about and work with them.
As far as I personally am concerned, I have tremendous trust in your participation in this work, and it means a lot to me that finally we are able to work together on the basic sanity level, that we are able to set up some solid ground enabling you to help your whole world, not purely in terms of religion but also in terms of concrete living situations’.
Trungpa Rinpoche: Orderly Chaos p13
I’d like to hear people’s vision of this ‘American Buddhism’ and its practical responses to the Dark Age, without which, criticism levied at the efforts of SI always echoes back to me the question, ‘so, what’s your plan then, clever clogs?’
The Warrior Song of King Gesar reverberates loudly:
http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/04/17/warrior-song-of-king-gesar/
In ‘Shambhala from the 21st Century’, Mark referred to:
“ . . . a radical project . . .explicit personal and communal recognition of drala . . . That space and its yearning is where our legacy comes from.”
I hear Rita and others continually urging this virtual sangha to bring forth the legacy. What is the obligation conferred and required by the Shambhala legacy?
Some writers urge possessing the citadel from the inside: no point having all the brilliance sitting outside, lobbing rocks.
Despite everything, is this true?
And if not . . .
This thread is getting very elastic, sorry.
Susie
Martin, c’mon, all the people you list are very gentile, mistakes were made, blah blah blah. Have you watched the video? Do you think that a chip implant with medical records and forced immunization are a good idea? yes Jones is a bit like the Rush Limbaugh of his ilk, but I think you are too dismissive of the actual facts involved. Given that SMR has spoken to Goldman Sachs, I think it is relevant. He may be trying to find a wedge in the door in order help the situation or . . . dum dum dummmmm. . .
But it is hard to argue, as Americans are being enlisted to spy on one another that huxley and orwell are not that far off. Let the facts speak G money
“zapata” I’m not getting drawn into this. Period. This thread is becoming pathological.
I agree with you Martin about Alex Jones etc. Alan Watts once said that the universe is really a kind of gigantic Rorschach blot. We can see whatever we want to see, at every level. It’s perfectly possible to put the pieces together and get an enormous conspiracy, and in a sense there’s no way to argue with that interpretation as such, if that’s what someone sees. I don’t put the pieces together that way myself.
Noam Chomsky got tired a long time ago being asked the 9/11 question. His point is that, apart from anything else, conspiracies are hard enough to maintain between 4 or 5 people… And especially as practitioners we should be aware of how endlessly complex and interwoven are all our different drives and motivations.
Also, thank you again James for all your insights on this thread. I always look forward to your posts. And very much agree with what you said on, eg, 10/25 (9:01 AM) regarding not demonizing others. This is so crucially important, I feel. Let’s always remember that “drala” literally means (or so I was told) “beyond enemy,” “beyond us-and-them”. It’s not always easy negotiating all this in practice. Still, this is our view.
Dear james and Damcho et al, Those who judge and insult people while embedding it in well-thought out turns of phrase, or who are engaged in fascinating discussion about “it could be this” or maybe its that, endless, circuitous discussions, while taking time out to do your wrathful deity sadhaka practice, but then back to decorous conversation, and polite exchanges.
Here’s what Tsoknyi Rinpoche wrote about varjayana, it could have been CTR:
It is taught that Vajrayana practice is especially suited to people whose emotional states are more forceful. I am not quite sure I can explain this difficult point satisfactorily…. That hesitation actually clouds me over. If people don’t get this point correctly, it could be very dangerous. One might think, “All right! I get aggressive and pushy, but that is okay because the teacher says that’s how one should be to express basic wisdom.” How about that. Not good, right? Ther is another type of person who prefers to be like a vegetable-a good, pure, organic vegetable. This person likes to remain uninvolved, doesn’t have much emotional drive, doesn’t get too angry, too passionate, or too jealous. However, he is also not overly compassionate either; he doesn’t try to reach out to other people. Still he is good and decent, quiet and relaxed. I am not saying that is bad, but a certain gutsy strength seems to be missing.
Sometimes you find practitioners of Varjrayana and Dzogchen who have fierce negative emotions, ablaze like fire, but at the same time, when these emotions are not that active, these people can be very intelligent, very sharp. Sometimes they are very loving, very compassionate; sometimes they are full of devotion. When they get angry, they rage, but they can also be very sharp. When such a person who has both intense passions and a very sharp mind connects with a qualified master, he or she may truly understand the Dozgchen teachings; that’s how it’s taught. For someone whose emotions are in 1000 percent full bloom, it is also possible that intelligence or sharp-mindedness can be 100 percent activated, that devotion or compassion can be 100 percent fully manifested”. TR Fearless Simplicity.
My husband is one of the kindness, most loving compassionate people I know. When he is angry, he rages. does he go over the top? Yes, but you know EXACTLY what he feels, we have no idea where you really feel James, or Damcho, except for your judgements , insulting judgements about Robert’s style. What he is in a rage about is the absolute cowardice of so-called Trungpa Rinpoche students that have stood by and watched this mandala be destroyed by a usurper, and have said nothing about this, not directly, not straight-forwardly NOT PASSIONATELY. Just equivocating bullshit for 17 years!! We are fed up as we watched the mandala turned upside down, CTR’s son put in state care, 12th Trungpa Rinpoche marginalized, all the while listening to almost everyone of CTR’s students blabbering for decades! We are done, it is sad and stupid that you are NOT ANGRY.
m’kay boys. you go sleep now.[I take that to mean that you did NOT examine the evidence]
P.S. I imagine a Radio Free Post- Shambhala site, and the conversation will continue as usual, except it will be about “what we could have done”, now that it is too late.
Chris, could you point out where I have “insulted” Robert? That’s not a rhetorical question; I’d really like you to do that. I think I have only once mentioned Robert on this thread–and that was to agree with something he said.
I do concur with James that we shouldn’t demonize others. We shouldn’t deny that those we may disagree with in SI have positive motivations too, have basic goodness. Do you think that is not so?
I have no doubt in the world about Robert’s kindness and compassion. And again I don’t believe I’ve ever actually said anything against him. At the same time, you seem to be telling me here that I ought to be expressing rage at SI. In fact, you say that it is “sad and stupid” that I’m not doing so. I must disagree. Anger is so dangerous. If it manifests spontaneously, with pure, selfless intention conjoined with wisdom and skillful means, well that is one thing. But as a strategy or purpose or ongoing state of mind–another matter entirely.
Please forgive me Damcho, I erred Tsodro Gamo was who I meant in include, I apologize. somehow your name seemed similar and I can’t correct posts, that option seems to be stuck, since this site has put some cookie on my post. ( punishment for not adhering to someones idea of decorum)Again , I am sorry.
If I could tell you about the two standards of “decorum” that I have seen, one for the family dynasty, and one for the rest of us. It makes me literally SICK.
And Obama is not the head of the UN security council, in direct violation of the constitution(artical 1 sec.9). Rorshach test my ass. Your delusion saddens me.
Zapata vive la lucha sigue! (tischer)
Zapata, you do raise an important point, one not unrelated to this thread. But first, one or two seeming corrections.
I was startled by what you reported, so I looked it up. Your comment gives a misleading impression (at least to me) that Obama has taken up some permanent or semi-permanent position at the UN. In fact, the leadership of the Security Council rotates, as a matter of course, every month… What was new here was simply that he chaired one particular *meeting*, as far as I can see. Normally it would be the US Ambassador doing so.
If chairing this meeting was indeed unconstitutional, I have no doubt in the world that the current political climate will ensure the issue makes it all the way up to Roberts – Scalia – Thomas – Alito if necessary to initiate impeachment. I just read the quoted Article 1 Section 9 and don’t quite see how chairing a meeting constitutes “accept[ing] of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title” etc. Perhaps it does. I’m just not equipped to decide, not having sufficient knowledge of constitutional law. You seem absolutely certain however, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how that passage is to be interpreted.
As for any potentially sinister result of this meeting, it seemed to involve a 15-0 vote to strengthen various resolutions regarding ultimately ridding the world of nuclear weapons… Is that going to happen? I strive against despair, but this certainly strikes me as something at least mildly positive, rather than the reverse…
Here’s the point though: can you acknowledge even the *possibility* that you are making a particular interpretation, and that you might be wrong? I think this is the issue regarding the Halifax meeting also. The question of “doubtlessness” has come up quite a few times in this thread. Is power at least capable of genuinely recognizing it might be wrong about something, something important? And conversely, can we remember our own subjectivity and fallibility when we engage in any kind of broadly political action? On the occasions when we do forget this, I would say that we have lost touch with our wisdom, and will ultimately not be a force for good in that situation.
Hello,
I have never posted here before and I don’t know any of you. I hope you will bear a bit with my story. Although it is not directly relevant to this particular thread, I think it is relevant to the spirit of Radio Free Shambhala.
I never met Trungpa Rinpoche in the flesh, but I consider him to be my teacher. I have been studying with a Tibetan lama for about 9 years now–a wise, beautiful man I dearly love, but who does not speak English. I had been up against a hard wall in my practice for longer than I care to admit when I met Reggie Ray about a year ago and began studying and practicing with him also. I have never been drawn to the Sakyong or SI. I was very surprised when, about 5 years ago, Trungpa Rinpoche came to me in a dream in which I was struggling to climb out of a dark hole, because at the time I had not recognized any particular connection to CTR and did not feel stuck in a hole. When I met Reggie, I was, indeed, stuck in a very deep hole and the pieces of the puzzle have fallen together in the last year. (Forgive the mixed metaphors.)
I am new to the Dharma Ocean (Reggie’s) sangha and can’t speak for anyone but myself. But I can say with confidence I have met many other people, young and old, who also have never met CTR in the flesh, but for us he is alive and very active in our lives! For me, and I know I am not alone in this, studying with Reggie has strengthened that connection enormously.
I have felt compelled to write you all, for a while now, because I want to implore you to teach what you learned from Trungpa Rinpoche! Someone, probably many someones, need your wisdom and you will magnify their connection to CTR. I realize that this issue of being “empowered” to teach is complex and tricky. I can’t help you resolve the trickiness of whether to leave or stay and fight for change at SI. All I can tell you is how grateful I am to have found Reggie, how grateful that I am studying in the lineage of CTR.
I know you all know this already, but there is a reason/ are reasons Trungpa Rinpoche stripped the dharma of its Tibetan cultural container. Not that the Tibetan norms and traditions are bad or wrong: indeed, I am so grateful to the people and culture for carrying the Buddhadharma to the present day. I couldn’t begin to claim that I understand all of the reasons, but I know, for me, that Buddhism in its Tibetan form, particularly placing the lama on the throne (in more ways than one) just fed my already existing neuroses of looking outside of myself to be saved and was very dis-empowering. This is just one small example of the ways in which CTR changed how dharma is taught.
Reggie has spoken many times of the extraordinary trust that CTR placed in all of his students and how that helped him step into the void. Reggie also had the support of his students begging him to teach the dharma as CTR did, not as the Sakyong does. So, now, I am asking you, please teach what you know. We need you and we are waiting!
Damcho, No president has ever held that post. Because it is a post in a foriegn body, a conflict of interest. Bush was never impeached for his crimes. I only suggest that these matters, and Obama’s desire to use nano technology to ‘make medical records more accessible’ are truly frightening signs. He has broken every promise he made, the list is long. Escalating a war he promised to pull out of is the most glaring, but then there is the no new taxes on those making under 250000 and on and on. Now he supports warrantless wire taps and population surveillance. Maybe this is for our own good? It needn’t be a massive conspiracy to lead to a totalitarioan state. Talk of world currency and world government is commonplace now. The President chairing an international body, even temporarily, is a serious break from tradition.
This is relevant because of the connection between the Kingdom of Shambhala in the battle against the forces of materialism. Now, the likes of Alex Jones etc, can be a bit paranoid, perhaps, and certainly do not proceed in a warrior like way, but the gentleness and precision of Shambhala may need to be coupled with action and direct resistance. I am also curious what the Sakyong said to Goldman Sachs, and how it was recieved. I am not one that thinks that the Sakyong is in it for himself. He has met with Goldman, and the Aspen istitute, essentially some of the most powerful people in the world. What was said? These are far more important questions than the inbreath, or Rigden Thangkha. I am not saying to put your money in gold, buy a gun, and a solar generator, but it might serve us to look at the obvious patterns. Find a President since Kennedy who has not spoken subtly or overtly about a new world order. Al Gore has essentially said that world govenment is inevitable. The Boy/Girl Scouts have been enlisted to spy on their neighbors, and compulsory national paramilitary service is one of Obama’s pet ideas. . . Just do your own research. That is all.
Dan, the fundamental difference in the Shamatha practice is that the intro instruction now says to use both the in and outbreath as object. It is a simpler, tighter, and more basic form than the one you are accustomed to. It also has not ‘replaced’ the other. The outbreath dissolve technique is still taught at level one, and other points by meditation instrcutors as they find appropriate. The whole ‘stupid shamatha’ thing comes from a trraditional Vajrayana view that shamatha makes you dumb. Both CTR and SMR have talked about this. Both also have said that we need that base of mental stability in order to practice Tantra. The Sakyong only emphasizes shamathat as a beginning, though some seem to think that since he wrote a book about it it is all he teaches. His Shambhla/Vajrayana teachings have a very differnt emphasis, shamatha is just the basis for being able to do the higher practices. The arguement has also been made that there is no longer a bridge to Mahamudra practice. This would only be true had the outbreath/dissolve technique been completely abandoned. It has not. Hope this is helpful.
Dear James :Thank you once again for your wise counsel . I see now that Benny Hanna has taken you all in hand and I am sure will be a great help in the coming chaos of the horrible pain and suffering when you and others realize that you have been in a cult.
You are listening to advice from people using aliases ,who represent a charlatan , who has destroyed CTR’s teachings and mandala.
There are times when all that is left to do is to scream out your passion in the face of the unremitting, disgusting behavior of people who are enslaving you only for your money. For me this is that time. I find it unspeakabe that more of CTR students aren’t doing the same.
I will repeat. To even discuss the possibility that the sakyong, and his disguised minions, could be helpful to anyone but themselves, is laughable.
It is obvious now, that this website is part of SI. If one knows that your community is led by a charlatan and bankrupt, why would you discuss everything, but that? Why would you be describing your spiritual journey in public, to people who use aliases, and try to convince you to study the dharma, as presented by an untrained charlatan. Why are you not angry?
.
“It needn’t be a massive conspiracy to lead to a totalitarian state.”
Zapata, I completely agree. And I’ve been very concerned about various erosions of freedom, definitely. Some worrying trends have been going on for some time.
Beyond that, our interpretations differ. Which is, of course, fine. I could go through sentence by sentence and comment, but it doesn’t seem the right thread / forum for that. My point was more related to comments like: “Rorschach test my ass. Your delusion saddens me.” This says to me: there is only one possible interpretation, and it’s mine.
Dear Chris,
First of all, I certainly believe you that Robert is a sweet and caring person. I understand the heartbreak you have both no doubt felt over the loss of Tagi. It was/is a terrible thing. But I think your outrage has become monomaniacal, obsessive to the point of not seeing the big picture. The complexity of what has happened over the past 20 years is not that simple that we can just knock it down with a battering ram.
In my previous post, I meant to lend support to James, and to discuss anger, and how dangerous it is. I get angry myself a LOT; and I understand how it feels.
I just felt that Robert WAS out of bounds there, …like my Father was when (years ago and he was less evolved) after one massive anger episode verbally attacking my sister, (a young child) and then, later, when she was crying in her room, he came back and yelled at her some more. No sense of remorse or the possibility that he was perhaps harming someone. Frightening.
I seemed to sense this type of unquenchable anger in Robert’s second post. Yes, it was my projection because of a past experience, , but I strongly feel that in most cases we are not advanced enough to connect our Anger/ Rage to some spiritual justification and act it out.. .
Further… your point about the passionate people versus the vegetable people, does seem to be inviting criticism. In the Jungian typology of “feeling types” and “thinking types.” there is no doubt an animosity there between the two. As practitioners we need to become more balanced, and understanding of ourselves and others.
.Tsondru
Dear Yeshe Tsomo
Thanks for the post about Mr Ray -it is wonderful to hear what he is doing and what he has set up.
I think it would be great if some of the older students could teach at Ray’s new place in Crestone-there could be a cross-fertilisationn of ideas.
I think I understand where both Robert and James are coming from – the changes have been too great in SI and there has been not much consultation about them and people have not been accommodated properly even if they wanted to be in the SI set-up.
Then of course there is too much emphasis on the money approach to things – for example one senior student emailed me that at times CTR refused to accept money from people because he did not want to be part of their agenda -so that is an interesting take on things. Also he said that CTR said dharma was a ‘people business’ well if its a people business -the poor must equally gain access to it and that is not now happening to a great degree.
I myself have chosen to disengage from SI because of the above – its fruitless after a time to get through to people -so I am going my own way.
I think people need to start exploring their alternatives spiritually somewhat but yet remaining in contact with CTRs lineage -that would be a way to go.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Damcho, point taken. There certainly is room for differing views. respectfully, Z.
Dear Robert, I sympathize a lot with your anger. Anger arises for me too sometimes when thinking about all this. At other times, it is more sadness that comes out. On occasion I wake up in tears.
I can’t really give any advice, except to say that (and this is just repeating my post above) people here see SI in all different ways. You are in a sense at one end of a spectrum. The SI “true believer” is at another. You think–if I read you correctly–that it is pretty much utterly corrupt, the latter that it is more-or-less infallible. Most of us here have various perspectives in-between.
I agree with you that there are places in the scheme of things for “screaming out your passion”. I don’t think this forum is one, myself. That’s just my view.
Dear Damcho
A thoughtful comment on Roberts post.
Its difficult we all have friends in SI and sometimes we think it would be good to remain with the organisation till things tide over as it were or that there would be an accommodation for people who have a greater connection with Trungpa Rinpoche.
But I feel that time has now passed –the Sakyong is set on his path and either it will succeed or not. But I do not want to be part of his way of doing things. I want the dharma and the shambhala teachings to spread in the west and for me now that is going to occur from the grassroots as all major religions have done so in the past. Whatever one thinks of Ray he is succeeding in spreading the teachings at a good rate.
I only hope at some point in the future when we can see things with greater clarity that we will all have access to Trungpa Rinpoches teachings in their entirety –that’s all the new groups want to a large degree I believe.
Perhaps there could be some process that people engage with SI to secure them. Yeh but I also agree with Robert here to a degree –placating with SI to turn the ship to their own people is tiresome –they seem to do the consultative process on things backwards –that’s no way to run an organisation. I think I have passed the point of anger to that myself for now is the time to concentrate on the way forward.
The new groups can buy land, create halls for meditation that is all possible –we can all do that –we do not need SI’s permission to do these things –no-one is over our shoulder. Better to muffle around in our own creations than tirelessly argue with an organisation that is top-heavy, money-orientated and thinks it has the unique take
on CTR’s teachings. Honestly would you want to belong to an organisation that said it had the only way to reach shambhala ……….dzzzzzzz….. I don’t think that’s what CTR ever wanted.
Well over to you.
Best
Rita Ashworth
I think this is a perfect place to scream, because there really is no other….
except in the woods to no one, which I’ve done on occasion. There is a spectrum of p.o.v.’s, as you say, Damcho. I think one thing that’s positive that comes out of this roundtable is that there are alternative actions, such as Bill
Karelis suggests. Me, I like true communication in all it’s varieties.
Dear Damcho:
Thank you for your post. We are not anymore obsessed about Tagi. At least he will be taken care of by the state, when this monkey show collapses. Although to us, he is a living example of the corruption in this community. I have been on various forums, since 2003, telling people that this family and their minions were trying to put him in state care since 1992 and most actively since 2003. The sangha of CTR, who claimed all these years to love him so much , chose to believe RR and others, who came on these and other sites, disclaiming that this was ever going to happen, said I was making it up, crazy, a liar and this would NEVER HAPPEN and the monies kept pouring in for build outs at SMC, The sangha believed them and now he is in state care. They also simultaneously sent hundreds of thousands, during this time for Halifax rennovations on a house Osel is in for a few weeks a year, and bought another million dollar house in Boulder that he is seldom in. How many of you would get rid of your brother and son, when you could well afford to take care of him? Or that 40,000 a year would have at least kept him taken care of partially by sangha? Now he is taken care of totally by state workers, in his mother’s house, that he has to pay rent to live in. This is a group of people , minions of the sakyong, that got together and got rid of him as a “financial burden” ( notes in the KCL and later the Congresses board meeting). and now, when there is absolutely no danger of their ever being responsible again, physically or custodially, they are the poster family of caring on the website trying to sucker the sangha for monies , once again. If these people would get rid of their son and brother as a “financial burden” do you really believe they would be capable of manifesting compassion as a group, or enlightened society as a group? Or that they are concerned with “diversity” or the handicapped? I realized, after this happened that the remaining CTR students in this mandala are in a cult. I have had high Kagyu lamas tell me that they find this disgusting, ( real Tibetans take care of their family ) and yet not one CTR student, NOT ONE, said a word of protest. Some of you are still sending money to this family so they can keep up the deception. Family whose income probably exceeds a dozen of us together. So I realize that most of you are still in a cult, and cannot get your mind around these things. You have been brainwashed as we were, and it will take you years to “deprogram” yourself. When you really wake up to what you have been supporting all these years, you might find yourself in a rage too. Perhaps I can be of help, because my journey of deprogramming has been proceeding . It’s called GRIEF: first shock, then disbelief, then anger, then acceptance. It will take years and it may be the most important thing you do for your spiritual journey, to find your natural intelligence and clarity again. Many of you wont do this, because it will be too painful. The light will be too bright to take, the anger to scary
I’d like to thank Robert for his comments. It’s helpful to hear what you have to say about SMR and his family.
I think one of the most instructive ways I learned from my old teacher was watching him interact with his family. He put so much attention and care into each member of his family, that it was a revelation to me.
He also said that “love is more than anger”, not less than it. In other words, if we’re afraid of being angry, then we’ll never be capable of love. It’s harder to love than it is to get angry, from that point of view.
Ultimately I don’t care one way or the other about SMR. I’d just like to meet some of CTR’s students in the flesh and learn from them and meditate with them. I like what that chap said who’s been studying with Reggie Ray.
And I really like what Susanne Vincent quoted:
The expectation is that eventually I won’t have to give any more seminars. You will be able to help yourselves. Not only that, but you will be able to develop American Buddhism, to teach other people, to teach the rest of the world. In fact, you will be able to go back to the Tibetans or the Indians and teach them what their earlier understanding was all about and work with them.
Chogyam Trungpa: Orderly Chaos, p13
They have taken down the “send moneyor the Sakyong might die”, with an interview to explain the Langdrang.
Now the 3 yanas, are connected with sending the Sakyong money! This a new teaching!
On this link, you will find instructions, on how to proceed, and donate to an endowment, that is described as perpetually generating merit by “accruing interest on the principle”. In other words you can perpetuate merit for yourself, and the Sakyong is really “taking care of You” by garnering your money. Happy days are here again!
Here is the link :
http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/10/28/what-is-the-sakyong-ladrang/#more-13656
Thank you, Yeshe Tsomo, for your sweetheart post. You said a lot of things I’ve tried to say, but so much more clearly and directly.
I hope many people here recognise the great tribute you’ve paid to them. Good man Reggie Ray, I tracked the tragedy of his departure, and have applauded his courage and relished his success very much. I hope I meet him one day.
I listened to several of the talks from the 2007 SI Congress last night for the sake of informed enquiry and found it a very bleak experience. I woke at 5, unsure as to why, as I couldn’t detect any disturbance, but when I did some of the chants, I began to sob almost uncontrollably.
I have a phone call with Richard Reoch in a couple of hours’ time. Over breakfast, I re-read Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s hilarious little treatise on the cultural snobbery and hypocrisy of most Tibetan lamas and found it very cheering. (East-West, West-East, sorry, don’t have a link).
I recognise that I’ve tried pacifying, enriching and magnetizing, and it just may be time for tossing the whole thing in. Think I’ll join the Green Party.
Not sure why I’m sharing this.
Susie
I really don’t like the “Send us money or we’ll shoot
this puppy.” type of fundraising.
John I agree. Death is a 49 day thing. Cripling puppies lasts much longer.
Dear All (and Gregg);
I just bought and viewed the DVD “Recalling a Buddha”…produced by Gregg Eller (his post about this was a few days back.) It is indeed riveting, inspiring, and all the good things we would want to see. Great footage of CTR in the early days, working with his students on the preparations for HH the Karmapa’s first visit to the USA.
Great interviews of the various Kagyu teachers as well. great, great, everything was GREAT!! (I can’t wait for my next viewing to see the “extras.”) 5 stars!!
http://www.karmapaxvi.com/
I think it would be a good DVD to show to gathered Dharma friends in one’s home. (someday soon, coming to Boulder at my house..tba….)
Thank you Gregg for this treasure!!
ginny
Robert writes:
In other words you can perpetuate merit for yourself, and the Sakyong is really “taking care of You” by garnering your money.
Back in the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church gave us a similar opportunity, by allowing people to pay money in return for being forgiven for sins. It was called “indulgences” I believe. What a great name!
I think that people who donate to such causes deserve all that they receive.
On the other hand, I don’t mind donating money for spiritual causes, and have done so greatly in the past. But there has to be something legitimate behind it, other than smoke and mirrors or superstitions. Does that seem like too much to ask?
. . . .
It’s wonderful hearing about Reggie Ray & Bill Karelis.
There is a saying attributed to to General George Patton Jr that some people might appreciate. During WWII Patton, who I’ve heard was the Allied general most feared by the Germans, was feeling frustration with the military bureaucracy which he felt was causing many Americans to lose their lives unnecessarily. Patton either said out loud or wrote in his diary:
“Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.”
There’s something admirable about a man who actually has something he wants to do, and isn’t just fiddling around with PR all the time.
Papillon
In the movie “Papillon”, the key line is spoken
by the prison Commandant: “If you accept what we give you,
your suffering will be less than you deserve.” Of course, the
highly paid actors try to escape…and after some acting and lots
of makeup, Hollywood produces another happy ending.
It has to be a happy ending…don’t want the popcorn to lay
undigested in a sour stomach. Yes, it’s easy to be critical about
large movements…political entities… religious organizations…
easy and righteous.
Escaping is another matter.
Robert,
I rarely even read benny hana’s post. You really have a thing for him.
I never said that the Sakyong and Shambhala and his administration are being helpful with what they do. What I did say is that in giving the Dalai Lama an award, cavorting with Bhutanese royalty, pushing Living Peace and the peace ministry, etc. it seems they are trying to raise Shambhala’s profile to an international level.
In fact I have said it is misguided misleading and akin to the propoganda of the Bhutanese royalty. Knowing why they do things is not a form of corruption, Robert.
Chris’ explanation of anger is interesting. I recall a chart at Seminary of what personality types were best suited to which yanas. As I understand it any emotion, even laziness, can with the right attitude and a qualified teacher, be a direct conduit for realizing the nature of mind.
I don’t see how that justifies treating people as abject idiots or cowards for not being as angry as any responsible sadhaka ‘should be’. The anger or emotion Tsokny Rinpoche speaks about is in the context of practice and direct contact with a vajrayana master. It is not instruction on how one should relate to politics or other people we deem stupid, lazy, or recalcitrant.
I don’t understand vajrayana very well, but I feel safe in saying that using teachings to justify belittling people who are not doing what I want them to do, or suggesting people ought to act out their anger or passions, was not what Tsokny Rinpoche was trying to get across. I am certain Trungpa Rinpoche wasn’t.
Don’t believe I do know EXACTLY what Robert feels. Experience, practice and study tell me that such strong emotions are never as simple as 1+1 =2(dammit!). Add to that being accused of anonymous posts, sanctioning insulting behavior, holding views I do not hold, claims I’ve said things I haven’t, and… well, I can see anger and sarcasm alright, but I want to distance myself from it because it makes
no
sense.
You have never asked about feelings, and I’m not sure, in a written forum, why that’s so important. Face to face I assure you, Aspergers is not my problem. And a hint: false accusations don’t get me in a sharing mood.
But I have seen people get scarred and disheartened by administrative and acharaya shenanigans. That’s why I’m involved here. I am convinced the lack of accountability in this community is poison.
I’m currently reading about how societies have developed from tribes to chiefdom’s, then states. Many relevant points, but apropos here; in order for any society to develop beyond ‘tribe’ they must first have a working system for resolving conflict. Without that any fledgling society blows up in some way and scatters.
Shambhala Int. has had some leeway with that because it is a subculture: we can call the cops. But Shambhala has conflicts that are outside the purview of standard legal systems, and there they drop the ball without any honor.
I almost don’t care about the corruption of higher teachings. I honestly believe if that’s what’s going on, they will get their comeuppance. It’s kind of built in. But on a more pedestrian level, any organization, and even more so one like Shambhala has an obligation to take care of its members and prevent or resolve conflicts that arise. We could argue, but I think that may be the greater defilement. Or, if there is a unifying factor for community, it is more likely shamatha than vajrayana.
You are mistaken to say these discussions are useless. RFS is still very new. Any consensus large enough to have an effect has always had discussion and exchange of ideas at its foundation. Unless all you want are mobs in the streets.
Your right James.. Thanks.
“But I have seen people get scarred and disheartened by administrative and acharya shenanigans. That’s why I’m involved here. I am convinced the lack of accountability in this community is poison…. Shambhala has conflicts that are outside the purview of standard legal systems, and there they drop the ball without any honor.”
James, well said. I’m completely with you. Poison is the word. This is why I became involved here too.
“I almost don’t care about the corruption of higher teachings. I honestly believe if that’s what’s going on, they will get their comeuppance. It’s kind of built in. But on a more pedestrian level, any organization, and even more so one like Shambhala has an obligation to take care of its members and prevent or resolve conflicts that arise. We could argue, but I think that may be the greater defilement.”
Yes. Over time–and with the help of the insights of everyone here–I’ve been trying to make sense of how this all came to be. The first unambiguously jarring moment came when viewing the new shrine for the first time. Since then, I’ve been feeling more and more that it is all connected, the glue being that age-old temptation of power, albeit for the best of motives. The engine: exceptionalism, leading to hubris.
“Or, if there is a unifying factor for community, it is more likely shamatha than vajrayana.”
Yes, or generosity, or kindness. I’ve long felt this community was “top-heavy” in the sense of trying to centre itself at the vajrayana level. The glaring problem there of course is that not everyone is a vajrayana practitioner. In fact, surely vajrayana practitioners are even in the minority within SI (?), especially when you include all those people who are focussed on doing levels and may never wish to go beyond Level V or for that matter Golden Key.
When the senior teachers have had a mahasiddha as their guru and been given crazy wisdom teachings not everyone might understand well enough … placed in a position of power *akin* to that of a guru, and interacting with beginning Buddhists, beginning Shambhalians, or for that matter even those a little more practiced, then all the more mahayana has got to be the common ground, not vajrayana. Otherwise the potential for abusive situations is ever-present.
The poison you speak of James has worked its way deeply into this organization. If they are unable to recognize it and extract it, I believe it will, all by itself, send the dralas running for the hills.
Dear Robert
Thanks for the link to the new article on fundraising on ST.
The whole thing is a little clearer but I still find the whole affair of fundraising quite dubious – for example CTR never did such thing as this -he had dues and money from programmes plus I suppose wealthy benefactors.
It is still putting too much strain on the members all the time -whatever they give……for an organisation to be in permanent fundraising mode is not good financially. You fundraise when you need funds then you stop -its not supposed to be a perpetual thing – in this respect we are getting into capitalism proper like in the UK where are our universities are now mimicking the states with drives for money – I hate that kind of attitude to money – somethings just have to be funded by the public sector by general taxation. Here the concept of tithing also comes in where the wealthier people pay more for poor people to get a rung on the ladder.
Heres what I would do sell the Kalapa Court in Halifax and let that start accumulating funds -the Sakyong is hardly ever in Halifax anyway.
How would I create a financially stable and increasing sangha – I would start from the grassroots -not charge so much for programmes and make sure when you become a member that you will give a level 1 in the future.
- so there is more money from programme revenue around the world.
This continual emphasis on fundraising for any religious organisation smacks of the corporate invasion of the religious sphere -it was a wrong path in Tibet and it is a wrong path in the west. I say again to people dont give any money to SI until you have some democratic input into the whole way the institution is governed and to do that successfully you also have to have some input on the way the budget for the organisation is spent and that requires a National Assembly as CTR wanted.
So any organisation I am involved with in the future has to be gearing itself to this form of ‘democratic input’ -start thinking people and start making your views known on how you wish your organisation to be funded and the money spent.
Best
Rita Ashworth
“Add to that being accused of anonymous posts, sanctioning insulting behavior, holding views I do not hold, claims I’ve said things I haven’t, and… well, I can see anger and sarcasm alright, but I want to distance myself from it because it makes
no
sense”.
I just reread this. Never accused you of anonymous posts. What was said is that you, and others here, focused on Robert’s anger, still are, and not the angry, insulting, name-calling, dismissive posts, of “anonymous posters” too cowardly to use their real names, ( Benny Hanna called John a drunk, is that demeaning name calling? you and others said nothing) or a despotic family member, whose puerile, nasty posts started this whole tone. There is still a “cultish” quality here, that refuses to address this. Particularly in the case of the family member. And why I think that it is too late for endless discussions, however fascinating, when the situation has devolved to this level..that that is o.k for a family member who is being held up to worship and emulate by naive others in his golden neru jackets . He, more than anyone should have been called on this. But people are still afraid to do so, and this is exactly why, one could say , things have devolved to the level it has in Shambhala I. But In a group dynamic, it is not uncommon for the group to attack the messenger that points out things too painful yet to really absorb, ( and yes, never mind about the style, we know he is at the screaming rage point, and I guarantee you would be in a worse state if you had experienced the same level of bullshit over the years, screaming” rage would be completely understandable.) it might even be where you might be at in a few more years of this insanity.
It is also common to “change the subject” even not “see ” what is happening when it is too beyond belief. Have you read the latest post on Shambhala News re: the Langdrang? It is unbelievable!!!That’s what should be being discussed, not Robert. So to focus on him, is enabling that to be ignored here, and that’s a shame.
And of course Tsokny R isn’t encouraging aggression, it says that in the quote. It’s that a “Vajrayana practioner isn’t suppose to critize the emotions as something awful “( the end of the quote) and that’s been the tone here. Except when it comes to anonymous posters, or a family member of the cult. I am so tired of this double standard. It is exactly why we are in this mess.
Dear Rita:
Yes the endless fund-raising of Tibetan lamas, and the fundraising of SI are definitely connected, and the West is very very tired of it. Billions sent back to Asia . It sounds like the plan for SI now is to follow suite , modelling a dead horse.. It is , once again, and example of “ineptitude” to be doing what the Tibetans are doing, when the honeymoon around the endless fundraising for projects and temples, is over. People are sick of it and it is soon going to collapse. I really think you will see all these operations moving to Tawain and Malaysia, where people expect to give money for abishekas and pujas. That is exactly what the Ladrang sounds like , i.e. to give money for blessings and merit. They are a little late and better hurry up, because most Tibetan lamas have already moved their operations to a place where this is perfectly fine. A more medieval concept of “dharma”.
Calling someone a drunk is not necessarily an insult. I am a drunk too, I think that John and I cleared it up. Leave me out of your crap. You have no problem with numerous other posters who use Tibetan or first name only. It is only that we don’t agree. I have nothing to say to you chris, or robert, that should be fine.
Dear Chris
Thanks for your post re fundraising.
Yes to spread the teachings in the west requires a different attitude both financially and educationally from the east.
I read that CTR wanted the shambhala teachings to be spread to millions I dont think you can do that with the concept of a Ladrang –its just too centralised we are used to decentralised government here with sources of power being balanced by various institutions consider for example the growth of union power in the UK and America.
Rinpoche also said to ‘infilitrate’ institutions in the west – we have not done that to a great degree we are not opening the concept of shambhala to the wider world much in the context of politics and how we want the world to be –we have no real economic answers to the problems of the world and how it could be governed responsibly so that each citizen has access to their needs in a wholesome society.
Fundraising is a big full stop to entertaining these wider issues of how we see our world being governed responsibly.
We have to have a much more constructive plan about how things could go forward.
Best
Rita Ashworth
“Hello!” (is this mike on?)
I have just reread the article on fundraising on ST and again it strikes me as being a very tepid repsonse to financial planning for an enlightened society.
Principally the article focuses on the Sakyongs activity in the world and the support of himself and his family and latterly the activities of SI itself.
I find this attitude to money very parochical and embarassing. Rinpoche wanted the Shambhala teachings spread to millions of people -he wanted us to envision a Shambhala world not the petty functionings of a shambhala organisation and its fundraising drives. So there definately has to be some wider vision of how you would meet the world head on more. I have suggested some things above in a previous post and it would be good if other people could suggest other things aswell as how we could may be restructure the shambhala teachings so that they reached people around the world.
Is the mike on John Tischer writes – a cryptic remark -what are you talking about – is it the lack of posts -its the weekend so I am posting some.
Anyway yes is the mike on? – I think Jerry Rubin made that remark when he took over the Frost programme on British TV in the late sixties -perhaps you could utube it. When the world is in distress you have to take over the TV studio……..countries and people have learned that. So at the Congress -take it over…..hassle it about issues – take the mike over and have some chaos in the TV studio/congress for awhile -dont be a silent witness -even – take the mike over.
I just went to a talk with a lady named Bonny Greer an expat American lving in GB -she has become a minor celebrity in the UK because of taking part on a programme called Question Time in the UK where she stood up to a British right-winger named Nick Griffin- I gave her a copy of the Shambhala book because she said she was interested in culture – obiviously she would not find it on Amazon as Mr Goldberger suggested so I put it into her hands. I wonder what she will make of it.
So yes take the mike over in more ways than one people -they pulled the fundraising spiel probably had a press conference about it and decided on the article in ST ( also where did the offerings article disappear too -another pull?)
Also where did Mr Dodds disappear to -did I scare him off -I was expecting a reply – turn the mike on!
Best
Rita Ashworth
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=shambhabala+sacred+path+of+the+warrior
Hi Rita, long time, thanks for the shout out, and here is a link to the book on amazon that can’t be found on amazon. Try spanish amazon for the book in spanish. So much for being in a vault. Cheers
http://www.amazon.com/Shambhala-Sacred-Warrior-Chogyam-Trungpa/dp/1590304519/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1257001631&sr=8-2-fkmr0
I think it’s getting close to the time for some Sakyong jokes…I know many of us have serious concerns, but
it seems obvious at this point that it’s very unlikely
that they will ever be addressed. The whole
thing is ridiculous…I mean this person who is
supposed to be an example for others…and we keep waiting and waiting…and all he can do is sit in a chair
and look good and have his minions ask for money.
We might as well have a little fun with it, in my opinion.
and all he can do is sit in a chair
and look good and have his minions ask for money.
He does more than that. He pisses you retards off pretty good. Makes you go all spazzy. Thats pretty funny I think.
The way the Vidyadhara propagated Shambhala was by having his students teach it. At Level one, one could have a glimpse of the fruition of the path.I’ve seen a lot of his students teach it, and the magic was there. Not so now…
even with some of the seniors who are still involved. And some of the newer ones don’t have a clue. Instead of using the Training as the way to propagate Shambhala, now the path is more focused…like a funnel, or a carrot on the end of a long stick….It narrows who can hear the teachings…
the opposite, I feel, of what the Vidyadhara intended. The fruition was always there…at the beginning even. It worked. It didn’t need to be fixed.
How many…..
Thank you, Danny…you’re a good example…of…something.
I just attended a great weekend program at the Boston Shambhala Center with Kilung R. He is a 39 year old lineage holder of the Longchen Nyingthig terma and a student of Dilgo Khyentse R.
There is a a lot of dharma being taught at Shambhala Centers. Many people in the Shambhala mandala of all ages are making very deep connections with genuine lineage teachings and putting them into practice.
I hope that all of you deepen your connections in the same way — either within the Shambhala mandhala, or through your own practice or through another teacher. Kilung R. is a good one — by the way. He has a good website that you can find if you google “Kilung” or “Kilung Foundation”.
As a result of the removal of the Buddhist Shrine from the Halifax Shambhala Centre, I have reduced my dues to $5.00. I have witnessed the power of economic boycotts in Mississippi many years ago and I think now is the time begin a world wide sangha economic boycott as removing the Buddhist shrine is a serious departure from the original vision of the Druk Sakyong.
A vast amount of criticism of the Sakyong on this site has to do with his formal linkage of Shambhala with Buddhism. Now we’re talking about a boycott because of the REMOVAL of a Buddhist shrine! Huh?
In Lady Diana’s book, Dragon Thunder, she refers to a teaching given by Chogyam Trungpa in 1986, on page 373: “He made his last visit to to Karme Chöling in June of 1986, where he gave a seminar on the indivisibilty of the Shambhala and the Buddhist teachings.”
Does anyone have any recollection of this or know where I (as a non-vajrayana practioner of this lineage) can listen to a recording of it? Perhaps this is even irrelevant, I don’t really know.
Thanks!
Rich
If you were around “back in the day” you would recall that there were separate Buddhist and Shambhala shrines. That is how CTR set things up.
I think people may be taking issue with a variety of things: the de-emphasis on CTR’s lineage as evidenced by the removal of the shrine photos; the loss of a secular track in the Shambhala teachings / the Buddha-zation of Shambhala; The changes in basic meditation instruction (with implications of the view involved….) from that of CTR; the influence of the Ripa family lineage; the retro-tibetan-lifestyle tendencies and emphasis on “royalty” and the trappings thereof; the serious lack of transparency in the finances; the use of proxies to address concerns about all the above rather than dealing directly.
All this stuff has shown up as either main topics or subtexts in threads. That these things are being discussed shouldn’t be viewed as a threat but rather as the sangha becoming more aware. The self-liberation of Shambhala, as it were…….
Interesting Kates post re her dues – I wonder if many people are doing this.
Edmund re the talk at KCL would be great if we could have some input on this -but indivisibility can mean many things – he could have been referring to the container principle or the actual practice of meditation.
I always heard shambhala described as the container for the Buddhist teachings but that this still meant that shambhala was secular for everyone you could see indivisibility in this way aswell. Two different streams but the buddhist part for people who wanted to be Buddhists -particularly relevant to the monastic sangha you could say here.
Plus of the course if you read the book Shambhala Sacred Path of the Warrior there is so much emphasis in that book on shambhala being a secular path.
Myself yes I can see that the shambhala teachings may be a touch more relevant to our times than the dharma because perhaps of the emphasis on fearlessness and primordial confidence. But I still feel the basic tenets of Shambhala can be found in many religions and secular morality.
I really think they still need to be separate and I agree with others that the
making of Shambhala into a quasi-religion is wrong-headed and I also
dont think it will work in the world for many people aswell.
I was trying to think of some comparison here -for example take reiki that is practiced by people of many faiths and none and it is flourishing in the west -millions are practicing it -it does have its orgins in Tibet but through the spread of it in Asia and the west it has superseded its connections to its ‘religious’ roots. I think that is similar process that CTR wanted to happen with Shambhala -thats why he was talking of millions of people practicing it.
Well best for now
Rita Ashworth
SI is now adding more Tibetaphile overlay to “silence “ the sangha further . , a thinly disguised augmentation and seal for pseudo harmony, etc… To use these things as antidotes when this overlay of Asian culture IS the very problem, and the denial and silence that has ensued as a result, will not work. The more SI stifles communication the more in danger it is of “imploding from the inside”.
It must be that SI , i.e. the SI that makes policy, is so isolated from the sangha at large, that they are operating in a vacuum, not only in terms of the students, but even in terms of the population at large.
People are sick of Tibetan cultural overly, (which is very different from dharma). Even Dzogsar Rinpoche, in East West, is trying to expose this and get Westerners to wake up about “Tibetan cultural and lama hypocrisy” re: what is the dharma and what is an attempt to colonize us. Do they thing we will be an endless teat, to recreate for them their aristocratic lifestyles, by sending all our monies to India? Now third rate “rinpoches” who suddenly appear & “jump on the American and Western bandwagon” and also have a “monastery in Tibet or India” and monks and nuns to support?
One should read that letter from Dzongsar R again. It was amazingly brave of him to call this to our attention, it can’t have been easy, but if you read itcarefully, he knows this is going to explode and be exposed , sooner than later, and he is afraid that as Westerners, we will do what we usually do, we will reject the whole thing, i.e. throw out the baby with the bathwater, i.e. the dharma with the tiresome endless fundraising and hypocrisy of lamas, who may appear to be doing this for altruistic reasons alone, but are also attempting to recreate the aristocratic/monastic lifestyles they lost or in some cases never had.
What is going on in SI now is the very worse aspects of Tibetan lama culture, bizarely hooked up with corporate US the endless setting up of monasteries to “rebuild” or corporate projects to send monies to , the blatant and amatuerist, and desperate pleas for monies sent to “preserve” an antiquated Tibetan/lama/royalty monarchy of Sakyongs for 1000 years! ( where have we heard that 1000 year reign before?)
In Tibet, as in other Asian countries, they may have been serfs, and landowners, but they would give “deference” before “veneration” for many years. In the West, we jump into “veneration” and cannot extricate ourselves without : `1. leaving in disgust, or 2 . staying in and denying the cultural dissonance until it explodes.
You can’t superimpose 14 c. Tibetan culture on a Western mind , that values freedom of speech, conflict resolution etc. We are not Asians and never never will be.
Again, it is time, and it is happening all over sanghas, to question what is the dharma and what is cultural overlay. SI is going in an atavistic direction .
Thanks for posting this, Mark. It’s no longer available to the general public on the HSC Web site. This talk helped me to understand why I feel that I’m speaking to people from another lineage when I talk with the Sakyong’s students–there’s a gap. Funny that Acharya Lobel says the container is leaking; I think it’s a new container altogether. Also odd that he thinks no one has said these things before, when they’ve been said for years–it’s just that the Sakyong/Richard Reoch ignore them. Perhaps they’re correct, above the fray and all that. At the same time, there is a sense of loss among Trungpa’s students, as well as a sense that the politically correct thing to do is to always agree. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
Was SMR never recognized as a Tulku while his father CTR was alive?
If not why not?
Edmund,
That was the last seminar VCTR taught at Karme Choling. He mentioned it in passing…it was only one time and metaphorical and brief. If you compare it to what he said about Shambhala/Buddhism before that,
since 1978, you would realize that it was not a definitive statement
To Chris (Nov. 2, 2009)
WHAT letter from Dzongsar Rinpoche? Lucille Magnus
Dear Lucille:
http://mindrollinginternational.org/dharmadhrishti/journal/
Hi Edmund,
I watched a video of that talk some years ago, around 1997 I think. Here is my memory of it (someone who has a more recent or accurate memory please correct me). First of all, it was very brief. Rinpoche looked quite frail (though was certainly cheerful) and said very little. I remember being struck by how slowly he spoke as well. More or less the first thing he said, I think, was roughly, “Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to proclaim the inseparability of the Buddhist and Shambhala teachings”. There were just a few more sentences from him, then a couple of questions from the audience, which I seem to remember him answering extremely briefly–”yes” or “mm-hmm” with a smile, mostly.
Those of us watching the video had a discussion afterwards, and there was certainly no sense from anyone at the time that what Rinpoche meant was the creation of a fifth school of Tibetan Buddhism, the removal of Kagyu and Nyingma lineage holders from the shrine etc. That wasn’t even on the radar, at least amongst our group. We wouldn’t have been able to conceive of it. The way that phrase was taken was along the lines of: “I have come to announce that the Shambhala teachings have now been fully, properly planted and integrated into our sangha. We have achieved this, thanks to all your work. There are no more birth pangs, and no conflicts between the Shambhala path and the Buddhist path.”
In other words (and again I’m just passing along my understanding at the time, which was shared in our group): there is no contradiction or difficulty in pursuing both the Buddhist and Shambhala paths; they go together–the context being a long period where many people were I guess confused about this question. Ie, some long-time Buddhists had been wondering whether or why they should also complete the Shambhala levels, some just not having any feel for them; many Shambhalians did not wish to have anything to do with Buddhism, or religion in general. So Rinpoche, as I understood him, seemed to be saying: there is no problem here. We have achieved this integration. Shambhala can now go out into the world from our sangha. People can be Shambhalians, or they can be Buddhists, or they can be both. There is no problem at all.
Thinking about this talk today, I would say that this word “inseparability” or “indivisibility” (or whichever such word he actually used) implies to me two entities that are fully in harmony with one another–like when we speak of a couple in love as being “inseparable”.
I don’t know if this is even vaguely useful, but thought I’d throw it out there. Again, anyone who knows the talk better than me, please chime in.
Thanks to John and Damcho for your responses.
Clearly Shambhala and buddhism go all the way back to the first King of Shambhala and the buddha himself and they’re not yet, apparently seeking a divorce. As a new student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, it is tricky to ascertain their relationship and my tendency is to seek inspiration from any of his students or admirers, wherever I can find them. So whereas I have been moved to tears many times at my local Shambhala Centre, I have also befriended a couple of detractors of the Sakyong who knew VCTR (as well as any it seems) and listen closely to Dzongsar Kyentse’s non-sectarianism and no logo attitude quite eagerly.
I wonder if the dissent here is somewhat informed by the fact that there was no model for not only the crazy 17 years of his western life but also his departure from it. I feel there’s still a profound teaching to be realised from the groundlessness which followed his parinirvana. Each time I feel his enormous love for humanity I can’t help but wonder if he may not wince slightly at some of the negativity here in the face of so much suffering elsewhere and the need to propogate his teachings without regard to obstacle. Just sitting at a bustop, there’s so much we could do to help peoples’ suffering without sitting at home demeaning others.
When my own father died our family dynamics shifted dramatically and I was really unskilled in expressing my anger about my mother’s corresponding manipulations. It just made things worse and really changed nothing for the better but my own awareness of the need to accept the unimaginable and find a good way to be in the world without some apparently unneeded support.
I can’t imagine how extraordinary it must have been to have known such a guide as Chogyam Trungpa personally. His vision was clearly so far beyond anyone else’s that contentiousness in the continuity of it was inevitable. Surely though, the bottom line has to be, what can we do RIGHT NOW with his teachings? Which busstop will we hang out at? To whom and to how many can we give our love, as sentient beings without labels?
Thanks damchö.
Edmund Butler writes:
I can’t help but wonder if [CTR] may not wince slightly at some of the negativity here in the face of so much suffering elsewhere and the need to propogate his teachings without regard to obstacle.
You make an interesting point.
Maybe CTR would enjoy the updates Bill Karelis publishes on this website?
And maybe CTR would not mind the negativity so much as the stuck energy, the way people allow themselves to be blocked by obstacles, as you say.
Sometimes if a group of people are contending with the same obstacle, a bit of discussion could be useful?
Sometimes, before we can rush out and help people’s suffering, we have to spend some time with our own pain and learn to be honest with ourselves. Be willing to give up hypocrisy.
I agree with you that merely discussing complaints on a website is a dead-end, in some sense. But it’s so wonderful to feel that dead-end despair and hopelessness first-hand, personally, you know, rather than to simply capitulate to some silly person who is threatened by my negativity.
I think sometimes we have to be “squeezed” into doing the right thing. Perhaps Mr. Karelis only embarked on his current path after feeling the dead-end of trying to reform SI for a while? Maybe it was that painful, “negative” process that is now bearing fruit?
I suspect there is a certain loyalty that many people feel to the organizations that CTR created. It can take a great deal of pain sometimes before people can be ready to make big changes.
Are you threatened by other people’s pain? I am, often.
Twenty-five years later, I think I am only beginning to understand what “basic goodness” is and what it is not. I now trust that I am primordially “good” beyond good and bad, and the uselessness of striving to be morally good by rejecting my shadow aspects that I have labeled as “bad” in the past. A group can reject its shadow as well. For me, that is what has been evolving over time within SI, i.e. a very narrow, moralistic, “do gooder” concept of goodness, that has the shadow side screaming to be heard , after years of repressing it. There were many opportunities for SI to open up to its shadow side over the past two decades; instead it was marginalized, ignored, and now repressed, except for this site, which still had its share of “shadow repressors.” Not surprising too, that some of these “shadow repressors” have been quite nasty, although less vociferous lately.
I recently had a conversation with a unconventional lama, more in the spirit of CTR, who was being “lectured to” by a student on his manifestation, i.e. not living up to some construct the student had about how he should teach. He answered the student by saying that the one thing he knew for sure, was that he was 100% “good. It was clear he was talking about basic goodness. He also said that “if a person cannot enjoy samsara, they will never be able to enjoy nirvana, referring to its inseparable nature.
As I have brushed just the surface of Tibetan culture, and related to real Tibetans, they are earthy and quite in touch with their genuine selves, but we only see a display of “outer group behavior” and think that is all that is going on. After thousands of years of living in a quite repressive, monastic/oligarchy, they don’t give up their discerning intelligence very quickly. They are far far less naïve about Lamaism, they have an inner self that doesn’t get confused about display vs. essence. They can show deference, yet inwardly are quite cynical about the whole thing until they test the situation thoroughly and then, and only then, will give their devotion. Much of the confusion over time with lamas have been our mistaking outer display for inner conviction. We just modeled the outer display and way too quickly, and gave up our intelligence.
There is an amazing picture on the Shambhala News site, of RR and company blissed out and smiling inanely while making “offerings” during some ceremony in Orissa, and the Tibetans all looking normal, and “matter of fact”. It captures the cultural differences quite nicely.They don’t lose their minds over all this.
Anyway, as Jung once said: “I would rather be whole than good,” I would rather make mistakes and take risks in discovering my true nature, and all its uncomfortable areas, like rage, and disgust, disbelief etc. than stay inside some box of group conformity with rules and edicts on decorum, particularly, rules and edicts on decorum that come out of another century and culture. To me, that would be a sure way to insanity, not liberation.
I think the emphasis on group conformity and pseudo harmony that one’s sees amongst Buddhists, is actually coming from a fear that the “game is up” regarding cultural Lamaism, and the recognition that Westerners are beginning to wake up and re-discover their basic goodness that has always been there, which would include natural intelligence, discrimination and our own wisdom. We are no longer willing to buy into the myth of Tibetans being extra specially kind, and gentle, and models of peace. That myth has been a trap covering over the jewel of real dharma that each of us has to discover within.
Thank you Chris!
Chris writes:
Not surprising too, that some of these “shadow repressors” have been quite nasty
Perhaps all aggression, all violence is merely a way to repress our own shadow?
Maybe that’s why CTR talked about “making friends with ourselves”. At least I think he talked about that. Am I just imagining it? lol. Sometimes I wonder if the people in SI have read any of the same books I have read.
Just last night, a friend and I were discussing a passage in The Myth of Freedom about how we sometimes want to rush out to “help” other people, but end up making a nuisance of ourselves instead, mainly because we cannot stand ourselves.
Chris,
Thank you so much for your recent posts on the Tibetan cultural container of Buddhism and your reflections on your long journey coming to understand basic goodness, as well as your insights into Tibetan culture and lamaism. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have no experience with SI, but have been studying with a Tibetan lama (who only speaks Tibetan) for the last nine years, and studying with Reggie Ray in the lineage of CTR for the last year. Your insights help clarify so much. Even though my Tibetan teacher has rejected all of my unconscious attempts to deify him (which come out of my Catholic background and other neuroses) , he is surrounded by American students who have deified him, who have skipped the hard work at grappling with their self hatred (is self-hatred or the belief that we are bad, not, indeed, endemic to Americans?) and continue to defer to wisdom that is outside of themselves. I am not sure if Rinpoche understands that dynamic is transpiring within our sangha, or if he is just used to “lama worship” and doesn’t question it, or if he doesn’t have the tools to address it, or if he somehow, benefits from it. These have been painful questions to ask myself. It has been painful to examine how much I have been searching outside of myself for a savior.
I don’t mean to detract from the discussions of SI here, as I know that is a primary concern to many here. I mean rather to add that these sorts of struggles are happening elsewhere in Tibetan Buddhist dharma centers. It must be especially sad to witness it at Shambhala, given CTR’s extraordinary courage to reject lamaism and separate the Tibetan cultural container from the essence of Buddhism. He offered this gift at such a high price to himself.
Blessings to you and to all who question. And blessings, most especially, to those who don’t.
To Edmund’s comments
I know people who were inspired and came to Trungpa Rinpche’s sangha specifically because negativity was not taboo. They had been in other spiritual groups where harmony wasn’t maintained but rather judged by the absence of any dissent, disagreement or questioning. If you were negative about anything, maybe how many drugs were being consumed, or someone’s arrogance, or asked too many questions, pointed out things that didn’t seem right, you were to some degree, sometimes subtle sometimes not, treated as not worthy of the spiritual mojo on offer.
In Buddhism questioning is not only allowed it is necessary and intrinsic to the path. We ought to have training in debate. Buddhism has had, up to now, a reputation of attracting a relatively intelligent following due to that. One isn’t asked to check one’s critical intelligence at the door. If you are, may alarm bells ring painfully loud.
I doubt Trungpa Rinpoche would have thought the level of negativity was fine, but I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have disregarded it. One of the main reasons critique like here on RFS has reached the proportions it has, is because it is one way communication. Humans tend to get louder when they feel unheard. There is no dialogue or relationship, no discernable concern for the issues brought up. This meeting with Mr. Lobel is an anomaly at this point, an exception to the rule.
Disregarding a problem doesn’t work. (That seems to have been the effort so far.) In fact disregarding obstacles, according to any tradition and any respectable psychological model, is an unhealthy way to relate to obstacles. With the exception of minor neurotic tics, disregarding obstacles makes them worse.
Milarepa invited the demons in for tea, he didn’t pretend they weren’t there.
Conventionally the study of denial and how unhealthy it can be is quite extensive and sometimes horrific.
This brings me to a point where I’m wondering what people mean when they say “help people”? How are we ‘helping’? How does critique in any way prevent that? Or how does a lack of critique help people? Is the idea to have a place free of disagreement in order to present ‘real’ dharma? Considering the aim of dharma, isn’t that like putting the cart waaaay before the horse? Getting people to practice; is that how we help? What inspires people to practice? Probably many answers to that, but it’s a safe bet telling others what they ought to be thinking, how they should see the world, what ‘view’ they must hold (or be wrong) is going to be a deal breaker.
Edmund, I don’t ‘just sit at home and demean others’. I have a life. But given the lack of accountability in Shambhala, and having witnessed the damage that can do, I believe discussing these issues openly may be the most healthy and least aggressive way to immunize people from the kind of naive devotion that is the ground for the kinds of abuse that grow like mold on the culture of disregard.
In the inspiration that:”It’s sufficient to involve oneself in an illusion, to experience real consequences.” (S.J.Lec)
Dear James:
I am glad you are still posting. I wanted to say how informative your posts generally are, I am very sorry if I gratuitously insulted you. That was not my intent. It made me very sad if I did. Underneath the anger, is great sadness about all this. I sometimes feel I could cry a lake of tears.
Chris
Dear Yeshe:
Thanks for you blessings. I find Reggie Ray quite brilliant, he can transmit the dharma , both intellectually and experientially. Despite SI trying to disempower him, he has many students here, his dathuns are packed, and many of CTR students here, students not easily impressed, are quite impressed with what he is doing. They often go up to his retreat center to do the Sadhana of M. He is very very brave and has stood up to quite the barrage of insults from younger SMR students, who I think are mostly angry that he left SI and underneath miss him.
I also looked up Dzongsar Rinpoche on Wikipedia, curious because he is so outspoken about this necessary tectonic shift in our thinking , and was amazed at how he is manifesting outside the box of typical Tibetan lamaism. Of course we know about his film making, but I didn’t know that he sets up foundations for things outside of traditional fundraising for monks and nuns, and rebuilding temples such as the White Lotus foundation for the neediest of children in refugee camps, or a foundation in California for women and children, i.e. not just for his monastery. Siddhartha’s Intent, states that it is to present Buddhism outside of its cultural trappings. Not the usual “to preserve Tibetan culture” that you see on almost all websites ( they have even added this one to on of the many fundraising sites of SMR). Dzongsar Rinpoche, also offers a 3 year retreat, adapted to Westerners that you can participate in, while still being a householder, doing much of the studying online, etc. meeting once in a while together for a “reasonable price). All of this, without blaring trumpets, trumped up marketing about how the world “can’t live without his work”, just humbly doing what needs to be done, without endless self-congratulationary tweeters, and news items bragging about “how special we are”. No big deal.. In that article East-West, he talks about “helping” Here’s what he says in the article about it:
“The aspiration of a Bodhisattva transcends mere sympathy for “needy” or “helpless” beings. Having that kind of compassion invariably leads one to become co-dependent, insecure and eventually egoistic, because one ends up defining oneself by the extent to which one has helped. By contrast, Bodhisattvas are not attached to their acts of help or the result. Their aim is to liberate beings from the traps of life and the myth of freedom”.
Today, I remembered Khenpo Tultrim Gyatso Rinpoche, how kind and generous he was, never fundraising, just wandering and teaching the dharma. When he came to KCL he would always visit us with Tagi, and give whatever monies he had been given as an offering to Tagi for clothes or items we might need. He always gave away the material goods, and the dharma, freely. One never forgets such a thing and it is probably the most powerful teaching of “letting go.” In other words, there are lamas and teachers that totally manifest for us generosity, which in turn inspires us.
In this country, immigrants usually “give back” while assimilating into our culture. We aren’t just an endless fund-raising source to “preserve their Tibetan culture”Tibetan culture is not the dharma. Once the honeymoon with Tibetan culture is over in this country, the well will dry up.. This is not medieval Tibet where the landowners and serfs had no choice but to be indentured forever, climbing up those endless Potola Palace stairs, with half their “harvest” slung over their shoulders.
James, thanks for your good comments.
I came to Trungpa Rinpoche’s sangha for the crazy wisdom it offers and the fearlessness it presents in addressing the negativity of samsara. In that spirit, I’ve gained good insight by debating the issues raised here with “senior students”, both SI and others and I’ve not yet felt hesitation in those conversations. On the contary, I’ve found a culture where feedback is welcome and where everyones’ opinion is respected. Ultimately, we all have a different way of rationalising the situation and for the moment, I’m finding alot of goodness both within and around SI, dissent notwithstanding.
At the same time, I’m making a distinction between negativity and negative negativity. The issues debated at RFS contribute to the dharma path we all tread- the doom and gloom does not.
Thanks, James, your last post was right to the point and spot on.
Might as well be called the Chris and John T. Hour
Re: Tibetan lamas exploiting Western students, and being culturally chauvinistic
I appreciate this issue, and I do agree with the problems. Especially as they appear to manifest in this day and age.
However, I DO think it is important to not forget to appreciate and preserve Tibetan Buddhist Culture in its most profound and unpolluted form, as we HAVE experienced it by the great lamas brought over by Trungpa Rinpoche , and by his own expression of appreciation for his own teachers and his favorite Tibetan Buddhist scholars. And there are many current great Tibetan Teachers with whom many of our sangha are studying today, who do not fall into this category.
Trungpa Rinpoche brought us the pure unadulterated Dharma that he learned from his Tibetan teachers and presented it to us from his own experience of the truth of it, like fresh baked bread, beyond cultural trappings.
Yet, he also stressed the importance of his lineage. He brought over His Holiness the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa, His Holiness Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, Tenga Rinpoche, and Khenpo Tsulrim Gyamso Rinpoche. (anyone else??) I don’t think that any of these great lamas had any agenda other that purely teaching American students at the request of Trungpa Rinpoche for the sake of furthering Dharma in the West.
The Vidyadhara introduced these people to us to give us a better understanding of the lineage he came out of, as well as to provide us with opportunities to learn further. (as was mentioned in another post.) I remember hearing a talk once, (The series on the Karmapas, just before the first visit of the 16th Karmapa,) where he spoke of how very special this visit would be and encouraged people to pay attention to the “power and energy” of this being, “manifesting the Karmapa. principle.” (my version from memory)
He also seemed very appreciative of the importance of the Kagyu lineage as a component of how it worked together with the Nyingma lineage, as well as of its own power and profundity.
Dear Ms Lipson
Thank you for the comment on the Kagyu Lineage – I well remember the generosity and openness of kagyu lamas when they visited Britain -namely Manchester in 1976.
In those days I was a Kagyu through and through – I even typed up the
sections of the book the Karmapas of Tibet by Karma Thinley Rinpoche edited by Jampa Thaye (David Stott Rinpoche’s Regent) on an old manual
typewriter, however, I now have a few buts with the Kagyu Lineage. I dont think it is engaging with the west on its own terms hence my interest in the Shambhala teachings for all faiths and none that CTR brought in.
I wish the Kagyu lineage would talk more about Shambhala and how to manifest an enlightened society in the world as Trungpa did -thats primarily one of the reasons I joined Vajradahtu as it then was.
On another tack Edmund made a point about people being gloomy about the present state of SI – I am little despondent that is true……..about the state of many Tibetans hesitancy to engage with the west fully and the way CTR taught in the west. What do I mean? Well I believe good people in the west are capable of manifesting the shambhala teachings if we had equal access to the teachings which SI has now hidebound with all questions of finance and samaya to the Sakyong -to me that is not right. I was thinking for example would Gerald Red Elk not be offered the werma sadhana by CTR! Surely not and are we westerners not as capable of manifesting enlightened society as native Americans.
No I think there is something in the Tibetan hierarchy and now the Sakyongs way of doing things that is holding back on full engagement with the west. Tibet culture really is slowly ebbing away from the world – I think its in its quasi death throes and Tibetan lamas are not being fully open and generous enough now to really step into the westerners way of doing things. We need free speech, we need a national assembly as CTR wanted for the spread of the teachings- we need ‘a balance of powers’ in any society that comes about from the shambhala teachings and this is not now happening -so yes I am unhappy about this.
It really needs people in authority in SI namely the Acharyas to leap and to really ask themselves deep questions about how they want this shambhala society to come about. And we need kagyu lamas pointing their noses into what is happening in SI aswell – I do believe that. Ask them in -tell them to be curious and blantantly questioning as DKR is doing!
Yes where did the deep questions comment come from -why include it in this post? -Well when I was at a dathun at gampo abbey Pema Chodron said ask deeper questions -so thats what I am asking the followers of CTR to do -ask deeper questions about what kind of society ‘you’ want for this tiresome old world – or I believe if you dont things are going to get worse.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
o yeh and a note to mr goldberger -thanks for the post to the shambhala book -but I think you missed the point I was making. I gave the book to Ms Greer because she is well-connected in the UK and America to cultural and political movements. Her book on Obama called Obamamusic should be required reading for Kasung I believe because it talks about politics, and culture in the US and Europe.
CTR said infiltrate – I am infilitrating in a good way even if SI is not. mr goldberger why dont you pen some words on the shambhala book for Amazon – as you are pointing people to the website.
mr goldberger perhaps we could have an exchange of views – I think I am beginning to understand your personality -you have mentioned a pastor in
your posts -so have you been around a religious circuit?
Well best again
Yours in the vision of the Great Eastern Sun
Rita Ashworth
from Her Majesties Kingdom the UK
Dear Rita,
I hear you. However, I do think that there are many good Tibetan teachers who are teaching in the West with skillfulness and insight and who are reaching the “hearts and minds” of Westerners. There are many directions to go for people, and many of them have already been discussed in this forum. Including your own ideas about receiving terma and spreading the Shambhala teachings ourselves, etc. (Sorry, a rough translation. I value and appreciate your ideas!!)
My previous post was more like a Doha, inspired by a profound practice session of Chakrasamvara. Basically, against all odds with the more vocal elements of this particular discussion group, (who are valiantly working with the many issues that beset us,) I wish to put in a “plug” for the Vidyadhara’s brilliantly presented Traditional Buddhist Dharma teachings and their sources. They are a great part of his legacy as well… especially the way he taught them.
Obviously, he was critical of Spiritual materialism in Tibet and elsewhere, for example, as he wrote of it in his Sadhana of Mahamudra, yet he proceeded to go on to extol with great devotion, his Kagyu and Nyingma lineages. There is reason to believe that these teachings and lineages in their “true form” are still “alive,” and I find it discouraging to hear the view that the Kagyu lineage is out of date, now. (I don’t disagree that some of what has been said is true, but it is too extreme and does not acknowledge the full picture.)
For example, just recently the DVD about the 16th Karmapa showed me the value of what He represents, and what the 17 Karmapa also represents. A simple profound truth, The practice lineage. hard core, down to earth, compassion and devotion.
Perhaps the Tibetan Buddhist presentation of the Dharma won’t have the most universal appeal in modern times to reach large numbers of people all over the world, thus the need for the Shambhala teachings. (not only that, of course!!! CTR wanted us to do BOTH) HOWEVER, I really feel concerned about the cavalier attitude that it is OK that the Tibetan Spiritual Cultural is dying, and that it is no longer relevant.
Partly, I feel this because of my relationship with Tibetans from here and in Tibet, and partly because I think that CTR wanted his Kagyu/ Nyingma teachings to flourish within the KOS. For example, I feel that there are important aspects of the Sadhana liturgies that we do that are supreme skillful means, and they depend on and increase devotion and connection with the Kagyu/ Nyingma lineage. Being an old woman, I’ve made the choice that this is the crux of my path, although, of course, understanding the importance of the issues surrounding the Shambhala teachings.
humbly yours,
Ginny
It was so good to hear from Olive a ways back….
What a beautiful person.
Edmund,
Your experience in Shambhala International sounds great. I am sure there are many sincere practitioners with genuine insight around, no question, and no intent to undermine that. Most of these discussions however are about Shambhala’s administrative culture and how that has had certain effects on some of us, rather than being about the students in general. I have yet to experience the openness to feedback and dissent you describe, coming from those quarters.
I have been accused on numerous occasions of being a gloom and doomer myself simply for wanting other people, people who were ostensibly responsible for those involved (appointed officials and the people who appoint them), to acknowledge things that happened to our local group, and take some kind of appropriate action (nothing doesn’t count). I am sure some people have put me in the D & G drawer and slammed it shut, no longer acknowledging they built such a chest of drawers.
I hope I’m not just being pedantic here but it’s really important to know exactly what you mean with ‘negative’. Isn’t negative defined by its juxtaposition to something else? Like if your view conflicts with mine, I might experience it as ‘negative’. As long as people are willing to relate to each other, we’re gonna have to make friends with that.
Or are we talking about aggression and anger? If that’s the case, then again, one has to examine how things got to such a state, rather than simply saying it isn’t proper. Ego is at the root perhaps, but in a society, justice, accountability, and a number of other things have to be organized and implemented, or society will not function. You can’t have, for example, policemen or lawyers, pointing at people’s egos and saying “There it is, that’s the problem! Your ego.” This isn’t a question of individual intent, it’s a vital necessity due to complexity.
Then there’s negative negativity; what is that? An idea that doesn’t harmonize with mine that has an attitude as well? If that’s a synonym for doom and gloom, it is probably the case that the longer one ‘disregards’ or ignores a problem, the more justified the sense of doom and gloom. Take global warming and end of oil scenarios. Ever year politicians all over the world equivocate without actually doing anything substantial about global warming or end-of-oil, then the more D & G are in some way justified, perhaps beyond our imagination.
And again what do people mean when they say they are helping people, and critique and ‘negativity’ are in some way blocking that ability, as Yeshe claimed in the talk? What does the help consist of? How does critque or negativity block that? There’s something critical missing in that equation.
In the inspiration that the opposite of any superficial truth is a lie; the opposite of any profound truth is another profound truth.
Dear Ginny
Thanks for your post re the Kagyu/Nyingma teachings.
I was not decrying the teachings persay or CTR’s presentation of them I was merely stating that the Tibetans giving these teachings in the west on the whole, though there may be a few exceptions, are not connected to western culture as well as they could be.
Take CTR he mixed with genius’ s in western life in the 1960s and 1970s -he put the Buddhist and shambhalian teachings into a western context with references to psychology and political thought -where are there any Tibetan lamas now doing that. The Sakyong for example is retreating into Tibetan culture which CTR never wanted us to do. Recently I also read that his brother-in-law had a programme at Dechen Cho Ling where the sadhana was in Tibetan -surely a retrograde step for an SI centre and he is one of the ‘sanctioned’ teachers for SI.
No – I think in the west we need Tibetan teachers who are au fait with our
culture and our way of life for the teachings to flourish in the west.
To me Tibetan teachers come and go and we are fascinated by them in the west but in reality they do not affect our culture that much. For example I recently saw the Dalai Lama give evidence at a parliamentary committee in the Houses of Parliament -he was ok -he got by but he really did not understand what was going on – he was doing the Dalai Lama thing of being nice to everyone and sending out compassion. But you have to be more cunning with British politicians -you really do have to make an impact with what you are saying which he did not.
So yeh what am I saying – I am saying that CTR was a great teacher who really understood the western mind and the various western institutions that come from the western perspective. To me SI is going into lala land again returning to the hip fascination with Tibet….and that is a pity when we could do so much more within our own culture with CTR’s teachings.
So yes Tibetan culture is dying we need to adapt these old teachings for our own times and make them relevant again – can the Kagyu and Nyingma lamas do that -its debateable.
I dunno perhaps Shambhala is a way in to making the kagyu/nyingma teachings more relevant because of the container principle -shambhala does connect with basic meditation of all faiths in this way. We will have to see what evolves as time goes on -perhaps we shall have different images in the west say for coming into the power of Vajrayogini which are more relevant to our culture – that could happen.
Yes I really do not think many of us in the west have given enough consideration as to how to really manifest Buddhism and Shambhala here – for example Mark on this website has said it is early days for the shambhala teachings to evolve in the west and I agree with him here -yet so many clever people, cleverer people than I are throwing their weight behind the Sakyongs way of doing things – I really do wonder about their motives and almost non-engagement with people on the way CTR’s vision has changed
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Dear Rita,
Greetings Oh Daughter of Noble Family!
I think we agree more than it may appear from my former email. I tend to get very passionate in my practice sessions, and get the issues confused at times, so I apologize about the apparent overzealousness on my part.
I think we agree about the presentation of Buddhism to the West.
I think there are only 2 places where we disagree. and, to each her own!
1) Tibetan Buddhist culture as it has been in Tibet is amazing in that the Buddhist teachings have been preserved so miraculously. I have heard of so many things I “disapprove of” about that culture in terms of historical stories about human foibles in Tibetan politics as well as many cultural aspects that we would frown upon in the West. (re: attitudes toward women in particular.) HOWEVER, there is the big picture as well, which makes me feel there are many unknowns about how that culture really is as a whole, and I have to value the many good things that have come out of it. You could look at Western culture from over an Eastern point of view and see offensive things as well. (Definitely!!!)
I DO NOT WANT TIBETAN CULTURE TO DIE, and it is, in fact, very threatened these days.
2) re: tantric practice assuming Western forms.
I remember some interchange with CTR in some discussion period where he said it was best to leave the cultural depictions in the iconography of our sadhana practices as they were, and not adopt them to Western garb.
ALSO: I’m reading a fascinating book by Rob Preece (The Psychology of Buddhist Tantra) who discusses this very topic. He says that tantra is a creative and transformative process that depends on a worthy lineage to carry the deeper meaning and power YET it is also stultifying to adhere too closely to traditional forms. He states that he is not in favor of diluting tradition to make tantra accessible to Westerners, “With our very different cultural history and psychological development, however, an authentic creative expression of Tantra may not evolve fully for some time in the West. Second, our need for creative innovation and individual expression is alien to the culture that has been holding tantra for the past thousand years. ”
.”…….if we look at the origins of Tantra, there is little doubt that creative transformation is central…Perhaps the future of Tantra lies in genuinely developing a deeper understanding of this process rather than simply holding to formal practices because they are traditional. Somewhere, between tradition and creative renewal lies a middle path that each of us must tread for ourselves.”
Sorry that I over dramatically said that I was an old lady. It just feels that way some times as the the aging process takes its toll.
Yours in the Dharma,
Ginny
Get a job and send money…..Tashi Delek!
I have to say something because I need to stay awake for a while tonight,
and I can await a reaction here, which is like waiting for someone to call.
It’s over, just none of you have realized it yet.
There it is.
yep John, you are right. and all the buddhas and bodhisattvas were wrong. Incedently I am drinking a dos x. in your honor. the devil wins, lets go get some whores.
John,
Black and white thinking. There are many more possibilities than success/failure, for vs/ against, non-alcoholic/80 proof, right/wrong, a bright future/it’s over, high cuisine/shit, nihilism/eternalism, chocolate/vanilla, and so on. Our brains may tend towards framing things that way, but with right effort, according to some, we can pop our dichotomous blinders.
What is “it”?
I’ve come to mistrust undefined pronouns on a visceral level. They are all too often used as projection screens for anybody’s kit and caboodle, even our own.
The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas versus the Devil? Hmmm…
Sounds like the making of a good Chinese comic book. The Buddha will of course make friends with the Devil who is already hanging around with the Dalai Lama, and a humble villager aroused by their abuse and persecution will invoke the spirit of Pa Hsien, the 8 Immortals, and then… they too will all become fast friends and sit around drinking celestial tea ignoring the carnage and human suffering caused by their neglect, until a manifestation of the female warrior Fu Hao is aroused to do something about this divine neglect, and at the same time a lowly tax collector stumbles upon a treasure chest hidden for centuries that contains a tooth of the great sage…
John, if you have any ideas for some good cartoons, let me know. Maybe RFS can have a humor page?
Dear Ginny
Thanks for your considered reply to my post.
It is very interesting the post that you have made. I will have to read it in greater depth, however, I have some points to make in the mean time.
Tibet culture may not die completely but it will have to change as do all ‘religious’ societies that are encountering globalisation and western ideals -that is happening all over the world whether we like it or not. Some aspects of it I like -others are horrendous as you state.
Re tantra changing the essence of it might not change but the forms could -Rita Gross has discussed this with Khandro Rinpoche and she says yes the forms could change. And I do think CTR was amenable to change over time. I suppose I am talking about the Art of the whole thing because I think the rush to create an image for the Shambhala lineage and a subsequent tangka is wrong-headed -we have to begin to start relating to our own culture much more closely in relation to the depiction of religious images. I also think in the Lions Roar that CTR stated that the forms could change but that it was a long process.
I personally think that at some point it would be great if western artists and artists from the East could get together at a conference and discuss all this -then perhaps we would have a way forward – movements of art of course have surfaced at times in the west and I believe they need to be influenced with eastern thought, for sure.
Re SI – I think it is too influenced now by Tibetan forms -it should be going forward into other directions re Art and more engagement with western thinkers as CTR always did in the past. To me in some respects SI is one of the last gasps of Tibetan culture manifesting before something else takes off…..I know that is a pushy comment -but religions dont stay rooted to their historical roots -they change and turn towards their surroundings -thats what I have found in studying religions – so yes I dont know what we are going into – perhaps we could use that Monty Python attitude – and now for something completely different because if SI is the only ballgame in town – I think we are lost.
Well best for now and yes I will think more about your post.
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Dear Ginny
I think I got the Rita Gross comment from
Feminism and Religion: An Introduction by Rita M. Gross
I remember reading it in a bookstore in London because it was too pricey to buy – Rita Gross is an excellent scholar.I think she is a student of Khandro Rinpoche, tho I am not sure…..thanks for the quote from the Preece book – I will try and get my library to get it -interesting.
Yep – I definately think there will be more groups evolving from the shambhala teachings……thinking about it -walking the streets -what really does engage people in meditation? Have to place myself back in square one like another of my favorite Americans, Rose Troche -the film director.
…..maybe a womens thing in the dharma to start revolutions -what do you think?!
Best
Rita Ashworth
Dear Rita,
Re: globalization, I think you are right re: for example, HH the Dalai Lama and HH the 17th Karmapa seem to be making changes for their Tibetan followers as they meet the modern world.
I am not prepared yet to say anything intelligent, but in the Mishap Lineage book, Carolyn Gimian brings up the idea that (seemingly?) CTR wanted us as a sangha to be able to carry on his teachings. (I haven’t had time to study this yet, so this is not an official quote!.) a great book, though!!!! (If you read it, make sure you read Carolyn’s preface and afterward. she is a precious student who really loved and paid attention to her teacher.)
I think the issues of women and spirituality are so very complex and interesting.. In any case, I am more of a middle of the roader on that one these days for myself in this sangha…. I think CTR really taught us in a way that women were included…. so I don’t feel oppressed in that sense. However, it is so interesting… I read a lot of HH D Khyenze Rinpoche’s autobiography and was shocked at how his consort was brought to him. Then, later on, reading it from her point of view, she was enlightened in her own complimentary more earthy way, and it was an incredibly beautiful situation.
In any case, these days all kinds of things are happening on Sangha talk and Sadhaka talk about what may be the latest effects from the SI policies. That may be why not many people are posting here, they are all focusing on THOSE developments. In any case I would prefer to converse privately if you don’t mind.. my email is ginnylipson@gmail.com
Best to you too!
Ginny
Wow these threadsare long and beautiful! Susanne Duarte somewhere in another thread which I can’t find, asked what people feel Shambhala vision is to them. I wrote a little poem with my thoughts about that at the end. [Sorry Mark S. if this is off thread...]
Enlightened Society
I am forgetting the dharma
Finally, slowly
I am back in this place that I try to escape
There are no tricks, no shortcuts
Nothing to fear or avoid
Just diligence
Appreciation
The certainty of death
Every direction is east
To be awakened by the sun
Rising as it did before man ever walked the earth
Dudley Jackson,
November 2009
[notes]
The path of Shambhala in a few points, IMHO:
* There is no dividing line between the secular and the sacred
*Cultivate awareness in order to connect with our basic human qualities of sanity and tenderness
*Follow awareness to indicate expressions of sanity and tenderness in all forms as they arise and fade
*Connect to the bridges of communication that already exist among all sentient beings
*There is no dividing line between an individual and the world
*Never give up
Thank you, Dudley! Both your poem and notes resonate. Lovely.
Bowing,
Suzanne
Well, let’s try this… maybe a question could come out of it. Is this a dharmic poem? Does it have any relationship to VCTR? RMSC? Anything?
Out on the limb again with the third jewel.
I Made Love On Marpa Point
That was before they made it a holy hill,
although, I have to say, it was always holy for me.
I’m glad I reached that pinnacle so I could
have my climax…it was special, don’t you know…
…blue Colorado skies, warm weather, everything
out in the open…and, doesn’t that just make it
taste better?
In belated response to Rita Ashworth – you didn’t scare me off, I was just away for a bit. If I understood what you were saying, yes, the most fundamental samaya is with one’s own mind. At the same time, samaya with a path or a teacher as established through vows or transmissions are hard to ignore. I’ve found that I run into trouble if I do.
Funny to see some of the names here. Madeline Schreiber was my MI at Level III in NYC in 1985 or ’86. Don’t try to rack your memory, Madeleine! It’s nice to see others as well.
Mr Dodds -nice to hear from you.
Yes – I think Madeline posted something in connection with samaya.
My samaya is with CTR……still trying to understand all the ramifications to that even now – part of it is not losing my critical intelligence about the teachings which CTR emphasised so much.
…..Its difficult when to know how to engage people and when not to but I do remember CTRs admonishment to David Rome to engage more with strangers -thats why I like the discussions on an enlightened society and other subjects on this site.
My further take on samaya/enlightened society is that you go out more -you encounter different ways of envisioning what could materialise for people and yourself -you at times even take risks -yes samaya I believe is mixed up with risk-taking to a degree but its almost pre-conscious like falling in love……and sometimes in order just to be -you have to transgress what others in an organisation are following in order to reach your own visions.
I just hope samaya is not being used as a concept to hold people back like lineage seems to have been doing in SI aswell…….I want the teachings to spread even at the cost of the ‘breaking of the rules’. Ray has done this to a certain extent – we in the west are rule-breakers and stealers of teachings -whose to say our connection is not more beautiful, romantic and yes even mad than any Tibetans out there.
We have to start believing in our capabilities to spread these teachings and even at times allowing the visions of meditation to inspire us forward.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Further reflections on doubt and “doubtlessness”, for what they’re worth.
I actually remember the first time I thought about this question with regard to Buddhism. A friend of mine had just split up with his girlfriend and appeared to be justifying his having broken off all contact with her (a decision I knew hurt and bewildered her very much) with the phrase “you can never look back”. The context here for those words was precisely this notion of doubtlessness, or at least his interpretation of it at that time–we were both just beginning to practice the dharma.
I remember being quite troubled by that message, because I thought: well, but can’t one justify more-or-less anything this way? The books I’d been reading by Trungpa Rinpoche were telling me that feedback from one’s environment would always come, but what if one always waited until the feedback caused *me* pain or difficulty? How much harm might we end up spreading to others if there were no mechanism alerting us to others’ experiences?
These were my first thoughts on the subject, but this question of “doubtlessness” still comes back, especially when thinking about Shambhala. As I said earlier, I can’t help but feel it is central to much of what is going on. My experience is that Shambhala very, very rarely admits mistakes of any kind. (Judging from the comments of others–though this was before my time–the continuing wounds from the Regent years are merely one testament to this.)
And I began to notice, quite some time ago, a kind of “Shambhala teaching style” develop. One characteristic I noted in this was a deficit in the kind of really upfront humility one sees all the time in for example the Dalai Lama or Dzongsar Khyentse. These teachers are thoroughly unafraid to begin the discussion of a question by saying they don’t know a lot about it, or aren’t certain of their understanding. The Shambhala style, by contrast, emphasizes “proclamation” and certainty (and I’m not speaking about a vajrayana context here). And so there have been a lot of occasions for thinking about these kinds of styles, where they came from, and where they are going.
(continued)
James and many others have spoken about a lack of accountability. And I agree with him that there is something really, really basic about this. My experiences have led me brokenheartedly to the conclusion that Shambhala has confused doubtlessness about the View with a seeming inability to ever backtrack from a previous decision or understanding. It all reminds me of the distinction within Catholicism re: infallibility. The Pope can from time to time issue a statement about a fundamental question of faith, which is then taken to be simply “true,” but is certainly not considered to be beyond error at every other level of decision-making.
Shambhala by contrast reminds me of my friend’s early maxim. But without a feedback mechanism it is still very possible to continue intoning the mantra “never look back”–all the way over the cliff.
Maybe these thoughts are not very coherent, I don’t know. However, as time goes on the moment in the tape which continues to disturb me the most is the point where Adam Lobel says something like: it’s torment to be within Shambhala and to have doubt. I can’t get that out of my mind, because it reminds me more than anything else of something that might be said–forgive me–at a meeting of the Communist Party. Especially when he went on to suggest as his method for dealing with doubt going off one-on-one with someone at a delek gathering… No recognition that the doubt just might be something that would need to get *out* of the delek meeting and into the serious consideration of leadership. Merely, as I was hearing it anyway, a sense of “bad faith” needing to be aired at the level of the “cell” so that the stronger faith of the Group could absorb / overcome it.
Thank you for your contemplations, damchö. “Never look back” is a very unfortunate rationalization for ignorance. It is also unfortunately very popular in these times at all levels – from personal relationships to Wall Street to international relationships. It is the motto of those who arrogantly blockade their consciousness from the humility that comes from learning from past mistakes and respecting the lessons of history – which we are doomed to repeat if we don’t learn from them.
Thanks Suzanne. Yes, that moment on the tape is so potent for me. No organization should *ever* be put together so as to create “torture” (I think that might be the word he actually used) for those who doubt. Would any other Tibetan lama say such a thing? Or any other Buddhist teacher? Very hard for me to imagine. The only kinds of groups with that attitude are fundamentalist religions, and, again, utopian political movements which double as religious faith.
This is perhaps the central thing, I feel: that “never look back” attitude has become inflexible dogma. Shambhala leadership, once they have made some kind of decision, do not revisit it. They will not seriously listen to any critique of that decision. They certainly never begin to make amends for mistakes. This is my experience anyway.
At a certain point this practice becomes genuinely–and I use the word advisedly–pathological.
Dämcho,
There were a number of chilling things in Lobel’s presentation, but I remember the one you allude to. It was sometimes difficult to tell if he was paraphrasing what others had said, or saying that was it was in fact so. I remember being uncertain as he spoke.
If he was paraphrasing he was creating extremes that did not come from questioners; creating two extremes that one then chooses: either one is a true believer or one is suffering with doubt. That’s a rhetorical trick I find distasteful, creating dichotomies that were previously not there in order to lead people away from what their original point may have been. (Perhaps marginalization, disrespect for tradition, a loss of teachings, dysfunctional communication or whatever then becomes an abstracted state of painful doubt, no longer attached to what caused it.)
So I’m not sure that doubt is the main issue. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don’t. There’s no realistic or practical way to think about doubt as either there (hell) or not at all (heaven?). It’s how you walk with it that matters.
A couple of times, however, he seemed to be saying that the nature of the Shambhala community, of being involved yet not believing or doubting, that this cognitive dissonance (as Lynn called it), this “torture” or “hell” (as Lobel called it,) is what it means to be involved in Shambhala. (?)
When our local group had trouble with an acharaya years ago, we were told by a friend of his he intentionally made our situation worse. If things got worse, it was explained, we would collectively see the craziness and would as one spontaneously drop it. Collective torture, if you will, aimed at creating specific behavior.
Our attempts to stop him lead to naught, such is the nature of hierarchy, so we have wondered if his actions were indeed sanctioned from the center of the mandala. Either that or no one with authority cared enough about the individuals affected to do anything to stop him.
There is in vajrayana the notion that neurosis increases and then pops, a dynamic Gregory Beatson, who taught a few times at Naropa Institute, also alluded to. He didn’t recommend it as therapy though, he simply noted it sometimes happens; neurosis can get so obvious it bursts like a soap bubble.
This could conceivably be a dynamic a vajramaster directly involved with a student might use, but the vajrayana student/teacher relationship is predicated on a willing and conscious participation of both parties. There are all kinds of prerequisites, vows and rituals to make clear one is entering such a relationship.
However to intentionally subjugate a group of people to that kind of dynamic, a group which even if they are all sadhakas will always be made up of individuals at different stages and states of mind, is not just absurd, it is insane. I don’t mean that emotionally, I mean literally.
If a state of “torture” is a desired or intrinsic component of the Shambhala community, as Lobel seemed to allude to, there is cause for real concern.
In the inspiration that “Everyone wants our good. Don’t let them take it”
James, I see and agree with your distinction. And as you say, whichever of the two interpretations of Adam’s comment is chosen (I personally opt for the matter of fact “to be in Shambhala and to have doubt *is* torture”), it doesn’t seem healthy.
“…we have wondered if his [ie your acharya's] actions were indeed sanctioned from the center of the mandala. Either that or no one with authority cared enough about the individuals affected to do anything to stop him.”
In my experience it is more the latter that is going on. Acharyas (and kasung, the other power center) seem to have a fair amount of latitude in their own sphere. With more junior kasung there is sometimes feedback sent down to them when they are out of line (though again in my experience no amends are made to the person on the receiving end of that behaviour). With acharyas on the other hand, I have a sense that there is rarely if ever any censure whatsoever (and *definitely* no amends made to those harmed). The Sakyong chose them to represent him, within an authoritarian power dynamic. I’m actually not sure what one of them would have to do to be reprimanded. I’ve seen a fair amount of behaviour that is way beyond the pale.
“…the vajrayana student/teacher relationship is predicated on a willing and conscious participation of both parties. There are all kinds of prerequisites, vows and rituals to make clear one is entering such a relationship.
“However to intentionally subjugate a group of people to that kind of dynamic, a group which even if they are all sadhakas will always be made up of individuals at different stages and states of mind, is not just absurd, it is insane. I don’t mean that emotionally, I mean literally.”
Well said. This is absolutely the point. Just because an acharya has received and is practicing vajrayana teachings does not make them a vajra master. For that to happen: 1) they would have to be empowered as such; 2) all students taking programs of whatever kind with them would need to be explicitly informed of that fact; 3) said students would have to be given an absolutely free choice whether or not to relate to that teacher at the vajrayana level, even if they are sadhakas themselves; 4) if they are not sadhakas, it is especially, indeed absolutely, inappropriate and dangerous to create a vajra master-student dynamic; 5) even if all of the above conditions are met, I would say it’s still inappropriate to create that kind of dynamic outside a formally created samaya situation, where each party has an explicitly formulated responsibility to the other, as you say. Obviously, in the kind of mixed group you mention, this behaviour can never be appropriate.
Bypassing these safeguards is abuse of power.
sorry to go off topic -though not completely. Has any one read the congress reports on SI website of if not did they attend.
They are talking about conflict resolution re the dissenters and others in SI but I still dont think they really understand where people on this site namely CTR’s students are coming from.
My take is that the shambhala teachings still should be for people of all faiths and this has still not been addressed at the Congress…….so yeh people could be accommodated but the main thrust of the organisation would still be the Sakyong’s way of doing things ie restricting certain practices to Buddhists that were meant by CTR for all humankind.
Personally I would just like access to CTR’s teachings thats all I want from SI…..if they could accommodate me on that thats enough for me…..then let them get into their 1,000 year monarchy thing -just leave SI to its own devices and its financial crisises which they are always harping on about ——–zzzzzz……..boring.
To some extent I think SI is going down hill -look at the splits, look at the
dissenters, look at this site, look at finance, – really I think its in stagnation mode and I dont see it going anywhere even with the ‘new’ teachings.
So would like to hear some viewpoints on the Congress and peoples take on the way forward.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
I dunno….shouldn’t we be talking about homophobia at SMC, or something?
C’mon, Bennie Hana, Help me here…..
Dämcho,
I don’t see that Lobel is saying that if you have doubt, it is torture, period. It’s very qualified, what he says.
In his preamble he said (around 0:13.) that some want to leave Shambhala (doubt), and some want to confirm it, and that the tension between these two is what creates Shambhala.
This was the implication that ‘cognitive dissonance’ is part of the deal. I myself know of no precedent in the teachings for such an assertion.
He also said (0:12) some things which only a true believer could swallow, like “the changes within Shambhala are nothing less than primordial basic goodness trying to show itself in this world.” I suppose, but one could argue that about anything.
At (1:24) he responded to Lynn with: “The question is: where is there space for doubt within Shambhala? The flip side of that” he said “is that it’s a kind of torture to be in Shambhala when you have doubt.”
But he went on: “That’s why doubt is our main practice. That’s why Trungpa Rinpoche started talking about doubt as soon as he started teaching Shambhala.”
(That’s factually false, a re-framing of our history. Doubt was something Trungpa Rinpoche talked about in teacher/student relationships, lineage and more long before he revealed Shambhala teachings. It was not a social dynamic.)
He went on to explain that if we have a connection to the sangha and trust in the teacher and the teachings, then doubt is very workable. If we don’t have that basic sense of trust or connection, then it becomes a form of torture or torment.
Sort of fortune cookie-esque, almost like saying blue is blue if blue is what you see, or something.
But the real problem is it’s a mish mash, because he has, as Shambhala-Bhuddism tends to do, conflated principles of the vajayana student/teacher relationship, with dynamics of society or community.
They are so not the same thing.
And just as he did several times with his acrobatic ‘concepts-floating-in-pristine-space’ style of thinking, he managed to completely avoid any of the reasons why trust is lacking – even though people had tried to explain.
At (1:26:25) he implied instead that trust is something we ought to generate in ourselves internally. “When we fail confidence, when we fuel trust, then we have a perspective on doubt.”
Fuel trust? Come again?
Trust is by definition about relationship with other, it is not the product of internal dialogue. In any case, when trust is a problem, short of paranoia, there are specific reasons: agreements broken, promises not kept, attacks, deceit or corruption in some form, etc.
Lobel in no way acknowledged or even touched any cause for the kind of distrust he was encountering in that meeting, deflecting it entirely onto the students’ state of mind, and his solution was respectively weak.
Talking with others is certainly helpful in several ways, but it’s not the final solution.
We seem to be looking at a polished denial system.
In the inspiration that doubt is exacerbated by denial in exactly the same way one’s pain increases if one drinks or drugs to avoid it.
Let me put it to you this way, folks. Please. This country’s in trouble. Lemme just say… you can squat on a pit bull, but that don’t get you rhubarb pie…
- Dana Carvey as Ross Perot
I think someone like Lobel would be a lot funnier if he did not take himself so seriously, and if other people did not take him so seriously.
I think CTR tried to teach us that “credentials” do not a teacher make. Collecting degrees and initiations and job titles and all sorts of things are not the same as actually being qualified for something.
The way I see it, SMR is not revolutionary at all, he seems to actually cater to the egoic desires of the masses, for instance to eliminate Shambhala training for non-Buddhists (I believe many Buddhists secretly want this) and to water down other things. Then he hires people who are “well-meaning” but also blind, self-serving, and boot-licking.
I think the party’s over, at least for me. Sorry to be blunt, or judgmental, or mean, but now and then, at least in my own mind, it’s useful to be that way.
I think just as CTR’s credentials were somewhat destroyed by the Chinese and his fellow Tibetan teachers in Scotland, and he turned out to be a brilliant and very important teacher, for now and future generations… likewise, people who have had to “go it on their own” without much support, like certain of CTR’s students, might turn out to be good teachers as well. The ones in the throne with all the brocade, are not necessarily the best teachers.
Trust is not “by definition about relationship with other”. Conditional trust is about relationship with other. And because it is conditional there is doubt — and that is the definition of samsara (or torture if you want to use a more provocative word).
Unconditional trust — which is the root of both Vajrayana crazy wisdom and Shambhala — is like seeing that the sun is shining or the sky is blue. It is without a “hair tip” of doubt.
The trouble with being a true believer is the same trouble as being in doubt — it is based on a relationship with other and this dualism does not admit anything other than either believing or doubting. As the great teacher Mipham said (paraphrasing), the dualistic flip between belief and doubt is like the elephant who bathes in water to wash off the dust and then rolls in the dust to dry the water.
We have to give up all of our territory — the territory that we try to hold with belief and the territory that we try to hold with doubt. They are both exactly the same thing — the only difference is that believers are more inclined to continue practicing — and practice cultivates merit and has a possibility of working to a realization of something unconditional. That is why eternalism is preferable to nihilism — although both are equally mistaken.
This is not to say that you shouldn’t take care in choosing a teacher. Just once you have chosen, it is somewhat better to err on the side of belief.
The main difference between Adam and James is that Adam has accepted SMR as his teacher and James has not.
Okay I was thinking about this doubt thing a bit more –since people are emailing about it.
It seems to me that CTR encouraged critical intelligence – he emphasises this a lot in the shambhala teachings and in the Buddhadharma aswell. He says you should not look for a saviour in either of these paths –that’s the wrong way to look at the teacher.
Now yes we have the vajrayana teacher/student relationship where the essence of doubt is heightened quite a bit! But it seems to me that the doubtlessness comes in through the practice – those glimpses of openness where you connect with the teachers mind and what is –how there can be anything of any conception there is beyond me as in these instances you have surpassed duality, which is of course where the teacher resides. I also
think these doubtlessness episodes can come about through many ways because yes we are always testing that with the image of cocoon in the shambhala teachings. I think the cocoon thingie is to ‘push’ you into a doubtlessness state.
Now yeh we go to SMR and his presentation of the teachings and Lobels bit about the torture analogy – I would not call the ‘state’ you are in when you step out of the cocoon to be torture……it could be a very joyous exploration of things. Yeh but I suppose here Lobel is referring here to the ‘two takes’ on the shambhala teachings aka SMR and CTR
or how people perceive them to be two takes that is. Well in an ultimate sense there can
not be two takes – we would both need to heading for the same switcheroo if the whole thing is to work. What we are debating I believe is the ‘method’ to get out of our cocoons-and I have been thinking about this in relation to the way CTR came up with his presentation of the shambhala teachings which are much more open than the Sakyongs.
For example if we take CTR as our main teacher he wanted everyone to access these teachings……..I have been musing about that ……..I can only think that he perceived the
ability in all westerners to access shambhala directly with out the reference points of lineage and samaya. I think he could do that, for example I have had conversations with lamas where one of them has pointed something out about my own state of mind –which I had no knowledge of. So I think CTR saw that westerners could run with shambhala teachings in a karmic sense perhaps – whereas what is the Sakyong perceiving I just don’t know – hence Jims statement that Lobel has accepted the Sakyong as his teacher-
and that you just cant argue about if he is coming from that angle. But to say on that stance that CTRs way of doing things has been superseded or improved or that we have got a new revelation of teachings with the Scorpion seal would be wrong.
To me the really great adventure with the shambhala teachings would be to go the CTR way again – I think we can reinvigorate them according to how we got a taste of them –
This of course does call for more investigation of the shambhala ‘concepts’ by scholars.
I just feel that shambhala has been dammed up by the Sakyongs interpretation of the teachings and we are not offering a new take on them ourselves…….we should really connect with others who are exploring them more fully outside of the SI context perhaps.
In this respect it would be good if someone could translate Fabrice Midals article on Shambhala on his website for discussion – any French translators out there?
Best wishes
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Okay I was thinking about this doubt thing a bit more –since people are emailing about it.
It seems to me that CTR encouraged critical intelligence – he emphasises this a lot in the shambhala teachings and in the Buddhadharma aswell. He says you should not look for a saviour in either of these paths –that’s the wrong way to look at the teacher.
Now yes we have the vajrayana teacher/student relationship where the essence of doubt is heightened quite a bit! But it seems to me that the doubtlessness comes in through the practice – those glimpses of openness where you connect with the teachers mind and what is –how there can be anything of any conception there is beyond me as in these instances you have surpassed duality, which is of course where the teacher resides. I also
think these doubtlessness episodes can come about through many ways because yes we are always testing that with the image of cocoon in the shambhala teachings. I think the cocoon thingie is to ‘push’ you into a doubtlessness state.
Now yeh we go to SMR and his presentation of the teachings and Lobels bit about the torture analogy – I would not call the ‘state’ you are in when you step out of the cocoon to be torture……it could be a very joyous exploration of things. Yeh but I suppose here Lobel is referring here to the ‘two takes’ on the shambhala teachings aka SMR and CTR
or how people perceive them to be two takes that is. Well in an ultimate sense there can
not be two takes – we would both need to heading for the same switcheroo if the whole thing is to work. What we are debating I believe is the ‘method’ to get out of our cocoons-and I have been thinking about this in relation to the way CTR came up with his presentation of the shambhala teachings which are much more open than the Sakyongs.
For example if we take CTR as our main teacher he wanted everyone to access these teachings……..I have been musing about that ……..I can only think that he perceived the
ability in all westerners to access shambhala directly with out the reference points of lineage and samaya. I think he could do that, for example I have had conversations with lamas where one of them has pointed something out about my own state of mind –which I had no knowledge of. So I think CTR saw that westerners could run with shambhala teachings in a karmic sense perhaps – whereas what is the Sakyong perceiving I just don’t know – hence Jims statement that Lobel has accepted the Sakyong as his teacher-
and that you just cant argue about if he is coming from that angle. But to say on that stance that CTRs way of doing things has been superseded or improved or that we have got a new revelation of teachings with the Scorpion seal would be wrong.
To me the really great adventure with the shambhala teachings would be to go the CTR way again – I think we can reinvigorate them according to how we got a taste of them –
This of course does call for more investigation of the shambhala ‘concepts’ by scholars.
I just feel that shambhala has been dammed up by the Sakyongs interpretation of the teachings and we are not offering a new take on them ourselves…….we should really connect with others who are exploring them more fully outside of the SI context perhaps.
In this respect it would be good if someone could translate Fabrice Midals article on Shambhala on his website for discussion – any French translators out there?
Best wishes
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Mark SORRY – for posting twice I am on a library computer –will have to get hooked up soon – hope you can delete one post
Best
Rita
Jim Wilton writes:
This is not to say that you shouldn’t take care in choosing a teacher. Just once you have chosen, it is somewhat better to err on the side of belief.
Unless you realize you’ve chosen wrong!
Seriously, it’s good to remember that chosing a teacher does not mean that someone else reaps the results of our actions. We still reap all the results of our actions. Whether we have a perfect teacher, or a terrible teacher, this will always hold.
Therefore, mindfulness is always worthwhile, even after you’ve chose a teacher. You can keep your eyes open even in that case.
People who want to “take a teacher” in order to avoid responsibility for their own actions have no business taking someone as their teacher, in my opinion. It takes a lot more balls to be someone’s student, I think.
Look at CTR. I’ve heard that he was openly skeptical about the Karmapa in conversations with some of his students in the early 70s, having not seen him for many many years, but then, once having laid eyes on him, he prostrated to him right there on the asphalt.
That kind of devotion– based on real, open-eyed recognition, rather than on duties, obligations, games, expectations, and a big dose of pretend– is far more valuable for all parties, I think.
Who benefits from bootlicking? Someone please explain this to me.
I’ll say one more thing about teachers. When I realized some of the crazy things my old teacher had done, I was shocked beyond belief and thrown into great doubt.
But, rather than running away from the doubt, I kept my eyes and ears open, and now I have a greater appreciation for my teacher than I ever had previously. My old appreciation was the appreciation of a child.
It’s like coming across a beautiful woman. We can squint at her through half-closed eyes, or we can open our eyes all the way and fully appreciate her beauty. Why close your eyes, if you feel you’ve found something valuable / precious? What’s there to fear?
Thanks for your post Jim. We might be talking a little at cross-purposes. Here is a key point for me from James’ post: “But the real problem is it’s a mish mash, because [Adam Lobel] has, as Shambhala-Buddhism tends to do, conflated principles of the vajayana student/teacher relationship, with dynamics of society or community. They are so not the same thing.”
If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the kind of trust that is associated with the basic View and–for those and *only* for those in samaya with a teacher–with the Guru. To that extent your point is surely sound. But James is correct: Shambhala conflates this basic trust with a far different thing, which is belief in the infallibility (more-or-less) of the leadership of Shambhala, with regard to all of their major decisions about the community. It is towards those important decisions that we are enjoined to try and cultivate doubtlessness.
This constitutes a very particular way of combining religion and politics–a highly dangerous one, if one looks honestly at both our human psychology and history. It is the path Shambhala has now chosen.
You say: “Conditional trust is about relationship with other.” I agree. And I would say that’s really all we can have at the level of community, society. If we become excellent practitioners we might be able to cultivate unconditional trust in the View, but in our institutions? Which include all the day-to-day motivations of quite fallible human beings with their individual karmic inheritance and blind spots? This is–and should be–conditional.
Again as James says: “when trust is a problem, short of paranoia, there are specific reasons: agreements broken, promises not kept, attacks, deceit or corruption in some form, etc.” These have to be properly and thoroughly dealt with, or that community doesn’t have much of a future.
Also, when you contrast the “true believer” with “being in doubt,” I’m not sure I follow. I could well be misunderstanding you–and if so please correct me–but I would say the opposite of the true believer would be the cynic: someone who doubts everything without seriously examining other possibilities, in the way a true believer believes everything they are told unquestioningly. I would say that these are the true mirror opposites (though I’m not sure I could say the true believer is even a marginally better thing to be). But here we are not talking about cynicism. We are talking about “doubt” in the sense of honest, open, engaged intelligence. Something–it should go without saying–we never want to lose.
To Jim Wilson’s remarks,
Actually, yes… trust is about relationship to other, unless Jim is inventing new meaning for the word.
trust; noun: firm belief or confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability, justice, etc. of another person or thing.
He’ll have to give his sources. I’ve read books on the student/teacher relationship and heard many talks from Trungpa Rinpoche about it, and no where have I seen that the basis of vajrayana is unconditional trust.
It was well known that Trungpa Rinpoche once said “A good vajrayana student is paranoid”. Unconditional trust, trust based on nothing, is something only fools and sycophants do.
If there is no reference, there is no reason to even talk about trust, or hot, cold, up or down. Without reference, the term has no meaning, and indeed the vajra master would have nothing to work with.
Unconditional confidence I can grok. Unconditional trust is a term with literally no meaning. One may say it. One may feel confident about it. But… it has nothing to do with what we’ve discussed here.
As with many things Shambhala-Buddhist, Jim has conflated concerns more social in nature raised by myself or people at the talk, with whether or not they have accepted Sakyong Mipham as their teacher. If you accept SMR?: no problem, if not?: tough luck. This is the extreme view that dämcho referred to.
Regardless if one has accepted a teacher as a vajra master (or whether the teacher accepted them), issues that indicate a lack of accountability need to be dealt with accordingly. Anything less is simply irresponsible. Like seeing a thug rob your neighbor and not calling the police.
If this is the official stand: one is with us = no problems, or against us = suffer due to (whatever), those who say Shambhala is faltering may have a point; any organization would find it difficult to maintain a stable and growing community with that kind of approach towards its membership body.
This would be using devotion to maintain social cohesion. That’s a misuse of devotion, using it in order to direct or narrow people’s views, rather than devotion being the gasoline it was meant to be on the vajrayana path, a fuel enabling transmission and unification with the guru’s mind. Devotion is not, was never meant to be, a way to make things OK, things that to normal mortals are understood as corruption, abuse or a lack of accountability.
On hand from how Trungpa Rinpoche took care of the sangha, the concern he showed for how people treated each other, the ways he reigned in abuse when he could and engaged in a communicative way with perceptions of corruption, it simply cannot be denied there are ways to work with problems in a community that can generate inspiration, even in people who don’t normally go for that sort of thing, even in people who were not seeking a teacher and who did not become his students.
And there are ways to deal with these kinds of problems that leave people scratching their heads, wondering if perhaps we are expected to be so dumb.
In the inspiration that community is not based on devotion and visa versa
Just catching up with RFS after a hiatus.
Dan Montgomery’s words resonate wonderfully:
“So, I found the latest fundraising appeal (Reoch on the Beach) a bit over the top. To my way of thinking, if the world’s paradigm shifts in time to stave off disaster, it will be because of the actions of millions of people listening to our greater collective intelligence, not one teacher/saviour in particular. We need all the help we can get.”
Is there a Buddhist equivalent for Amen?
“Reoch on the Beach” is a page out of early Saturday Night Live or The Onion. We need all the levity we can get these days. Frankly, I felt like vomiting when I read RR’s nauseating commercial plea for $$$$$$$$$ dressed up as devotion. Humor is a far better response — for the body, mind, and spirit.
If Lobel actually said this: “in his preamble he said (around 0:13.) that some want to leave Shambhala (doubt), and some want to confirm it, and that the tension between these two is what creates Shambhala.”
He is wrong. The tension has basically created a lot of pain and suffering. I mean a LOT of pain and suffering. We need less of this in our world. Not more. Some sangha members are not even on speaking basis anymore because of the tension. Damage was done.
Rob
Damcho makes good points. The distinction between doubt as an obstacle on the spritual path and doubt in connection with politics (Shambhala or otherwise) is valid. I agree.
I also think Damcho is right that the type of doubt that has an open quality is not an obstacle even on the spiritual path with questions involving the teacher. Cynicism is a good word for the kind of frozen doubt that is an antonym to true belief.
What about The Torch Of Certainty?
At some point, doubt is not good. We don’t want to be arrogent, but isn’t there confidence beyond hesitation?
Rob, of course there’s such a thing as confidence, even unconditional confidence.
But it doesn’t come about just because of what we want to believe in or what we choose to trust.
Unconditional means it isn’t in reference to something else. It isn’t dependant on accomplishments or credentials. It isn’t dependant on belief structures, on vows taken, commitments made, or loyalties. And it isn’t some height from which I can look down on the other poor bastards who don’t believe what I believe.
That takes a lot of practice and surrender, or overcoming ego, however we want to frame it. Maybe we could say it’s a more unobstructed expression of the true nature of mind.
But from that state, one could still have doubts about things that are going on, what people say, whether something is genuine or not, whether what you are being told is true. Confidence is how we could approach those things, but not a way to turn critical awareness off. That would be an extremely conditional confidence, and not very clever to boot.
Trust on the other hand, if we mean what the dictionary says trust means, is by definition conditional. If we develop absolute trust or certainty in dharma, it is not unconditional. It comes about because we have delved into the teachings, sometimes doubting, and have tested what has been taught, and found it to be true, and therefore at some point the internal conflicting emotions get burned out, and we experience an unwavering trust in dharma. That’s not unconditional, because it comes about due to experience.
Mr. James Elliot,
Do you offer dharma classes somewhere? I like your style.
Edward
Rob,
That quote was from the talk. If I put quotes on it, I listened and made sure it was so. No quotes means I was paraphrasing. The number was where it was in the talk (around 13 minutes). I see the talk has become restricted to vajra sangha members in Halifax who now need to request access, but while they were trusting us I made a copy. Could send it if you like, but it is 111 MB. Hope this doesn’t portend a further tightening of communications already rife with gaps.
And of course there’s such a thing as confidence, even unconditional confidence. No one tried to negate that.
But it doesn’t come about just because of what we want to believe in or what we choose to trust.
Unconditional means it isn’t in reference to something else. It isn’t dependant on ideas, accomplishments or credentials, on belief structures, or vows taken, commitments made, or loyalties. And it isn’t some height from which I can look down on the other poor bastards who don’t believe what I believe.
That takes a lot of practice and surrender, or overcoming ego, however we want to frame it. Maybe we could say it’s a more unobstructed expression of the true nature of mind.
But from that state, one could still have doubts about things that are going on, what people say, whether something is genuine or not, whether what you are being told is true. Confidence is how we could approach those things, but not a way to turn critical awareness off. That would be an extremely conditional confidence, and not very clever to boot.
Trust on the other hand, if we mean what the dictionary says trust means, is by definition conditional. You trust ‘in’ something, so there is already relationship, hence conditional. I don’t accept that unconditional trust is the basis of vajrayana as Jim insisted, but if we develop ‘absolute trust’ or certainty in dharma, which is something taught, then it is not unconditional. It comes about because we have delved into the teachings, sometimes doubting, and have tested what has been taught, found it to be true, and therefore at some point our internal conflicting emotions get burned out, and we experience an unwavering trust in dharma. That’s not unconditional, because it comes about due to experience, and it is ‘in’ something.
This whole question arise because of the tendency in Shambhala Buddhism to take aspects or dynamics of one’s individual journey on the path, and project that out onto all of society, or all of the community, and how ‘society’ ought to relate to obstacles. That provides a whole suitcase full of new toys to play with. But it doesn’t, as Mark once said, scale up that way. Society is not the same as individuals, has very different dynamics and behaves in completely different ways.
In the inspiration that realization doesn’t short circuit common sense.
DOUBT
THE BODHISATTVA IS LIKE
THE MIGHTIES OF WARRIORS
BUT HIS ENEMIES ARE NOT
COMMON FOES OF FLESH AND BONE
HIS FIGHT IS WITH THE INNER DELUSIONS
THE AFFLICTIONS OF SELF CHERESHING
AND EGO GRASPING,
THOSE MOST TERIBLE OF DEMONS
THAT CATCH LIVING BEINGS IN THE
SNARE OF CONFUSION
AND CAUSE THEM FOREVER TO WANDER
IN PAIN, FRUSTRATION AND SORROW
HIS MISSION IS TO HARM IGNORANCE AND DELUSION,
NEVER LIVING BEINGS
THOSE HE LOOKS UPON WITH KINDNESS
PATIENCE AND EMPATHY
CHERISHING THEM LIKE A MOTHER CHERISHES
HER ONLY CHILD
HE IS THE REAL HERO
CALMLY FACING ANY HARDSHIP
IN ORDER TO BRING PEACE, HAPPINESS
AND LIBERATION TO THE WORLD
H.H. Thubten Gyatso from his Lam Rim
The Thirteenth Dalai Lama
If there are times in the life of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche that have inspired me, it has been those when he faced great uncertainty and doubt and some how transcended them with intelligence, courage and gentleness.
I don’t think it is possible to be a practitioner and not have doubt, serious doubt at times. Rinpoche spoke often about this very subject saying that the doubt was nothing more than our fundamental intelligence. After all as practitioners our job is to continually expose and pick away at the scab of our passions, aggressions and ignorance and there are times when this can be a very lonely business
Sorry for the overlap; delete the first one?
Edward,
Maybe I’m being punked, but, no I don’t teach. There’s a reason.
This raises a point from the talk not yet discussed.
Our group was shut down several years ago at Shambhala International’s command. Before we were closed I came to see it would be counterproductive to teach or hold programs without some form of path or sane structure (i.e. not rife with conflict) for people to relate to. So I stopped.
The path as we all know is not simply a process of receiving teachings from a teacher. It’s all the stuff that encourages us to aspire to realize genuine dharma, to practice meditation or sadhana, but also unavoidable and essential, the infrastructure which makes that all accessible.
If that’s twisted or lost in some way, then what would anyone be encouraging people to engage in?
Another obstacle to teaching is not only the curriculum being revamped yet again, but the entire path as well. Some say the new versions don’t entirely jibe with what Trungpa Rinpoche presented.
With ‘time and timelessness’ Mr. Lobel in part seemed to justify changes he’d made because: (10:25)“… if those very practices and teachings and symbols take place within time, then those practices and symbols are subject to change.”
Well, yeah, but disregarding actual lineage and tradition, it has been changed so often and to such an extent the symbols lose power and there is no one with experience in this new path. Has anyone ever completed this new path and attained realization? Whether or not it works how can there be experience or masters to draw from?
Lynn brought up how some members had spent a good part of their lives studying Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings as well as the vast reservoir of Kagyu/Nyingma dharma, practicing and to some extent understanding his teachings and vision, and now… ?
There are a slew of dedicated practitioners; students of Trungpa Rinpoche, whose decades of practice, understanding and occasional wisdom have become apparently useless to Shambhala International as far as the new curriculum and path is concerned.
One develops a feel for one’s spiritual path over time. That isn’t ‘taught’ but is learned/absorbed on many levels over years. Without that one cannot be a good teacher.
In order to participate in the community Trungpa Rinpoche founded as anything more than serfs, older students would need to drop his teachings, or ignore the understanding they developed about their own path, and adopt a different one that seems to be in constant flux.
Perhaps the most poignant moment in the talk was when Hudson Shotwell asked Adam Lobel if he had any questions for him. Hudson was fairly close to Trungpa Rinpoche. If any students learned anything from Trungpa Rinpoche about working with conflict in skirmishes and so on, he’s one of them. He and a good handful of other senior students of Trungpa Rinpoche ought to be front and center… if Trungpa Rinpoche’s lineage and legacy were integral to this path.
Adam responded by asking Hudson how his family was.
In the inspiration of Umberto Eco’s Antilibrary
Mr. James Elliot,
Thanks for your response. I find it depressing that someone like yourself feels unable to teach, unable to pass on what you’ve learned from Trungpa Rinpoche. (And are you alone? Or are there others like you out there?)
Whereas a young man like Mr. Lobel who’s never even met CTR, who’s been in academic settings most of his life, is given the job of rewriting Trungpa Rinpoche’s teachings (for all practical purposes, as far as SI curriculum is concerned). How did we end up with this predicament?
And more importantly, how does a situation like this persist? What keeps it in place?
It’s easy to point fingers (silently, of course! or in our deep subconscious) at one or two people, but the reality is that it takes an entire community to give its stamp of approval to new decisions. Through our silence, through our reluctance to speak up or ask questions, or heavens forbid, appear impolite! we approve of everything. We are guilty of everything through our timidity, sometimes– perhaps situations like these especially.
What was the #1 lesson from the time of the Regent, Osel Tendzin? Did it have anything to do with a fear of conflict, a fear of asking questions, a fear of rocking the boat, a fear of– God forbid– insecurity? Have the lessons from that time been fully digested and learned by this larger sangha, or are we simply further cementing our mistakes deeper into our minds and psyches?
When people remain silent and allow people like Mr. Lobel to feel that he’s doing a fine job, a great job, who benefits from that? Sure, we benefit, because we appear kind and gracious and polite, like good boys and girls with proper manners, but does Mr. Lobel benefit from not receiving feedback? Does the rest of world, that CTR tried so hard to help, do all those people benefit?
(I have to ask forgiveness as some of my recent posts here were a product of very little sitting practice, and were more of the quality of raw vomit than useful contributions.)
Edward
Zapata… hmmm. A Mexican revolutionary or… a brake shoe? I assume he’s referring to me.
I wanted to be clear about one thing that could be misconstrued. When I referred to a group situation rife with conflict, I did not mean to infer the entire community, about which I could not know. We have heard here from people who are not experiencing any such problems, and I have no reason to doubt them.
That was in reference only to our local situation. We had a couple of dishonest people who for all intents and purposes were (are?) addicted to hatred and manipulation. They successfully used the organizational structure, including the full support of an acharaya, to amp up their parade. In a truly enlightened organization that would not be possible.
(I was talking with a non-Buddhist colleague the other day and he remarked how he had no enemies. I recalled I had said the same when I was about his age. Now I know there are people who loath me, who have even wished me and others I care about dead. The remarkable thing is, they are all Buddhist.)
Anyway, I have heard of a similar situation to ours in another organization. There the situation was dealt with above board, and steps were taken that effectively immunized their community. It won’t stop people from being like that, or course not. It will prevent such from having implied authority and power. And because they were so straight about it, there was no attempt or need to get the victims to shut up.
About the other obstacle, the creation of a path not yet traveled, that is apparent from Mr. Lobel’s talk and the reactions, many conversations had, and what we see on RFS.
If there were a rule against anonymity, I wonder if people calling themselves Zapata would have the pelotas to run around calling people idiots with impunity?
In the inspiration that sometimes the meaning in a label is in what it doesn’t describe.
Edward,
Many older students voted with their feet by dis-involving themselves and seeking other teachers. What’s important to realize about this is that it didn’t happen right away. Only after about 10-15 years after the Vidyadhara passed on and SMR started to change things seriously did this exodus begin to happen. Things ran fairly well for a while, including all the major programs.
After the 1999 Seminary is when things really “devolved.” Although the transcripts of that seminary may have been edited by now, it is important to remember that the “divisiveness” between older CTR students and the Sakyong students happened at that Seminary. It was documented in print in the transcripts that the Sakyong told his new students that older students of CTR really didn’t “get” the teachings, that they weren’t really helpful to CTR. It was shocking. New students of SMR fresh back from that seminary were arrogant and dismissive of CTR students as a direct result of this. He had given them “permission” indirectly to be divisive, imperious, and it resulted in sometimes, very brutal treatment of older CTR students. We are still witnessing the results today, and we all paid the consequences. It caused great pain and suffering which has continued to this day and we heard the results still manifesting in that Adam Lobel-Halifax talk. Whoever has an original 1999 seminary transcript can read it for themselves. History has a way of being rewritten to seem as though it was the older, CTR students that caused the original divisiveness, but that was not the case. CTR students bent over backwards to try and give SMR a chance. Many denied their own native intelligence to do so. After 1999, it was clear that you had to “get with the program” or go away. That’s why people beat feet. They had to deny own intelligence and basic goodness or go away.
Yeats wrote it:
“The best have no conviction,
while the worst are full of
passionate intensity.”
This paradigm is scalable.,,,
from an Org. to a country.
Dark Age, Folks,
better laugh, as if there
were some jokes!
oops….
http://www.shambhala.org/community/congress.php
I’ve just made my way through the lengthy provisional report to the Sangha from the Congress.
Much of it shows responsiveness to the issues raised on this forum. If you have time I hope some
of us will read it and comment. It might be a chance to bring the discussion up a notch
to the level of dialogue.
Dear Madeline
I have read the provisional report. I thought people would comment on it here but thinking about it again re dialogue though the report is ‘more’ concilatory in tone it still hangs on to the ‘concepts’ of Shambhala Buddhism which many on this site find to be an anthema to CTR’s teachings.
So I think dialogue could only happen if the ‘two’ camps were treated as being on the same footing and for the life of me I dont see how they can at the present time because surely SB is the only path that is receiving the greatest emphasis in SI.
Also in some respects I think the time for dialogue has passed …….people are voting with their feet over the present way the Sakyong is presenting these teachings. To me that could be a good thing for some people to do -because they might start manifesting a truly western cultural home for the Buddhist and Shambhalian teachings. In this respect I wish someone could translate Midals talk on utube on CTR which I would love to hear.
Frankly I hear that song in my mind by John Lennon where he states the dream is over aka his time in the Beatles and that now he is coming back to being plain ol John and that is sort of my attitude to SI. Yep we dont need it ….what we need is people coming back to themselves -to their own minds – and going forth from that……..I dont know whats coming next but SI as it is now I know is not it.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
Chris writes:
[in 1999] the Sakyong told his new students that older students of CTR really didn’t “get” the teachings, that they weren’t really helpful to CTR. It was shocking.
This is good to know. I’m hearing this for the first time, I think.
I still feel that CTR’s students could be protecting and supporting Osel Mukpo, in spite of themselves, by not making this and other similar information more available.
CTR’s students are silently “voting with their feet”, but where does that leave new people?
New people are told, through skillful marketing and via dedicated students and in the whole way that centers are run, that SMR is CTR’s unquestioned successor and inheritor in every possible way, and that everything he’s doing is at least 100% in keeping with his father’s teachings, without question or possibility of doubt.
Sure, new people have a responsibility to use their intelligence in evaluating these claims, but what else is going on here?
I believe CTR explicitly told David Rome that if his son Osel does not act properly, then CTR’s students should function in an “advisory role”. There’s really no evidence that this has happened, is there? Or if it did happen, is there any public record of this at all?
And so the conclusion that new people could easily come to is that all of CTR’s students are still busy at work as full members of SI, having only been replaced in visible service positions by more talented newer members. Maybe CTR’s students just weren’t any good at their jobs? And if any of them have left, they must not have had much loyalty to CTR, or felt very strongly about what he’d created. Maybe CTR wasn’t that great of a teacher, and they’ve found better ones since he died?
These are the kinds of presumptions that new people could easily come to. What is there to rebut these presumptions? Is there anything?
What I’ve found are indirect hints here and there, deeply buried information, and long indirect discussions.
Perhaps people like Reggie Ray are beginning to rebut these presumptions through their actions. But it’s still rather indirect.
In a way, I wonder if the students of CTR haven’t been SMR’s strongest supporters, in spite of themselves.
In that sense, voting with your feet is not really a vote, is it? Who can see your vote? SMR presumably doesn’t care or is glad, and it’s almost completely invisible to new people. The only people who see your vote is a handful of your peers who have cast a different vote, and are busy rationalizing their own decision. Or maybe some of them are trying to work with the situation in a different way, a less passive way?
I just have to wonder whatever happened to the students of CTR? I’ve heard that some lamas were terrified of CTR, presumably because he had no hesitation exposing people’s hypocrisy. Where are the students of this man? Who are his inheritors?
Maybe this is all just water under the bridge, ancient history, and a waste of time to discuss.
I don’t think so.
I think this is an extremely interesting case study. All kinds of things could be learned from this– what is aggression, how do you deal with it?. How did CTR deal with situations? When are you allowed to give strong direct feedback, and when are you not? Is Buddhism or Shambhala about being good, passive polite, boys and girls, or is there more to it than that?
How do you know when you’re being an “enabler”? When does being passive result in reinforcing wrong behavior?
Madeline, Rita,
Due to the format of this site, to encourage discussion on a new subject like the Congress, I think it would be great if you could start another thread. Not to keep this thread ‘pure’ but if we start any other discussion as an addendum to this thread, then any discussion about the Congress would only be done by people who have actually read through this fairly long thread, and stayed with it. That would limit interest and involvement in a discussion and possible dialogue immensely.
It should be fairly easy, something like what Mark did about this talk for example. He simply made a short statement that the talk had taken place, and gave the link so all could hear it. (Which has since become restricted, but it was available for a time.)
It would be interesting also to have a discussion about the Treatise which was just re-released. I think there was some remark that it had been slightly revised. I have the original version, will be looking at the new version, and plan to get in touch with Mark about how to start a thread on that.
Edward – I agree with a lot of what you saying.
I too wonder why older students are not manifesting themselves more in this mandala -its a conundrum. If you look at Ray he is one of the teachers who has taken the risk to go out with the teachings and to found a ‘new’ lineage plus he is training westerners to carry on ‘his’ teachings in the world.
And in Europe Midal is very interesting too……even if you count for French
arrogance?!
Where have some of the older students gone? In my research on the internet some have gone to Ponlop Rinpoche and some to Khandro Rinpoche though they retain tenuous links with SI – I have noticed aswell.
Why are the older students not doing the advisory bit with the Sakyong -another conundrum -some probably because they are ‘believers’ in what he is doing, some dont want to rock the boat because they have comfortable positions, some maybe hedging their bets and I am sure you can supply other reasons to add to this list. So yes a lot of people have ‘left’ SI in that they do not work for it as much as they used to. Count me in there….
But what are you going to do about the situation – a palace coup?! Does not seem the American way……..just endless ‘dialogue’ between the abovers and belowers – the belowers being people on this site I think……..so yeh I think its slowly fizzling away………more from boredom and lack of purpose to a large degree aswell.
I think myself better for people to leave and slowly build up their own progs and alternatives because its seepage by SI condescension which is quite unpleasent to be involved in when you could be doing better things with your life than arguing about shambhala iconography that you utterly dislike and cant stomach……..zzzzzzz!….. and that the sangha did not even have a hand in being consulted on. Could you change the icons in a catholic church so easily ——you would have to have at least a Vatican Council on it!
So perhaps you should write a letter to Mr Reoch and get a pleasent answer from him aswell as to what is occuring………….is it worth the bother ……to alot of us we have given up on that course of ‘action’.
So I think that is where we are at at the present time…….maybe better to use this site as a way to explore the future I think in Shambhalian and Buddhist terms – thats what I am doing in the UK…….
o yeh Midal has written another book on risk-taking and the teachings – could anyone translate it your side of the pond -perhaps some one could send it to Shambhala Pubs……I really do hope older students take a leaf out of Midals book and start writing stuff on say perhaps Shambhala vision -we need books on this from the ‘dissenters’ …..o yeh and I am proud to be a dissenter ……..was not the US founded by dissenters?!
best from the UK
Rita Ashworth
james -yeh your right about starting another thread -its just the word ‘dialogue’ started me off on a riff -yeh could do with another way of conversing about the ‘political’ situation in SI and elsewhere in the mandala …..I agree.
Best Rita
Hi Rita,
I didn’t want to front-load this discussion with too many of my own suggestions, but there are a couple of ideas I was thinking of.
This website has a FAQ page that is (in my opinion) hidden away in the background and is worded in a certain way that might not be optimal. Something like that could be made a lot stronger and a lot more prominent. (In some ways this website is currently designed more for long discussions between older students, and is not as oriented to assist new people, perhaps.)
Let me be more explicit. If people felt strongly, say, about combining Shambhala and Buddhist studies, they could sign a petition saying that they don’t think it’s a good idea, and publish this petition prominently on the internet, with lots of links to it and so on. Like one URL / web address that just has that on the main page, and includes a concise description of other prominent things like SMR attacking CTR’s students at seminary in 1999. Or whatever.
It’s just a question of joining your inspiration with your means. What do you want to communicate, and what tools are available to you? If tons of CTR’s students really don’t agree with certain things, and feel that their silence is being used as a credential for SI, then why be secretive or hush-hush about it?
Now, some people may have to deal with complex political and economic situations in order to serve CTR in very concrete and important ways. I respect that and I understand that.
Anyway, rather than jump into a discussion of means and tools– the “earth” side of things– I more wanted to discuss all of this on a dharmic level first. If we have fully received and embodied CTR’s teachings, how do we act when someone comes into our space and wants us to confirm their hypocrisy, wants us to approve of their mistakes?
Rita writes:
So perhaps you should write a letter to Mr Reoch and get a pleasent answer from him… alot of us we have given up on that course of ‘action’
As Chris has pointed out, Mr. Reoch functions to some extent for the sake of managing PR, public relations.
This is like a good cop, bad cop situation. If you talk to the good cop, whether it’s Mr. Reoch or Mr. Lobel or who knows who, he will be extremely sympathetic and will shed tears for you, will listen to you and weep for your pains.
Someone should Google “two-man con”.
Again, both Mr. Lobel and Mr. Reoch seem to me like nice, well-intentioned people. But to even talk about that takes us way, way, way off point. Debating how nice the good-cop is is all part of the con. You don’t choose someone to play good-cop who seems bad, unless you’re a total amateur.
. . . .
I’m hoping people find this discussion useful in all sorts of ways. Presumably if we have trouble with these sorts of issues in one area of our life, we might also experience trouble in other areas of our lives. The principles are the same.
Most “spiritually” oriented people I’ve met seem to have a lot of difficulty dealing with things like conflict, aggression, boundaries, and so on.
One day we wake up and realize that people have been taking advantage of us for years. We seek refuge in the teachings, hoping that they’ll say that withdrawing and avoiding is the most spiritual solution. After trying that for a long time, and not finding success, we start to question our approach and look elsewhere for the answer. Maybe there’s something else we need to look into, something else to learn about?
Just to clarify, I’m not meaning to suggest that SMR is “evil” or “bad” or a “con artist”.
I have no idea about any of that, but in any case it’s totally besides the point.
The point is that I’m not that CTR’s students are serving in an advisory role regarding CTR’s work, either in relation to SMR or in relation to brand new people that come along.
Dear Edward
Re the petition I am not sure about that as a course of action.
I remember when I was working at the Department of Transport in London we got a huge Petition on some legislation that the government had just brought in. All the government did in response to this petition was that it said the comments had been noted and then they went on with their own way of doing things! I actually saw a civil servant writing such the briefest of notes to the people who had signed this petition stating their words had been seen by the Minister. Yeh government is a real con in Westminster.
What makes you think that SI is listening?
Really you need some sort of assembly with real power in any organisation to make people listen and that at the present time is not in SI – so the question of ‘dialogue’ will always be one-sided if dialoguers are not on an equal footing. You can see this in the political situation with Israel and Palestine for example.
For SI to be any kind of reasonable organisation it needs to have within it divergent paths that are accommodated, welcomed,nurtured, prosletised etc etc…..,,,, how can you do this within the context of an organisation which takes the King principle as its orthodoxy with the Sakyongs take on CTR’s teachings. Its debateable that’s why people are leaving and why Lady Diana can say to them leave if you don’t agree with the present path
I think really this is why Midal left that he saw the impossibility both politically and philosophically of SI in its present mode of embodying such divergent viewpoints. It takes an advanced society to let such things happen and I think myself that advanced conception of society is coming more from the west at present (though I am trying not to sound elitist on this viewpoint!)
Re politics and other things in ones life……yes that’s a big subject –to me you can not separate politics from daily life – I have always believed this and surely psychology and feminism have highlighted this to a great degree in the last few decades. Re my own choices in life a lot have them have been taken in opposition to the status quo and I think the responsible citizen should risk-take more about his/her own daily life.
Finally why do I think SI has at present time lost its kudos and is losing it daily. Mainly because of the charge of exceptionalism that has been quoted frequently on this site. Once you start thinking of yourself and your organisation and your teacher as having some unique take on life as you know it – I believe you are encountering an edge that is fraught with danger both politically and socially.
Society-enlightened society needs to come together from all the strands that are operating in the world – otherwise you are creating cliques and fractatious takes on what just is – the majesty of all encompassing Mind.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Rita writes:
All the government did in response to this petition was that it said…
Rita,
I think we have to be careful here. Is our goal to change others? I don’t think so. I think our goal could be to stop enabling people through our silence or passivity. Trying to change other people, to “fix” them, is a kind of aggression, I think. Plus you have no control over that.
If new people could simply have a fair warning, if there could be public notice to them of the things that people like Chris are aware of, that in itself could be something.
Did CTR try to control people, try to change them? I don’t think so. But what happened if you went into his space and tried to use him to endorse your corrupt thingy?
CTR explicitly criticized aspects of Tibetan culture. He warned people about con games that go on with spiritual groups. He made fun of teachers or sanghas that asked him to endorse their trip.
I think the point is not to try to imitate CTR per se, but to try to learn from him.
I could be wrong, but I think CTR also tried to encourage some of his students to confront his regent, based on their own issues with him.
That may have been far more generous, in the long run, than if he had always done the confronting for us.
My own teacher said he was always teaching us and giving us more and more of the responsibilities that he used to assume, so that when he was gone, we would by then have ideally embodied all his abilities, at least as a group.
So I’m not sure where we have gotten the idea that CTR preached passivity and withdrawal as a way to deal with situations, even with people he (with some reservations) hand-picked.
CTR lived through the period of the great anti-war and civil rights protest movements. His response to people who asked if they should take a political position was that maybe people should carry signs that said “down with ego”. In other words, work on yourself.
I think he would find the idea of signing petitions against a vajra master like SMR or against the forms that he has established as quite pathetic.
If Shambhala lives — it is in our lives and in our practice in a very intimate way. I think that someone who is a student of SMR and genuinely applies themselves to practice Shambhala Buddhism has the possibility of completely fulfilling CTR’s vision. I think that someone who rejects SMR as a teacher and genuinely engages with another teacher has the possibility of completely fulfilling CTR’s vision. Someone who met CTR and who rejects SMR and practices on their own with practices given by CTR has a possibility of completely fulfilling CTR’s vision. Someone who doesn’t practice, who sees the obstructions to realization of Shambhala vision as being outside of themselves (whether it is the number of pictures on the shrine or how much other people are practicing or disagreements with the teacher or the community’s leadership or any of 84,000 other things), has zero possibility of fulfilling CTR’s vision.
Just my opinion.
Jim Wilton:
Well said!
My only question is in regard to “Someone who met CTR and who rejects SMR and practices on their own with practices given by CTR has a possibility of completely fulfilling CTR’s vision.” – I am not questioning whether they can fulfill the vision at all, just wondering how those practices given by CTR get passed on to others – and if that passing on is part of fulfilling the vision
One school of thought is that they realize the practices and pass them on regardless of level of “official” approval. But there will be those who question their realization. Who knows?
I don’t have any answers, just questions. I personally fall into both option 2 and option 3 in my aspiration, but like most (all? )of those here (everywhere?) veer into option 4 more than I care to admit.
Michael raises an important point. Access to the teachings of Trungpa Rinpoche is becoming dependant on samaya with a teacher that it is unreasonable to expect all students of Trungpa Rinpoche to assume a samaya relationship with.
Jim is again conflating religion with politics.
For me the question has never been about what path an individual decides to commit to. There are paths I can agree with and paths I don’t. I have seen teachings and groups which I think encourage materialistic thinking, and a couple which don’t.
But that is all by the side.
Those are individual choices for individuals to make. The best thing for it is for people to be well informed about the nature of the path they are entering. That will, and in some sense had better, include ideas and notions that tweak people’s doubt. If people have never given something second thoughts, they probably haven’t thought about it at all.
There were plenty of times around Trungpa Rinpoche in which it was clear doubt was not something to be avoided, but was rather something he invoked to raise the bar on intelligent involvement with dharma and practice. If we weren’t studying and looking into these things, he once explained, then even if people attained realization, what would they be capable of? We would be developing enlightened idiots, he said.
When he did that, if there was any commitment, we would look even deeper and harder at what was going on, what was being presented, and why or how it made sense (or not). Because it did make sense after deeper contemplation, many became devoted students. There was never in my experience any attempt to prevent people from questioning what he was doing. (I do know of instances in which he stopped disparaging talk, but questioning what he was doing? Never.)
But again, as far as choosing a path and a teacher, that’s an individual’s prerogative. When it comes to political dynamics of an organization, however, we all have some responsibility. If we see an MI, a teacher or acharaya abusing power, lying, bullying or manipulating people, and all attempts to stop him or address the situation in any way fall on deaf ears, then we have a problem that is not simply whether or not someone has chosen a particular teacher.
Conflating that kind of abuse or lack of accountability and a wish to have such behavior addressed, with whether or not one has chosen the preceptor as teacher, is a misleading juxtaposition of two dynamics: a. a spiritual path, and b. political and social dynamics. Shambhala, being the legacy of Trungpa Rinpoche and being lead by another teacher who is not excepted in the same way by all, needs to develop more mature ways to deal with the membership body.
If becoming a member of an organization implies in any way we are no longer allowed to question things or to acknowledge abuse for what it is, then we will see how the joining of political and spiritual power can produce the opposite of what the path proclaims and a weak political structure to boot.
In the inspiration that blue is blue, sky is sky, and a spade is a spade.
Some interesting points raised about politics, withdrawal and teachers.
I do not see the present teachers operating outside of SI as ‘withdrawing’ rather I see them as expanding the path of CTRs teachings in the world. So I and others are listening to them at the present moment and contemplating what they say in depth over the net and in print.
I like James point about the ‘enlightened idiots’ -have you got the quote from Trungpa on that, James or know where he said it? Very interesting-seems you can never rest even when you get it?!
…..when I started this path I foolishly thought yes in so many years I will really understand what is going on after I have done all these practices -now all that has been worn down over the years and somewhat crushed again by the enlightened idiot theme?! I wonder slightly if the ‘new’ teachings being promulgated by SMR are seen in the same light by newer students that they will get it if they practice them?
Seems whatever you do there will always be the phenomena of the world to undercut your ego.
Maybe we all have to give up more on finding ‘the’ way forward and go again more with open minds as in the sense of the masthead of rfs
-think bigger…….I am trying to think bigger.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Let me go back to some of my original questions.
What were the lessons to be learned from the time of the regent? Can we say that those of us who lived through that time handled everything perfectly? Are we perfected masters who have nothing to learn from that experience? Or was there something more we could have done?
I have books on my bookcase now by authors who say that they wish they had spoken up more when the regent was in power, and in the appendix they speak in glowing terms about how SMR can do no wrong. What will the books say in 25 years? You can’t have it both ways.
If some people are thrilled with SMR’s decisions, that’s one thing. For people who are not thrilled, my question to you is whether you are serving an “advisory role”? And would CTR have wanted you to serve an advisory role? How exactly would that manifest, given current realities? I think this is worthy of discussion.
My suggestion for a “petition” or “list of grievances” would be that it could including some very simple things like the following:
1. In 1999 SMR helped create a conflict between his own students and the students of CTR by saying the following:___
2. We feel that SMR began to undermine the very foundations of CTR’s teachings by announcing something he called “Shambhala Buddhism”…
To me this is all very simple, but worded in a much more direct way than people usually put it. Hinting at things and being indirect is a highly skillful way to communicate in some settings, but is it sufficient in this case? Are new people served by it?*
The list of grievances doesn’t have to be inflammatory or angry or highly opinionated. It could be extremely carefully written, very factual, but with the added information that some of CTR’s students don’t think these things were such good ideas. That’s it. There could be a list of signatories, or not. It could be similar in intent to the FAQ page on this website, but MUCH more prominent and easier for new people to come across. It’s purpose could be to a) serve as advice for the people who manage the organizations and lineages that CTR created, and b) to serve as advice (or warnings) for new people. Giving “public notice”, as they say in legal circles.
It might only take a few hours to draft this, review and edit it, and publish it online, and then everyone could get on with other business. This is not quite the same thing as marching in the streets or fomenting ongoing conflict, is it?
* As a new person myself, I can say that it has been difficult to uncover what exactly has gone on to create the current situation. Things like “Shambhala Buddhism” did not feel right to me, but it was hard to find out how it came about– did SMR create it on his own, or were CTR’s students all accomplices in one way or another?
If you put yourselves in the shoes of a new person, what would you think of all this if you came across CTR’s books for the first time today and went out to try to find a sangha to participate in?
Jim Wilton writes:
work on yourself
I think this is extremely good and important advice. And I’m honestly grateful for the reminder.
But does practice require constant introversion? Silence? Passivity?
I think many of us who are attracted to Buddhism or various forms of spirituality are afraid of conflict, afraid of our world, and we would like to be introverted as a solution. We would like to find justification in the teachings to withdraw into a safe place where there is less pain and contradiction (we could call it a “cocoon”).
Perhaps a public petition against a “vajra master” is not an ideal thing, not a first line of resort. It just doesn’t seem that much different than some of the things that get said in the discussions on this site.
The main difference is that this website gives an appearance, perhaps, that there are no core problems that a group of people agree on. Is that really the case?
I’d say introspection is required, not introversion.
Edward you make some interesting points in a logical fashion about a petition re SMR.
Such a petition I believe would have to go through the office of Richard Reoch as this is given as way to announce ‘problems’ with SMR – I believe it states this is the procedure for making ‘complaints’ re the Sakyong.
But really the real question is after so many messages have been sent to RR re the changes would such a petition account for much -hence my comment about the petition comments being noted briefly.
No I think myself that the base of the organisation should have more political power itself as CTR mentioned in comments about there being a
National Assembly……I have dwelt on this assembly on this site indepth but not many people have discussed it.
To RR and SMR -the Congress seems a sufficient body to ‘govern’ SI and to me getting a three line paragraph from RR on this is not really on but what can you do about that –nothing much because the organisation is so top heavy and becoming more top-heavy by the minute with the creation of a Ladrang and fundraising drives!
So if you find a way around this let me know……..as to SB itself I think the Sakyong is not going to turn back the bandwagon on this—-he might possibly come to some lukewarm accommodation with the dissenters—–I suppose they could dream something up in a committee session as that
seems the way they are running the org at the present time.
But to me personally and many others SB is a totally mad concept anyway -so I am on the other side of the fence completely on this….any parameters of any dialogue would have to recognise that fact for a lot of us.
Do you think the Sakyong would detonate SB to accommodate us and bring back Shambhala Vision – a tall order now that everything has been set in motion and the revisionist booklets on SB published by the shambhala shop. Hence my comment above about Midal leaving – I think he recognised early that this organisation was on the rocks and being such an erudite fellow jumped earlier than most of us.
And also there is the fact now that westerners can fully teach the dharma as Ray is doing in Crestone……why would he ever want to return to SI -hes doing ok on his own as I believe many older students could do also.
Bet Rays sort of looking at this whole thing with a tinge of amusement…..many people now realising that some of the game is up with SI.
Well hope to hear your comments.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Yes, Rita, the quote or at least the paraphrased concept is from Trungpa Rinpoche. It was at an early Naropa Institute talk, I believe, in which he was discussing the need for studying, how in the Kagyu/Nyingma tradition study was an essential branch of the spiritual path.
He often explained, that if we only practice we might attain realization, but without study we would then not be able to communicate anything to anyone else. We would become ‘enlightened idiots’ unable to talk about anything or pass on what we had learned.
He wasn’t directly encouraging doubt with that, but in other circumstances he played tricks on people that showed he wasn’t taking it seriously (in the way the student was) so why were they?… that sort of thing, and made clear we were supposed to question what we learn, and shouldn’t ever assume anything was true simply because someone with authority said it.
Someone I know who was very close to Trungpa Rinpoche was at his dinner table one evening at a Kalapa Assembly or something similar. At some events, informal dinners, one did the meal chants and began dining only when all people were seated at your table; it wasn’t always that we did the meal chants as one. At another table they started doing the Shambhala meal chants. Trungpa Rinpoche said in an offhand way, “Hmm, that must be the religious table.”
Introspection is good.
Rita, I really enjoyed meeting Mr. Ray some months ago. However, it’s my understanding that Mr. Ray has gone even further than SMR to say that the Shambhala teachings should be withheld from non-Buddhists. Or at least something about how they are a fourth yana after the first three.
I haven’t met Mr. Midal yet but I enjoyed one of his books. I think the French are somewhat healthier than North Americans when it comes to having dialogue and self-respect and so forth. North Americans seem to have a strong drive towards conformity and low-self-esteem and fear of communicating, as various cultural visitors from Europe have pointed out.
Even Mr. Ray (publicly) says things like “I love SMR…” the pause is supposed to hint that he disagrees with some of his decisions, but it’s implied rather than stated, unless I’m recalling incorrectly.
Perhaps some day we will have a hundred different splinter groups, that all merely hint at the things they disagree about with each other, and each can be free to cultivate an atmosphere of comfortable sameness within their ranks, free of any disagreement or diversity, with only one charismatic person allowed per group.
Maybe some of Ray’s students will decide one day that they butter their bread with the butter side down, and will form their own splinter-splinter group.
I’m just wondering if any of CTR’s students agree on anything, have any common “grievances”, if we can use that term in a playful way. If they do have any common issues, and if so why keep it a secret?
In the law, if you witness something bad occuring and you stand by idly and watch, or if you just walk away, that alone can be considered a felony, punishable by prison sentence. Why? It’s because you are enabling, you are an accomplice through non-action.
Sorry if I seem to be making a big deal about this. I’m just getting tired of hearing horrendous stories leak out from people like Chris every few months, and wonder why these things are kept secret.
This wasn’t a horrendous story “leaked out.” It was there in black and white in that Seminary Transcript. But if you had been an older student , at the time, you would only have read it if for some reason you were reading that transcript. In my case, I was taking a class on his talks , as older students were encouraged to do. We were reading the transcripts and it upset quite a few people , at the time. Other older students did bizarre things like say “yes, I agree, and I never got TGS either.” So the confidence diminishing of older students began immediately after that . The most shocking thing, however, was how easily most, and I mean most CTR students remained silent, or capitulated to what I considered at the time, and still do, not a teaching but a neurotic acting out of repressed anger for years from a son, when there was finally a vehicle for it. That period, i.e. 99 through early 20000’s was like something out of the KGB. People knew what was happening all around us, those of us who protested the bullshit around us, such as desolving the practice container at KCL ( Do people know that they moved everyone out and put the staff in rented housing to make way for the millions that were coming for the first book?) or that they were modeling the centers after Kapula, or Omega Institute? This was the time of literally a corporate takeover of the mandala , why else a President appointment who was a PR expert and not a practitioner who never met CTR? People forget how all this transpired, those of us who spoke out and were dismissed, attacked, even physically attacked for saying anything against all these, well we don’t forget. I don’t forget either, when a person back from that seminary asked the Loppon during a talk at a Vajrayogini intensive, why he never mentioned the Sakyong as an enlightened being when he was talking about our lineage of enlightened beings, such as Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche, or Jamgon Kontrol Rinpoche, (masters who were still honored on our shrines) and the Loppon answered “It won’t do you any good, or him any good to think of him that way.” A wrathful and direct response , don’t you think? . What is shocking is not that his students saw him that way, but that older students such as the Loppon, soon shut up. It would be most interesting to find out the answer to that question. Why? What changed so irrevocably that absolutely no feedback was ever allowed again, at a critical juncture. So people shut up and went along. Only they know the answer to that question. We will probably never know.
Are people still studying that seminary transcript unedited? It would explain a lot of the last decade of dismissing of older students by this mandala and how it has continued.
And Rita, some of us did protest what was happening. Particularly the corporate take over of the mandala, the dissolution of the practice container at KCL and SMC, and we were laughed at. I see now in the latest news bulletin that they are now going back to a practice container at SMC by defau
Thank you, Chris, for sharing that.
Chris writes:
when a person back from that seminary asked the Loppon… why he never mentioned the Sakyong as an enlightened being … and the Loppon answered “It won’t do you any good, or him any good to think of him that way.” A wrathful and direct response , don’t you think?
It was a good and presumably helpful response to that person’s question. But what makes it wrathful? It sounds almost like the response of a loving uncle in speaking about a nephew. And what about all the people who have not asked him that question?
For people to sit in the room with Mr. Lobel and not give him “direct and wrathful” feedback does lend the impression that they feel he’s doing a good job, or at least, you know, on the right track more or less.
Silence is acquiescence, in some settings, isn’t it?
My question is “when is dropping hints not enough?”
There are enough CTR students scattered around here and there to lend a great deal of credence to SMR and his people. That’s the way things are marketed. Whenever I’ve been to an introductory event at my local center, they always introduce the speaker as having “30 years experience in the Shambhala Buddha lineage” or they point to CTR’s photo on the wall as the source of all credibility for what happens, the famous teacher who’s given his approval for all this. This happens constantly.
If CTR’s students have low self-confidence, they should look around and realize how much they are used to give credibility to things.
. . . .
Let me ask one final question. If CTR says “you can do it”, you’ve got lots of qualifications, and he says he’s counting on you to play an “advisory role” in his work…. and then SMR comes along and says you’re worthless and you have no role…
If you reject CTR’s comments and embrace SMR’s comments, then which one of them is your guru?
Just to clarify, I’m not trying to attack anyone here. And I can’t imagine going through the experience you describe, Chris. It sounds awful and painful.
I’m just trying to provoke a discussion (or “introspection”) about how powerful each of us is– how strong of an effect each of us can have, both through our action and through our inaction.
The only reason I’ve been following this website is because I have tremendous respect for CTR and his students and look for ways to interact wtih them, because I receive so much benefit from it.
What can anyone do? Impeach the Sakyong? Storm the Castle? I think what can be done is being done
to an extent…this site…people like Ray and Karelis striking out on their own…getting support from other teachers. What else can be done? Work within the mandala for change? Good luck to those people.
Edward,
The problem you/we butt up against is: it’s religion.
Douglas Adams gave an insightful and humorous lecture to a gathering of botanists about this in the book “The Salmon of Doubt” titled “Is There an Artificial God?” (Yes, but…) That talk, even if you didn’t like “Hitchhiker’s Guide…” is worth the price of the book
In that, among other insights, he points out that in politics we can disagree. If we have different points of view about health care reform or who should be president, corruption on Wall Street, whatever, we can and are even expected sometimes to have fairly heated debates and discussions.
Ideas in these realms are fair game. An idea is put into the public sphere and must walk the gauntlet, poked at and argued with until it can prove it is legitimate. This is how science works as well. An idea is not, may not, be adopted unless it proves to be true based on a number of reliable factors. You can’t just say something and have it accepted as truth based only on the power of one’s personality or credentials (except it would seem in psychology).
But if you say to an orthodox Jew that the rule about not being able to flick a light switch on the Sabbath is ridiculous, well, then you are attacking their religion! And being disrespectful. You are simply not supposed to talk that way about such things because (black box here with no logical algorithm) and those kinds of things are ‘sacred’ dammit.
Douglas Adams thought that was bunk. I tend to agree.
The problem we are having and witnessing, is the inability or inadmissibility of discussing people’s sacred cows without some having a Bart Simpson cow.
It is not everyone’s intent here to storm the castle, upset the herd, and create more craziness. And, as John rightly points out, even as we do talk about problems that arise, what difference will it make? It’s religion. Even if we make perfect sense, the religious table’s gonna maybe sneak a peek over at us, and continue on with their liturgy.
The best we can do from our lowly perches is to help people be as well informed as we can. To that end, at least, it is helpful to discuss these kinds of issues. It is a form of vaccination against the kinds of baseless belief required of people sometimes and against abuse one may encounter. (Lack of accountability, abuse of position, a disconnect from earth, group think, the differences between ideology and the truths Buddhism teaches, and so on.)
This is why Trungpa Rinpoche encouraged cynicism. Although he asked us to tone it down at one point, it was becoming too embedded in the communities social skills, we were starting to “bite our own tails” he said at one point, nevertheless the need not to buy whatever is handed down from on high in a devotional gaga, was an intrinsic part of what he taught, in particular: cutting through spiritual materialism.
In the inspiration that sacred cows sell for well over $200/lb. (much more than Kobe beef), and secular for only $8.99/lb.
Dear All
Thank you for your discussion above.
Edward of course I am aware of the splinter-splinter groupie thingie about religion and politics I do have a BA in Religious Studies so I have studied religious history and philosophy. Thing is the splinters sometimes grow into trees witness the Quakers and the Methodist church and I believe in the present age anything can happen re religious thought and practice and indeed politics -we are in strange times and I dont know for sure what we dissenters will encounter out there.
But I know it is good to go with ones heart on things and thats what I am doing in my locality as I apprehend at the present time.
I am also aware of Rays position on the shambhala teachings -he is a clever man and I can see his reasoning behind it in the sense that the shambhala teachings have the flavour of dzogchen to me. I am open to seeing his viewpoint on things.but that doesnt mean I will be his student but I think people can still work with Ray on projects in this respect I mean CTRs students -we can do things together likewise with Midal aswell.
Now as to SB…what can one say…….merely that from my own experience and heart I think it is limiting and caged with prohibitions as to who can receive the teachings and who can ultimately spread the teachings -thus to me that is not something I can dialogue about. Shambhala vision is for me thats where I stand and probably die perhaps! (tho metaphorically of course I add!?)HO-HUM -slings and arrows of outrageous fortune kind of take!
James that Trungpa story made me laugh about the enlightened idiots and the religious table – one for Choggie resurfacing! Perhaps we should have a Choggie joke column.
Lastly all I can say is I am open for the people business of Trungpa Rinpoche -I hope we have success in the coming years. Cheers!
Best
Rita Ashworth
John wrote:
“What can anyone do? Impeach the Sakyong? Storm the Castle? I think what can be done is being done”
We can look at this thing directly in the face and not cower from it. We can see directly without equivocation anymore, what has happened over the last 20 years as the biggest teaching of all and we can say no to samaya corruption which reached its full force as we compromised and went along with every little change that marketing MBA’s concocted out of greed and egoism, until it resulted in the lineage being broken… maybe CTR’s lineage irrevocably.
We can still connect with our Kagyu/Ningma lineage (which was always more important to CTR anyway) by confessing our ignorance and stupidity for going along with any of this samaya corruption and pray for the blessings of the lineage of the Kagyu/Ningma lineage to descend again.
We can recite the Kagyu lineage prayer which is in our bones and blood. We can do the Sadhana of Mahamudra as though we meant it, and consider the words of our teacher who warned us for years about spiritual materialism. We are experiencing the two sides of it, East meets West, the spiritual materialism of corrupt Lamaism which is about preserving their dead 9th culture of serfs and slaves catering to an outdated aristocratic/monastic oligarchy that they want to revitalize, hooked up with the slavery of Anglo/Saxon Capitalism that keeps people in another form of serfdom, marketing the dharma to enhance the resumes of con artists who mingle the dharma with new age/psychotherapy and call it the same as genuine dharma. Or sit around in board rooms concocting the latest “benefactor” trap, such as “Living Peace” which is another fund raising scheme and no more. A genuine teacher helps people to practice, not save the world ,but first save ourselves. We say NO to this corruption of the dharma which is simply two sides of the same coin of spiritual materialism.
We find another Kagyu or Ningma teacher who has kept their samayas with their lineage intact in an unbroken stream and we never , never follow a teacher again without examining him, because it is not alright to follow a charlatan, because as one great Dzogchen master said recently, the “dog’s bone is a myth”. If you follow a charlatan the blessing don’t come no matter how much devotion you have. Or as Penor Rinpoche said in Words of My Perfect Teacher, if you follow a son or nephew of a famous lama, puffed up by the idiot faith of others, with no more realization than yourself, you will wander blind for many lifetimes. As for a Vajra Master, there is no such thing unless you choose it knowingly and you have an intimate relationship with the teacher. Intimate means “one on one” they know you and examine you, and you get to know them and examine them. It only existed between yogis and a few disciples, so we stop bandying that “varja master” jargon around. It probably doesn’t exist except in the most unique of circumstances anymore.
Most importantly, we must never, again forget the inner guru which is really our ultimate guide.
Correction:
Patrul Rinpoche in “Words of my Perfect Teacher”, not Penor Rinpoche.
After listening to this recording I feel like I’m better off getting out of Shambhala now rather than later. I am relatively new to Shambhala and was planning on getting into the Sacred Path and moving onwards. But now I see no reason to go further. I do not want to end up being 65 years old and heart-broken like so many that I heard from tonight. I think I am better off getting out now. I don’t see a resolution here. It all sounds like a bad relationship where you know that you got to get out before you get too deep. I already feel the pain and have felt the pain for a while. I feel a connection to CTR and the original vision of Shambhala so why strain myself knowing that a resolution is not coming in the future? Why walk down the isle when you know it’s not right? I might be able to return the ring and get my money back… Why go through with the wedding when you know it’s not right… I wish it could work out but I don’t think it ever will. Not with the direction of the new Sakyong. What’s the point of pulling out my hair and fighting a lost cause? What’s the point of making new friends and staying up late and wishing things were different when I can just leave and search for another sangha that has a proper vision. Shambhala broke my heart already. There is a new group down the street, some Eckhart Tolle group… Who knows!? I don’t want to end up like these poor souls on the recording who have to answer to a young kid standing in for the Sakyong.
Chris, thanks for your comments about the 1999 seminary. I didn’t know any of that.
James, it’s so good to hear of Trungpa Rinpoche encouraging doubt, and his comment about religiosity. I’m reminded once again of that moment in the movie “Words of My Perfect Teacher” where Luc is really challenging the other student (a lovely person whose name, alas, I can’t remember). He really grills her about the nature of devotion, saying something like “how does what you’ve just expressed of your feelings differ from a follower of Osama bin Laden”? And their teacher, Dzongsar Khyentse, is this way too. In my experience, Shambhala today does not encourage serious doubt.
I must say I find the “true believer” one of the most terrifying phenomena on earth. Maybe I’ve read too much literature and seen too many films about it all. But having thought about the distinction I mentioned above some more, I really think I’d take the cynic over the true believer any day. More often, I feel, the cynic’s heart will have a better chance of being broken than the true believer can find a way out of their absolute conviction that God / History / Truth is on their side. There is something horrifyingly potent about spiritual materialism when it pervades a political / religious / religio-political institution.
So I’m very sensitive to even its scent. Current Shambhalians will say: too sensitive. Most would find it difficult to detect even a trace of it in the sangha. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with them.
“I was talking with a non-Buddhist colleague the other day and he remarked how he had no enemies. I recalled I had said the same when I was about his age. Now I know there are people who loathe me, who have even wished me and others I care about dead. The remarkable thing is, they are all Buddhist.”
I can say the same James. It’s really something.
“If we see an MI, a teacher or acharya abusing power, lying, bullying or manipulating people, and all attempts to stop him or address the situation in any way fall on deaf ears, then we have a problem that is not simply whether or not someone has chosen a particular teacher.”
Absolutely. This is as basic as it gets.
Chris, I find your photoshop of the Sakyong’s picture remarkably offensive.
I really hope that you are able to find a good teacher. I worry that with the solidity of your views that you will never be able to make a connection.
As Tsoknyi R. says, being deceived by others is not so bad. What is the real problem is when you fool yourself.
As Tsoknyi R. says, being deceived by others is not so bad. What is the real problem is when you fool yourself.
What’s the difference?
I think being deceived by others sucks. Plus it’s an expensive habit.
I remember sitting in the room with my old teacher once when he talked about this. He said “There’s a sucker born FAR more often than once a minute.” He told a story about a crafty salesman who purchased some inferior goods once at a deep discount, and then played on his customers’ weaknesses by announcing that the defect was really an asset. People were so eager to believe bullshit that the goods sold like hotcakes, and the crafty salesman turned a nice profit.
My teacher said the reason we’re so gullible and get conned all the time is because we’re addicted to hope and fear and illusion. We require a constant diet of illusions and refuse to see things as they are.
He said as long as we do this, there will always be con men in our lives to play the complementary role we demand.
We can avoid religious organizations, avoid romance, avoid people, but I’m not sure doing any of those things would truly solve our problem.
. . . .
damchö writes:
Chris, thanks for your comments about the 1999 seminary. I didn’t know any of that.
This gets back to my original point. Newer people are left in the dark about some of these things, aren’t they?. SMR tells his version of the story, and all the students of CTR who disagree with him… are they effectively his accomplices by staying silent?
Does anyone else feel that a few relevant facts could be sifted out from these discussions and summarized all in one place, for the benefit of new people? Or is that being too direct?
On the other hand, perhaps there’s no substitute for getting conned and learning through one’s own experience. My old teacher used to love playing tricks on us– there was nothing that made him laugh harder.
JB writes:
I do not want to end up being 65 years old and heart-broken like so many that I heard from tonight.
Is being heart-broken bad?
I don’t see a resolution here.
Sounds like the first noble truth!
JB…Do what’s best for you. People dropped out of Trungpa Rinpoche’s sangha for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes a person would ask Rinpoche
if they could study with another teacher, and sometimes he said yes. Get what you need for your path
Jim
What picture are you talking about? If it was posted here, or some other Buddhist site, thank goodness, I didn’t see it.
Rob
Dear Jim:
If you find the photo offensive, I suggest you write the Coast who made it and attached it to their article. Apparantly ordinary Haligonians have not yet gotten the sacrosanct transmission re: all this, even after 25 years. Their feet are still on the ground.
Link:
http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/shambala-shindig/Content?oid=1378742
Seems like President Reoch needs to do a little more home work on PR.
I remember a few years back, I read an article in the LA Times when there was a fund raiser with H.H. The Dalai Lama present, with many celebs in attendance. Sharon Stone introduced His Holiness as “The hardest working man in China”. Not only was she comparing H.H. with James Brown, but assumed Tibet was part of China.
The article went on to say that even though The Dalai Lama was hip cause, what people forget or don’t know is that The Dalai Lama is a strict and humble monk. Different Lamas behave in different ways. Some disagree with each other. That is why they’re are debates. Apparently, that hasn’t been working very well either, especially lately.
Electronic Consorts
This is very very fine
Top o’ the line
Top o’ the line
Talk to my friends any time
Day or night, any time
Hang together vajra lovers
Hang together, don’t let go
Turbulences always happen
Don’t let go, don’t let go
There never was
There never is
This path of ours is joy
It has its own logic, fractal logic
Our path is colourful and curvy
After spending time in limbo
It is apparent; there is no choice
Following bright lights
Exploding with colour
Following the path
The path of joy
Letting go will be required
Letting go is recommended
Thinking this way, once again
I feel familiar crazy wisdom
Lovers stand steady
Lovers hold firm
Keep your eyes clear
Your voices are sweet
Your smiles eclipse the sun and the moon
Your tears wash away the eons of karma
Your blood holds the messages of the ages
Your skin is a safe place to land
Your teeth and nails are sharp enough
Your heartbeats are inscrutable
This is very very fine
The love we share is
Top o’ the line
Madeline
December 2009
Nova Scotia
To the maker of the TinTin comic panels [Mark, could they be posted here so everyone can see?]: this is a miniature masterpiece — a brilliant stroke of art and magic. Bravo!
Captain Haddock falls to his knees surrendering to the pomp and circumstance of his own mind — created in reaction to the pomp and circumstance he has just observed — [why O why did they look, not supposed to look!] and TinTin is asking [fill in the blank] —
“Are you going to let a little thing like that disturb your samadhi?”
..that’s my guess…
“Years go by, and their practice deepens, not into insight territory, but into epoxy-like faith and further fixation on content. They learn how to “talk Buddhist.” They learn the “culture” of Buddhism in just the same way that they learned the culture of transpersonal therapy, transactional analysis or French existentialism. They become fascinated with their growing knowledge of Pali, their fancy brass bell from Nepal, or their knowledge of Tantric iconography. They have taken Bodhisattva vows 108 times.
They may become neurotic about “right speech” and self-righteous about “Noble Silence.” They may begin to adopt the gently condescending and overly deliberate speech patterns and mannerisms that quietly scream, “I am sooooo spiritual and aware!” They may become fixated on complex, arbitrary, restrictive and even disempowering models of what is “proper Buddhist behavior,” trying to be a “good Buddhist,” whatever that is. In short, they become very religious. At worst, they become gaudy and distorted caricatures of the spiritual life. Such people are generally very tiring to be around.
They may even get sucked into the all too common trap of praying for a “better rebirth” and “making merit” rather than actually trying to master the art of meditation and wise living here and now. In short, the trappings, dogma and scene become everything, and penetrating the illusions that bind them on the wheel of suffering is lost in the shuffle.
At its worst, they can go on like this for enough time so that they develop quite a retreat resume but little or no insight, and then get caught by this. They have been to India, sat with this teacher and that teacher, had Tantric initiations, or been sitting for twenty years. They begin to become fascinated by all o”f this and somehow they begin to feel “wise” despite the fact that they may have no insight whatsoever into the universal truth of things because they never actually learned insight practice. They use the word “emptiness” in casual conversation when they don’t have Clue One what it means. But they feel they do, as they have spent so much time hearing it, “meditating” on it, and being spiritual. They talk about “letting go” and “mindfulness” as if they are the experts.
They may even begin to teach, and to do so they find themselves having to subtly or overtly rationalize that they completely understand what they are teaching. After all, they want to encourage faith in their beautiful tradition, and so try to appear clear and unconfused. They get stuck here, stuck in the muck of their rationalizations, the misapplied lingo, the sugarcoated dogma, the role of teacher, and the cultural trappings that they have become experts in. From this point it can become nearly impossible for them to actually learn anything, as they are now trapped in the very teachings that were originally designed to free them from just such a situation.”
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 From Mastering the Core teachings of Buddha :an Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book by Daniel Ingram
Chris,
Thanks for posting the quote above.
Did you read the entire book? Can you recommend it beyond the quoted portion?
Mark
Mark A. Smith
303-517-5302(cel)/719-256-5329(off)
mas1@ctelco.net
Dear Mark:
I am reading the book as an e-book now, free from his site. You can also order it from Amazon in traditional book form. Here is the link to read as ebook. He comes from a Theravadin Tradition, but CTR is heavily listed in his bibliography, as is Korean Dogen. He debunks most of what is now “posing” as feel-good dharma “mush” and talks about the Mushroom Effect of most dharma scenes, i.e. growing mushroom students, left in the dark about what the Buddha really taught, and being fed a lot of bullshit. He has a direct voice, which is refreshing.
http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram's%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/The%20Blook.html
Chris,
Thanks for the link.
He seems more than a bit ‘harsh/judgmental’…I will read some more of his book over the next week or so….
As you are clearly aware, many, if not almost all, of the greatest/most realized Tibetan masters have simultaneously stressed the path of meditation in its fullest/deepest aspects with the goal of enlightenment (for the benefit of ‘others’ and ‘oneself’) in one/few lifetimes (‘accummulation of wisdom’) AND the need for continual accumulation of merit and an orientation toward the next life as an antidote for attachment to this life.
Having been raised by the Vidyadhara (and the Regent) and ‘innoculated’ against many of these tendencies, it has been very interesting to become ‘multi-cultural’ as a student of Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche in whose Sangha the accumulation of merit and the focus on the next life (and thereafter) is much more prominent.
The two aspects can certainly be practiced simultaneously (and maybe must be)……
Enjoy—-mark
PS–maybe we will overlap sometime in Crestone area…
Dear Mark:
Ingram is definitely coming from a “insight meditation”, “by the book/map approach”, of stages of insight according to a Theravadin path. (Insight meditation students are considered by one Dzogchen master to be very well-prepared for Dzogchen practices, interestingly) and therefore different from the way we have been taught but there are some very interesting areas in the book, however, which could be very helpful, i.e. seeing the nyams and stages of meditation we pass through and “just keep practicing” approach instead of getting derailed into taking these experiences as anything more than that, just experiences and stages of realization.
Yes, maybe our paths will cross. The Kontrul Rinpoche students here seem to be the best practitioners, and thank goodness there are some pristine lamas still, like Kontrul Rinpoche and Trangu Rinpoche and a few others, that can navigate through all this new age, psychologized, western, feel good “dharma” and not get trapped into accommodating to it, to keep the western students happy . Kontrul Rinpoche, I hear, actually makes sure that he takes on only students that really, really want to seriously practice the dharma. Rare now, in this atmosphere of keeping a constant fund-raising “stream”going as the main practice, and which is how the “merit” thing is being abused and leads to a corruption of the dharma, . I think his students, and others, practicing up in the mountains here are, actually protecting the genuine dharma and keeping this a retreat environment. I wonder if this is because Dzigar Kontrul R. actually knows the west, because he has plunged into it, and knows its trappings. Most Tibetan lamas don’t really know the West, in my opinion, and are fooled into giving western students what they “want”, i.e. feel-good dharma, instead of what they need, as long as the money keeps flowing into the coffers. If you give students the genuine dharma, it isn’t going to make them happier and content in samsara, quite the contrary, and teaching the genuine dharma, people will start falling away. I remember my Shambhala levels as an example of this, when it was a real commitment, and Level III was the litmus test, because you had to give up two whole weekends, (full weekends!) in a row to do it. Level I had usually about 100 people on Friday night ( by Sunday this had dropped down to 30). Level III had about 12 people left .
Cont….
And that was attrition levels for Shambhala Training the so-called “dharma light”. It would be interesting to see how many people would actually attend a seminary these days if it was still 3 months long, a real shedra, and instead of seeing this fewer number as a failure in “revenue” and therefore cancelled, it would be seen as the right number of serious students of the dharma,even if it was only 12.people.
Chris,
Thanks for your response.
I skimmed Ingram’s book last night (very quick scrolling) and while I like his attitude in many ways, his narrowness of view (which he denies while ‘…protesting too much..’ ), as evidenced in his gloss on the kayas, etc. , traps him in an almost ‘classic hinayana’ stance at points…..
Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche has not sought out students who do not (at least make the aspiration to) practice this life (and the next). The Mangala Shri Bhuti sangha has a very different flavor (of kindness and consideration) compared to either the Vajradhatu world we grew up within or SI now.
Despite the differences in flavor of the sanghas, Kongtrul Rinpoche’s core teachings bear more resemblance to the teachings we received the Vidyadhara (whom he holds in the very very highest repute as a fully realized mahasiddha as communicated/transmitted to him by HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and from his study of the Vidyadhara’s teachings and mandala) which is not surprising given the lineage streams each holds/embodies.
We are so fortunate to inhabit a world filled with (accessible) Trungpas/Khyentses/Kongtruls/Choklings/Karmapas…
Kongtrul Rinpoche is the only person I have had the opportunity to know personally other than the Vidyadhara who I can, without any level of doubt see/proclaim as a ‘man of Ati’.
We (my wife Kelly & I) live at Samten Ling Retreat Center above Crestone.
I will be returning to Crestone later this week…..will you be attending the New Year’s Eve (afternoon) Sadhana of Mahamudra practice in town?
Enjoy!
Mark
PS–please send me your email/phone number.
PPS–No single version of the path is appropriate (in any given lifetime) for all practitioners which is ‘why’ there are 9 yanas and 84,000 (million?) collections of Dharmas….It is so necessary , at least for me, to work to overcome my overly critical view of others (and their paths) and view each and every being(from vajra broythers and sisters to the limitless expanse of beingswho have been my mother..) with kindness….
Dear Mark:
Yes, we will be at the S of M and gathering afterwards. Hope to see you there.
I think this is a very interesting time again regarding the dharma in the West. I think there is a major shift happening where pop culture “dharma” that appeals to a wider mass audience, (which I don’t think applies to the 84,000 dharmas but is something else, i.e. I think the 84,000 dharmas refer to actual paths that will liberate people) and Tibetan cultural trappings mistaken for the dharma are going to implode and authentic teachers, will be the one’s surviving. So we live in very interesting times. If we had been brave enough to be more critical “instead of wringing our hands” and spoken out 15 years ago, things might have gone in a very different direction, so I don’t agree that one should never criticize things openly, or speak out, that is an inherited eastern cultural trapping superimposed on the dharma, in my opinion. This worked very well in monastic, medieval cultures, where you needed a very compliant serf and slave population to believe there fate was thier “karma” and that to speak out then, as a peasant or serf, was grounds for serious consequences. We were not taught that by the Vidyadhara. The Buddha was very outspoken about what was going on around him and was considered a revolutionary. So if one were to follow in the Buddha’s footsteps etc, etc….
I think that we have not been respected as Westerners, and have been seen as a source of fund-raising where millions are sent back to Asia to support monasteries and the spiritual paths of Western students have not been the primary interest of most of these lamas and people are sick of it and are speaking out. I think this is a good thing because when East meets West in the dharma there should be a reciprocity of feedback and communication. Not communication going one way all the time so that western Buddhists live in a fantasy projection about Tibet . I believe this has been an obstacle to our spiritual path for decades where “enlightenment” is always far away, esoteric and projected onto these teachers, who may or may not have realization. I also think that we have been very confused about “compassion” and have had a very “constructed” and artificial view of what that means.. Even from a Mahayana view one should first understand voidness before one talks about compassion. We should understand that we “don’t exist” and phenomena “don’t exist” before real compassion arises. To do that we have to strip away all our notions of ourselves, all our hidden corners, and that is what practice is all about, stripping away. I am reading now the two volume work recommended by a Rinpoche , “A History of Modern Tibet 1913- 1951: Demise of the Lamaist State” and a History of Modern Tibet, 1951-1955 Vol 2 The Calm before the Storm” for a very good history of Tibet. I think it behooves us to at least investigate the culture we have wholesale taken on these past 30 years . That I am only reading this now, after almost 30 years is quite amazing, and I am sure I am not alone.
P.S. and I would venture to say that your sangha probably experiences more kindness, because it comes from a lot of practice, real deep practice, out of which real compassion can flow. I would be so bold as to guess that Dzigar Kontrol Rinpoche’s sangha is working on themselves first , diligently, before they try to save the world.
I would like to have the complete adress s of DILGO KHYENZE to write to mathieu ricard Please
Mireille there are addresses for DKR in India/and Nepal at http://www.shechen.org -look under contacts
Best
Rita Ashworth
oops should read http://www.shechen.org -sorry Mark -changed it but it did not save
best
rita