Shambhala Buddhism and Vajradhatu Buddhism

119 Responses to “Shambhala Buddhism and Vajradhatu Buddhism”

1. rita ashworth on January 18th, 2010 9:37 am
   

   ‘the subsequent practice of Sadhana of Mahamudra retreat, Kagyu/Mahamudra practices & Nyingma Ngondro/Yidam practices (Vajrakilaya and the Longchen Nyingtig/Konchok Chidu/Rangjung Pema Nyingtig terma cycles) which the Vidyadhara instructed us to practice in parallel with and at the same time as we studied/practiced the Shambhala terma transmissions of the Dorje Dradul thru the progression of Shambhala Training/Graduate Levels & Kalapa Assembly/KOS/Werma.’

   ‘iii) emphasis on guru/disciple form of transmission lineages (Tilo/Naro/Marpa/Mila/Gampo) which CTR repeatedly stated that he favored (in contrast to tulku and/or family transmission) for the Buddhist side of his teaching stream,’

   Dear Mark

   Is it possible for you to comment further on the above points.

   For example I did not know that the Vidyadhara said we should practice the other teachings you mention after being to Kalapa Assembly -did the Vidyadhara tell people verbally to do these practices or is something written down.

   Also as to point three -this is very interesting -is there also something written down about this or was the Vidyadhara discussing this again with his students. It does open the door a little for more westerners to become empowered perhaps like in the Zen tradition -could a structured path be set out for this?

   My prime questions re SB are that it should still be open to other religious tradtions in its entirety………ie Marks S’s point that we are in an early days approach with the Shambhala teachings. From my own experience with other lamas they really do know when people are ready to transmit the teachings -even sometimes if they are not Buddhist or Shambhalain either. They have some sense of where the person is coming from.

   Re the kagyu ngondro -do you think it could be shortened for westerners -a Nyingmpa tradition where I live is shortening this form of ngondro for people -do you think it could be done by time also. I am not sure about this -what do people think?

   I do think we have some problems in the west preserving the Kagyu path as it is but may be it could be adpated for westerners -it needs some input on the whole thing from the various lamas in the Kagyu lineage.

   Posting this points publicly because I think it would be good for people to discuss them.

   best

   Rita Ashworth
2. rita ashworth on January 18th, 2010 11:18 am
   

   further point yes I am aware of Sadhana of Mahamudra and have practiced it and of course Vajrakilaya but could you go into more detail as to how they are connected to the Shambhala path as stated by Vidyadhara

   Best again

   Rita Ashworth
3. mark a smith on January 18th, 2010 12:07 pm
   

   Dear Rita,

   The outline of what I call the Vajradhatu Path was long set forth in the practice & study section of the Vajradhatu/SI website (and may still be accessibile in various forms on the archives of that site—others can probably locate it for you). The Vajradhatu Path was largely as I outlined it above through the beginning of the 21st century. It was the path which SMR taught from 1990 until the last 6+ years. It was also set forth in articles in the ‘Vajradhatu Sun’ (the predecessor to the Shambhala Sun which was published in a newpaper format) by Dorje Loppon Lodro Dorje. The practice departments of both Karma Dzongs (Boulder & Halifax) and most larger Dharmadhatus (now Shambhala Centers) probably have copies of various versions in their files.

   As to the Vajrayana portions of the Vajradhatu Path ‘after’ Chakrasamvara, please recall that the Vidyadhara only bestowed the Chakrasamvara Abhisheka in the West on a single occasion (to the best of my knowledge) in April 1986 and passed away just a year later. As a result, these portions of the Vajradhatu Path were not practiced by us until after CTR’s Paranirvana. However, the Vidyadhara spoke of these matters publicly, officially to folks like the Dorje Loppon & privately (I heard the ‘Nyingma branch’ discussed while serving at the Court) and there was no significant mystery or confusion about the outline.

   To the best of my recollection, the curriculum ‘post-Chakrasamvara’ (which in no way meant that one needed to move on from VY/Chakrasamvara but could elect to do so) began with Vajrakilaya (’Nyetig Phurba’ terma of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo for which we received abhisheka from HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche in 1987) as both daily practice and retreat practice and Sadhana of Mahamudra retreat (SMR provided the abhisheka and encouraged people in this retreat practice) followed by two branchings which could be elected:

   a) Kagyu Path—which included the ‘Mahamudra Investigations’ and ‘6 Yogas’ , both of which initially pointed toward the 3-year retreat at Gampo Abbey under the guidance of Thrangu Rinpoche. The extensive teachings of Khenpo Tsulrim Gyamtso later became a large part of this branch.The intention was that this branch path lead to full and complete realization of Mahamudra.

   b) Nyingma—which included practice of 3 Nyingma ngondros (Konchok Chidu (terma cycle of Kagyu terton Jatson Nyinpo), Longchen Nyingtig (terma cycle of Rigdzin Jigme Lingpa & the ‘cycle’ which CTR received (and practiced in)from Shechen Kongtrul Rinpoche & Khenpo Gangsar–and taught in England before migrating), and Ranjung Pema Nyingtig (main terma cycle of HH Dilgo Khyentse) followed by practice of the primary sadhanas of the first 2 cycles (in retreat) and the unfolding of Ati/Dzogchen.

   The Buddhist practice stream did not ‘lead to’ Kalapa Assembly/KOS/Werma and did not in any way end when one received those transmissions. Rather, we practiced through Shambhala Training & Levels to reach those transmissions/practices and practiced them in parallel to the ‘householder yogin’ Buddhist path..
4. mark a smith on January 18th, 2010 12:47 pm
   

   #2—

   There was never any notion that the Vajradhatu Path and Buddhist practice ended when one attended Kalapa Assembly and received Werma/KOS transmissions. Nor was there ever any notion that the Shambhala transmissions/practices (including ‘Scorpion Seal Retreat’) were higher. Rather, the Vidyadhara repeatedly stated that Ati/Dzogchen represented the pinnacle of the path—the ‘golden roof’ and ‘old dog’ stage.

   I heard the CTR (as Dorje Dradul) state, and generally heard the Shambhala teachings in this manner, that the Shambhala teachings were needed to provide a ‘territorial base’ and to provide ‘protection’ for the Buddhist teachings in general and Ati teachings in particular by ‘creating enlightened society’ in which they could flourish (together with other genuine spiritual traditions).

   (continued)—mark
5. Edward on January 18th, 2010 1:15 pm
   

   Mark Smith writes:
   Please read the paragraphs below slowly and with at least an attempt to restrain emotional responses (either positive or negative).

   Are emotional responses bad?

   Is there a point at which being afraid of emotions– ours or someone else’s– becomes a gigantic obstacle?

   Just wondering.

   But actually, in terms of suplicating SMR, it might be a good idea to butter him up more so he can completely save face as much as possible. Maybe what you need is a good-cop, bad-cop stragegy where the good cop denounces SMR’s critics, and talks about how CTR’s students will never be up to snuff as far as the new curriculum goes, and how they need old fashioned stuff to satisfy their backward interests. If you’re the good cop, you might want to denounce the RFS website more than you have done.

   The bad cops can cause problems and be more direct, more ruthlessly honest, and the good cop can seem compassionate and offer a solution, broker the deal.

   But the good cop has to seem like SMR’s best friend and supporter, or it won’t work as well.
6. rita ashworth on January 18th, 2010 1:18 pm
   

   Dear Mark

   It is interesting to hear about the practices after Chakrasamvara – I did hear some talk of them way back when people had finished CS.

   Could you perhaps comment more on how you see the Scorpion Seal retreat from the vantage point of the Vajradhatu Buddhism/shambhalian point of view. Mark S went into this briefly but could you do it in a logical fashion, for example I heard some people practiced the Scorpion Seal retreat when the Vidyadhara was alive -is this true or was Kalapa Assembly the pinnacle of the Shambhala teachings at that time?

   Also do you know of any other shambhalian teachings that were talked about after Kalapa Assembly aswell.

   Maybe I will aver to not discussing the family lineage thingie but I do think we should discuss passing down the Buddhist lineage to westerners as you mentioned this in your post -this is really interesting. Cross fertilisation as they say.

   Re the Kagyu lineage surviving in the west -do you think it should at all be changed in any fashion from what the Vidyadhara promulgated to make it adaptable to pressurised lifestyle of westerners? Would love to hear peoples views on this.

   Again best

   Rita Ashworth
7. mark a smith on January 18th, 2010 1:19 pm
   

   #3—

   As to:
   iii) emphasis on guru/disciple form of transmission lineages (Tilo/Naro/Marpa/Mila/Gampo) which CTR repeatedly stated that he favored (in contrast to tulku and/or family transmission) for the Buddhist side of his teaching stream,’

   the Vidyadhara taught many seminars/ITSs/etc in the1970s on Tilo/Naro/Marpa/Mila/Karmapas & Padmasambhava which touch on guru/disciple transmission. Additionally, he taught extensively in restricted contexts (such as Seminary and Vajra Assembly) on the guru/disciple transmission lineage process and spoke of these matters privately.

   The Vidyadhara transmitted his Buddhist Lineage streams to Vajra Regent Osel Tendzin, which transmissions were affirmed by the 16th Karmapa and HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, and he spoke of this matter in that context as well. The Vidyadhara also empowered others such as the Dorje Loppon (to give vajrayana transmission, etc.). And he empowered many, many of us to teach (from beginning level to higher levels) and be meditation instructors (from shamatha to sadhana), etc.

   The Vidyadhara stated that the tulku tradition had lost something when compared to the guru/disciple transmission lineage tradition of India because it created too big a gap between ‘humans’ (ordinary practitioners) and ’supermen’(tulkus). He wanted the Buddhist lineage stream he taught in the West to be passed from guru-todisciple(s).

   Note that many Tibetan teachers hold 3 lineage streams: a)guru/disciple, b)incarnation/tulku & c)family and that each of these streams may include different transmissions and are most often passes on separately (and to multiple inheritors) for the benefit of beings.

   Therefore, for instance, there is no conflict in th enotion that the 12th Trungpa Tulku holds the tradition Surmang Trungpa incarnation lineage stream—which differs from the particular teaching stream of the Vidyadhara in the West—the Vajradhatu Path—which I think of as ‘9-Yana Kagyu’ or ‘Dzogchen Kagyu’ within KOS.

   The Sawang (now SMR) was trained to be Sakyong and to hold the ‘family lineage’ of the Shambhala transmissions/KOS. He was not intended to be the holder of the Vidyadhara’s Buddhist lineage stream.

   The Vajradhatu Path stream was passed from the Vidyadhara to (thru) the Vajra Regent and others. Due to the untimely death of VROT (and the crisis which proceeded his passing), SMR was asked to take on the leadership of Vajradhatu and teach on the Buddhist path (as a ‘very senior’ student of CTR). Note that he holds 3 lineage streams now as outlined above. Until the early part of this century he basically taught the Vajradhatu Path but then developed the Shambhala Buddhist Path.

   A guru-disciple stream of the Vidyadhara’s Vajradhatu Path lineage stream was passed thru the Vajra Regent to Patrick Sweeney who teaches it in Satdharma. A Buddhist lineage stream of CTR exists in England under Rigdzin Shikpo(Michael Hookham)’s Longchen Foundation. Others among us (Reggie ar/Dharma Ocean, etc) also hold the Vidyadhara’s tansmission lineage…..enuf…

   mark
8. rita ashworth on January 18th, 2010 2:41 pm
   

   ‘The Vidyadhara stated that the tulku tradition had lost something when compared to the guru/disciple transmission lineage tradition of India because it created too big a gap between ‘humans’ (ordinary practitioners) and ’supermen’(tulkus). He wanted the Buddhist lineage stream he taught in the West to be passed from guru-todisciple(s).’

   Mark would you have the source for the above quote -that would be interesting……sorry about my excessive posts -its the journalist in me again!

   Also hope people can comment on the above aswell

   Best

   Rita Ashworth
9. Mark Szpakowski on January 19th, 2010 12:37 pm
   

   Rita, since there are two Mark S’s contributing to this site, it gets confusing: how about you refer to me as Mark Szp, and Mark Smith as Mark Sm (or something like that)
10. rita ashworth on January 19th, 2010 2:16 pm
    

    Cheers Mark – I will use Mark Szp for you.

    Hope its not to cold in NS – we have just had a week of snow I almost thought I was back in Canuckland again with all the clobber on ……jeez!

    Hope people will comment on this thread as a lot of interesting points of an historical nature are coming up re the Buddhist transmission issue.

    Might also be good to go into your previous points again re the Scorpion Seal retreat and your take and others on that.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
11. richard heilbrunn on January 24th, 2010 9:05 am
    

    i truly embrace this dialog. i see the KOS being completely non-secular, ALL inclusive and everyone’s birthright. i also look to those of you who sat with the Vidyadhara to continue to propagate his message and teachings. it seems SMR has taken a much more public expression. perhaps as a result of the SI vehicle. this shouldn’t preempt any of you from teaching and sharing the vision you were gifted. just basking in the light of the Great Eastern Sun, i find your “knowledge” harder to mine and SB more available. i encourage you all to lead and teach. your Practice can continue to attract many new Warriors like me. IMHO richard
12. ash on February 17th, 2010 11:07 pm
    

    Two posts on this: first, a personal account of problems I encountered the past decade or so. In 1995 I went up to RMDC to attend a Vaj. program with SMR, KTG and a Nyingma Loppon. It was good. I was attending in order to see the new Sakyong in action as such to inform my work in setting up the programming structure at Dechen Choling, the first practice center established during his reign. A student of mine from Europe came to receive ngondro transmission, shortly before which event it was announced that no ‘old students’ should attend. So I didn’t. Afterwards, my student told me that she had been instructed not to discuss anything of what she had been told about the practice with me or any other older student. Then she asked for instructions about prostrations etc. At this point – and as I recall I was not emotional about it – I declined saying that clearly it was His wish that her path not be corrupted by the neurotic tendencies and influences of the older students (a description which she did slip out in her brief summary of the event). On my return to France I stopped taking on meditation students, soon thereafter stopped teaching,and soon thereafter ended up in a clinic! (But that’s another story.) At the time I just thought that SMR was right: I was (and still am) highly neurotic and probably a bad influence.

    Some years later I set up a working operation in Kalapa Valley, open to the public, and financially self-sustaining – at least potentially. It needed another year or two to get going. This involved very hard work on the ground, typical of rural situations and especially in very rugged Cape Breton landscape and culture. That work went well, especially in terms of relations with the local community, which is a notoriously tricky one to work with. However, despite no less strenuous efforts on my part, I could not get through to anyone in Halifax and was indeed refused access to anyone in the administration. Furthermore, a letter to SMR was deflected by David Brown – who later apologised – because he did not want to involve Him in ‘politics’. The letter was simply alerting him that in any transfer of ownership (which after 10 years was about to happen due in no small part to my efforts on the ground to wake things up) the recently developed local operations should not be ignored and I simply wanted permission to continue them. Not being able to talk to anyone in Halifax or the Court, I was reluctantly forced to leave. This incurred financial losses, it meant all that hard work was trashed, and also, at that point, I felt a searing rift with the sangha which I took as a teaching – and still do – the message being: ‘buzz off’.

    Moved to Sydney, the future capital of Shambhala acc. to a poem by VCTR (perhaps a playful one) and taught a summer course. About 30 students attended for 10 weeks. In the fall, I was going to offer a Hinayana 101 course and prep people interested for Refuge. At which point a msg came down from Halifax: you can’t teach dharma courses unless you do it our way. That was the end for me.
13. ash on February 17th, 2010 11:18 pm
    

    PS. The reason that was ‘it’ for me was that it felt that the mandala simply does not allow anyone to operate outside its own rigid parameters unless they are willing to ‘go rogue’. That has never been my intention or aspiration. On the other hand, I did very much enjoy teaching, was encouraged to do so by VCTR both generally and personally, and hated being essentially forced to stop. I learned some powerful lessons in Kalapa Valley about working within the context of local community culture and feel strongly that the franchised versions we offer, especially Shambhala Training for example, are inappropriate. Not bad, just wrong in this local community context and wanted to try something else. Sorry, not allowed. I think this small story is illustrative of a dynamic that needs to be discussed in more depth and without any personal complaint or ‘whining’ as Yeshe might characterize it.

    There has to be a way to allow students who feel the call to simply manifest the dharma at their own level in their own communities. This can be linked to SI somehow in terms of leading people into various lineage streams, but the main emphasis is on fostering simple local situations where people come together to practice and study, and when this happens from the impetus of an older student just getting something going, it is perfectly fine if this endeavor is flavored with their own particular strengths and weaknesses, predilections, style etc., along with that of whoever ends up participating in this particular locale. Some sort of minister principle, although I don’t favor that term in this context. But more importantly, some way to allow people to just manifest dharma/Shambhala in any way that pleases them without feeling that only the franchised versions are appropriate, nor with authorities from on high dictating what can and cannot be done. In this sense, communally we have been wasting a great natural resource, which is the accumulated merit, devotion, humor and experience of the ‘old guard’, many of whom have matured since the death of their teacher and really have a lot to offer.

    Times have changed. And that is what the second post will be about.
14. ash on February 17th, 2010 11:30 pm
    

    Time and Change: when VCTR was alive, although geographically dispersed, we were numerically fairly small. For a mahasiddha like V, a few thousand was relatively easy to handle. Especially in the wild and formless 70’s. In short, we (largely) knew each other, or had many close friends within the sangha family, and most of us had a personal relationship with the wellspring of dharmic presence, cosmic gentleness, all-pervasive humor and passion. Great times. But…

    If the lineage is to continue for centuries, it will expand numerically. The close-knit small-tribe model is not sustainable. It has to become more institutionalised on the one hand, but also more diverse and extensive on the ground on the other. Not everyone will have a personal relationship with a central tantric master (SMR); many will never even meet him (if we succeed). So what binds things together?

    I am sure the current leadership is aware of these issues. But I think sometimes the older students keep wanting the same level of passion and intimacy to continue as in days of yore and conflate the painful trauma of what happened with the Regent into issues involving SMR’s particular leadership style and encroaching middle and old age, i.e. we aren’t twenty something in the 70’s any more. Let’s face it, by the early 80’s Vajradhatu-Shambhala was already falling to pieces financially and indeed that was one of the main jokes amongst the Board, I have been told, the last few years. Once the income stream from VCTR giving many public teachings dried up, salaries were cut drastically and things were very rocky on many levels.

    In this uncertain period, the community continued, first enduring the painful situation with the Regent, then the gradual assumption of leadership by the Sawang who understandably wanted to let things settle a little before taking it on. The older students and their leadership basically did a lousy job of offering the Sawang a seat in a relatively healthy, sane community. We were not ready to assume responsibility for our own political and economic continuity and were desperate for a new dictator/king to come in and lead things. This was a huge missed opportunity on our parts.

    Be that as it may, if the vision is to continue, as I have no doubt SMR works on every minute of every day, it has to expand and it will become far more impersonal. I do not believe they have a good handle on this and much of the tension/disaffection on the part of the old guard involves this emerging, but still confused, dynamic. From my pov, what is needed is a two-fold thrust:
    first, establish a clear central authority. I think this is what has been going on, but very slowly and in a complex, somewhat obfuscated, manner. Fine. But second, things have to devolve down to local levels, including individual levels. Authority and transmission of some sorts – mainly symbolic and mind level – must be centralized, that is clear. But then that central trunk and main branches flourishes in the manifestation of an uncountable number of individual leaves and seeds which form further shoots.
15. ash on February 17th, 2010 11:41 pm
    

    These latter can only flourish when not only are they properly linked to the main trunk and branches, but also allowed their own individual existence, or ‘flourishment’. I too hate the phrase ‘turning the flower outward’ but understand the sentiment behind it, but the main flowers to be turned outward are the naturally expansive, warm and generous hearts of student practitioners who wish to communicate their blessings to the world at large. The institution per se does not have to be a large aircraft carrier slowly, slowly turning this way or that to the next institutional objective. The institution needs to be as shapeless as possible in terms of formal infrastructure, mainly functioning as a central nervous system along whose nadi are communicated the blessings, wisdom and guidance of the lineage. Mainly speech and mind level. Including healthy human discourse and contact. Most buildings should come from local growth which is largely engendered in local situations which are allowed to flourish in their own ways.

    For example, I have no doubt that if we did things a totally different way that by now there would be several hundred practitioners in Cape Breton instead of only a handful of local people who have stumbled in via our sporadically offered franchise programs.

    So that is my main point. I think there are some larger, long term issues at play which have not been discussed in public enough and need to be. That might take more of the very painful wounding dynamic out of the closet of personal hell and ghost realms and into the fresh light of nice Shambhala dawn.

    Lastly some points about Shambhala Training, a bee in my bonnet. Some points to consider because I have already posted too much tonight:

    1. It was founded to emulate Werner Erhard who was bringing in thousands, tens of thousands. If he could do it, why shouldn’t we said VCTR, so we tried. That was the intention. Get tens of thousands.
    2. It failed. It was and is a fantastic container. It did not achieve its goals. Fact. We have refused to face this for decades.
    3. During our rough period, it became the single main way we introduced people to our mandala, and probably still is. Whether or not one agrees with this, as long as that is the case, combining buddhism and Shambhala is not only inevitable but necessary even though VCTR wanted it taught in separate buildings etc. But that was when we still thought it would bring in tens of thousands. When I was sent to NYC as the first Resident Director of ST there I was told to look into putting up ST ads on large city billboards. We never had the money, but that was the view.
    4. I don’t agree with ST being the main gateway. Mainly because of logistics and the following is a small but key point: after the first Friday night, it is not an open, expansive vehicle: it is a members-only, i.e. closed, program. If you do 40 weekends a year of which 10 are Level I’s (far more than most centers can host), only 10 nights a year of 120 program days are open to the public. All that organisation, use of space, volunteer effort: 10 talks. Not good.
16. ash on February 17th, 2010 11:54 pm
    

    Whilst at Kalapa Valley in 2000, I proposed the following: that every center offer a nyinthun every weekend like clockwork, or at least Sunday-thun. 9-12, 2-5, 7 – 9. Every weekend.

    What about programs? Programs happen within the nyinthuns. If you are having a Level II, that takes place within the nyinthun and individuals are peeled off for interviews. Group discussions happen in other rooms or during the 5-7 break. Perhaps it makes sense to not have the evening nyinthun sessions so that programs would have their talks then in the main meditation hall. Furthermore, you can have buddhist and Shambhala programs simultaneously if you can have two different rooms for the evening talks depending on space. But probably that is too much. The point is, that apart from certain very esoteric programs, the format of sitting together in a meditation hall is universal to all programs so why do we have to create so many exclusive (closed) mandalas.

    Think about it. You live in Xville. You know that every Saturday and Sunday they do meditation at the Shambhala Center on Main St. You can go from 9-12, 2-5, both, on either Saturday or Sunday. Always there, always open.

    Shambhala Training is a closed program and should not be used to bring people into a mandala because every weekend that a center gives up to host a ST level is another weekend that local people cannot go to the center. It’s a very unfortunate – and entirely unintended – dynamic. Our doors should be open to the local community on weekends, not closed.

    In 1993 I went to a drala program taught by Dr. Hayward because it was hosted at a chateau (La Gendronniere) whose original family owners were very close to me personally. Indeed, I had lived not 500 yards away from the chateau for a while (long after the family had sold it). DeshiMoru(?), a Zen Roshi and his students purchased it at some point. Nice little 20-bedroom chateau with outbuildings and lovely grounds. Nothing fancy but charming. They added a Zen shrine in the middle. Great. About 10 people live there year round. The teacher died about 10+ years before my visit. Looked to me like maybe they were going nowhere, just 10 guys hanging onto a memory. That’s what it looked like: I mean, after all, they were renting it to us for money.

    Wrong. I got to know the director and indeed gave him ‘oryoki transmission’ and encouraged him to get the full thing from Kobun Chino, which he did. Their center was cooking: he showed me the schedule: 100 sesshins or more a year. But not at the chateau: all over the world. A sangha of about 1-200 people, but mainly the 10 living at the chateau, teach 100 sesshins a year! That’s good dharma activity.

    We can do better. We need to trust each other more and encourage each other to go out, spread the dharma and have a good time. Unfortunately that is not the atmosphere and personally I think Shambhala Training has a lot to do with that, not because it’s bad or badly taught, but because it transmits a closed ’submarine’ container. A bubble. We need open doors, open forms, less curriculum, more dharma activity!
17. ash on February 18th, 2010 12:17 am
    

    I didn’t intend to write so much, but since I’ve started, I’m going to finish with a thought following from the last viz. the bubble container concept.

    It is fine to lead people along step by step, and of course it is necessary to have certain material/classes only for those that are ready. But these should mainly be weeknight classes as we used to do.

    More importantly, there is a big issue here – to my mind – viz the closed container dynamic: not only is every single day after Friday night a closed mandala in Shambhala Training – our so-called outreach model – but things happen that are both worthy, inevitable and unfortunate in such a dynamic, which becomes a trajectory, namely: the individual and group experiences deepens. In Level V one is introduced to cosmic space, even beyond the deep heart space of Level IV. Then you have the extraordinary depth and color of the terma texts to absorb along with increasingly shared language embodied in ritual forms (toasts, fancy dress) culminating in Warriors Assembly with marching soldiers, raising and lowering flags, uniforms and all the rest. The inner and shared group space is expanding and deepening but meanwhile one looks up and finds one has entered a secret world, learned a new language, and one that cannot be shared with your spouse, children or parents or in-laws or colleagues or boss if they haven’t taken this journey too. Then you can be invited to work in the mandala, volunteer, serve, teach, lead etc. and it becomes an ever-deepening and complete world.

    But it’s built on the back of these bubble mandalas and itself becomes a huge bubble mandala. I find it very ironic – and also hearteningly disturbing – to stumble on this site somehow and reflect on all these things for the first time, really, in years. Ironic because I am beginning to feel that the ’shunning’ or rejection that many of the old guard feels is perhaps a very healthy, or at least promising, thing. How? It is good that those who were so much ‘in’ are now ‘out’, but not just because it’s a teaching, but also because it’s right. None of us ever got into this in order to create a bubble world, a toy kingdom with toy soldiers and toy jewels. All of us had positive aspirations to help our fellow man, our countries, our cultures. The simple fact is that this cannot be done through bubble mandalas alone.

    This is what has to be changed. There is nothing wrong with the rarified containers in which various transmissions and esoteric practices have been, and should be, transmitted. However, at the same time we need to create truly secular manifestations and these should not be centralised a la MacDonalds model but based on many and varied individuals and local situations and not necessarily involve people feeling they have to set themselves up as tantric gurus in order to manifest the dharma locally. Because of our dependence upon the super-rarified bubble atmospheres we have not been able to either conceive or engender this type of dharma activity on our parts.

    Somehow we all need to give each other permission to: “Just Do It!”
18. ash on February 18th, 2010 12:37 am
    

    Finally, on a practical note to tie into the initial thread:

    View: without teaching, at some point personal practice becomes purely a self-indulgence. Therefore it is our duty to ourselves and others to encourage VCTR’s students – all of them – to teach whenever and wherever and however they can. Simple.

    Action:
    I propose that, with the blessing of the Sakyong, the Dragon Society be formed. Members are anyone who studied with VCTR whilst he was alive (at first).

    The mission of the Dragon Society is to promulgate the dharma activity of their lineage in whatever way their hearts desire; to use each other for encouragement, wisdom, group practice, societal celebration and so forth. Every local Shambhala Center can form a local chapter of the Dragon Society (or Vajra Dinosaur Club?!)

    Every member of the Society pays annual dues of $50.00 to help with communication costs (website, forum, poster printings or whatever) and along with membership receives a Certificate, written with the help of SMR and others saying something like:

    ” This certificate testifies that Ashley Howes, Tharpa Ngejung [Refuge Name], Sherab Shingta [Bodhisattva Name], Lord Happy Life [Shambhala Name] is a valued and esteemed member of the Shambhala Dragon Society whose mission is to spread the wisdom and joy of the Buddhadharma and Shambhala lineages to all and sundry, but especially you who are reading this. May virtue increase!”

    Signed:
    SMR
    Warrior of the Shambhala Lodge (or whatever its called now)
    ”

    Something like that. I think this sort of thing would allow the beads of the mala to break and disperse both officially, joyfully, chaotically and dharmically. And then there would be more celebration and less ‘whining’.

    In other words, we always wanted to go ‘out’. That is our aspiration. But somehow we find ourselves out in an unpleasant, somewhat depressing fashion. So why not send us out with the command: ‘Go! Go out! Have a good time! Spread the dharma! You have our permission-blessings to do so. Get going, going gone! And then go beyond! Get out! Now!’

    This takes the current negative dynamic, which has tremendous energy, and switcheroos it into dharma activity which is what everyone really wants to do with their lives anyway in an endless variety of ways but also in a fashion that includes deliberate, overt teaching activity which thus far has been suppressed. Time to liberate the old dogs and unleash them into the larger world!
19. rita ashworth on February 18th, 2010 6:50 am
    

    Ash -thanks very much for posting this -post more!

    I am going to print it out and read it carefully.

    Re shambhala -buddhism meld – I am not so sure. For me people can get to shambhala outside of the system developing -thats why I think CTR left it open -the magical aspect again.

    Take this as an example in my own life think I connected with aspects of shambhala outside of that presently devised by SMR -think we have to allow for Shambhala yogis of whatever religious discipline to have their own set-up within the mandala evolving. Here yes I could see SMR as KIng as saying Yes or No to the person but you do have to allow people the freedom to provide their own take on these teachings.

    I know its dangerous – but just think of the billions of the individuals in the world are we saying that SMR has the only way to Shambhala? Its a conundrum -how these teachings will develop in the world and I think we should be open to other ways of accessing Shambhala.

    So yeh technically re buildings they might combine but what goes on within those buildings has to be diverse and open to diversity. Dragon Society is a good start.

    Keep ignoring SI if you feel they are stopping you spreading the teachings in a genuine way…..its up to you as CTR said!

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
20. Alison on February 18th, 2010 10:18 am
    

    Thanks Ashley for those posts. Lots of good stuff to consider. I don’t agree on the bubble theory of ST though. Tens of thousands of people taking five weekends out of their busy lives to get complete meditation instruction from a legitimate ancient wisdom lineage/tradition? To get the tools to be autonomous meditators for the rest of the rest of their lives? Sounds good to me! The little plaque one receives after Level V may be the period at the end of the sentence for all kinds of people.

    Along these lines … I recently went to an introduction to TM, just to see what they say and how they do what they do. In short, it was explained that after 2 introductory lectures and an interview, one could go on to receive the meditation technique in a few sessions for $1,500 (gulp), but that was it, for life. After that one could return for periodic “check in’s” as needed/desired over the years. It was also explained that, in their tradition, the wisdom of the sages is not in any books, but that this training would connect them via their senses through the centuries to the source, and that after that , they were free to live their modern lives with this set of tools to navigate six stages of consciousness: dreaming, waking, sleeping/ Cosmic consciousness, God consciousness, Unity consciousness (I may have the order wrong). Autonomous practitioners – with bosses, families, trips to the mall, etc. I admired the crisp and complete intro.

    In the spirit that the road ahead is still wide open -

    Alison
21. Erika Zamcheck Wilton on February 18th, 2010 1:04 pm
    

    Ashley, I appreciate your thoughtful posts and creative view so much. More more!
    The Dragon Society idea is very interesting; I guess the purpose would be to keep us within the Shambhala Buddhism mandala? Do you think SI is interested in such a thing, really? Because essentially, we have already been instructed to do just as you describe, go spread some seeds, in the context of practice, no? We are all cut loose already, from a practice point of view.

    And I think we ‘old dogs’ will likely never be so invited to be unleashed. The formats and vocabulary are all becoming more solidified, like branding the sky. Less of an opportunity to ‘mix your experience with the dharma and teach from that’ that I remember being an instruction way back. I thought that process is what made the dharma ‘freshly baked bread’ . But see, all old references.
    Also, a little digression: I had an experience of pure devotion the other day, viewing the film of Trungpas 11 and 12… it reminded me that one can never convince oneself to be devoted, to fall in love. And that night I dreamed I was bathed in a rain of sparkly golden adisthanas. (Is that a plural word anyway?)

    bravely, I submit,

    Erika
22. ash on February 18th, 2010 2:29 pm
    

    Rita re: “Re shambhala -buddhism meld – I am not so sure. For me people can get to shambhala outside of the system developing -that’s why I think CTR left it open -the magical aspect again.”

    Understand. But if we can barely keep our own ‘internal’ sangha together, can we mount – using volunteers from that container – a self-sufficient outreach ’secular’ program? Answer: only if we don’t use volunteers but have it stand on its own financially from the get-go. That was the intention. But let’s face it: after the big initial Level V’s whose participants were 99% from the pre-existing buddhist sangha, it never took off with the volume, i.e. cash flow, needed to sustain itself commercially. Secular bottom line fact.

    So we are left with our Dharmadhatu-Shambhala Centers in which everything happens together, usually in one main hall and often with the same people staffing/hosting/paying dues for everything. So underlying union exists whether we want it that way or not.

    Secondly: to my mind one of the key talks on this was at the 81 KA during which DDM talked about how the throne was built and it is/was based on both hard work and mutual love. At this point/level, there seems to be a certain inseparability between the devotion/samaya and the Sakyong principles in terms of the mind streams of those involved. Perhaps it doesn’t have to be that way in theory, but in practice it is.

    Let us imagine a population of 100,000 Shambhalians. At that point things change significantly both in terms of logistics and interpersonal dynamic because with population comes income stream and the ability to compartmentalise different functions/aspects. At that point there cannot possibly be one single vajra master for 100,000 people, so the larger Shambhala mandala is not only tantric, but far more than that in which case many types of separation become not only possible but inevitable as well as healthy and invigorating. Energetic diversity as in any good ecological situation.

    But we are not there yet on the ground. We weren’t (and perhaps that is why it was a bit of a bubble, or cauldron let us say, because we needed a protected container in which intense wisdom streams could stew properly in order to inseminate potent seeds of dharmic transmission being planted in a new cultural mindstream via us).

    But it is a fact that ST is a closed container model. It is a fact that part of its power comes from that, and most of our programs, in fact we have developed a style geared towards intensifying sacred energy/lungta/mindfulness-awareness within group containers, and that benefit is also a bit of a trap because we became/become dependent upon that type of positive cult dynamic in order to transmit, maintain, function and move forward.

    Catch 22.

    My core suggestion is to maintain strong centralisation but also proactively encourage far more local/individual initiative free from centralized control, the main vehicle for which being older students who are already ‘out of it’ anyway for reasons that may be as good as they often seem painfully bad.

    Permission-blessing is required versus ’shunning’.
23. ash on February 18th, 2010 2:51 pm
    

    re: “Tens of thousands of people taking five weekends out of their busy lives to get complete meditation instruction from a legitimate ancient wisdom lineage/tradition? To get the tools to be autonomous meditators for the rest of the rest of their lives? Sounds good to me! The little plaque one receives after Level V may be the period at the end of the sentence for all kinds of people. ”

    I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, in terms of the Shambhala-Vajradhatu path in the context of practioner and sangha member life journeys (which is the context of this thread I believe):

    That same sort of transmission could happen without the label ‘Shambhala’ or an organisation called ‘Shambhala Training’. That same sort of transmission could happen with less rigidly defined closed mandala progression, though obviously that is debatable.

    More importantly, in terms of the 100,000+ population view, Shambhala is the container of an overall population/community which comprises multifarious levels of participation/connection, including those that pop in for a while, get the sustenance they need, and go on their (hopefully much merrier) way, which is fabulous.

    That said, however, the inner core will comprise those who are mainly plugged into the Sakyong and the core lineage streams. We are still in the central core building phase although possibly it was after VCTR’s parinirvana and before the Sawang’s accession that we should have consolidated that on the citizen/Nyen level to allow further expansion during his reign in terms of both profundity and vastness, both of which I believe he is working towards continuously all the time. The Regent was admirably suited to lead this phase and it was an enormous tragedy for us all that he became ill and died so soon after the parinirvana.

    However, we still tend to emphasize profundity and fall short on the vastness, partly because of our numbers, but also, I believe, because of certain logistical habits – of which my picking on Shambhala Training is for me a clear example – that make such vastness rather hard to incorporate into the larger mandala. Bill K has a prison operation, for example, which sounds terrific. It has nothing official to do with us nor should it. But somehow there should be more cultural linkage, more connection, more awareness of the shared source, the larger ‘Shambhala container’ which has inspired this initiative which is one of no doubt thousands, both large and small, including positive relations with family and neighbors. There is some little twist, a subtle mainly mental twist, that hasn’t quite happened. It’s not about creating a new bureaucracy or Department of Spontaneously Arising Affairs. It does involve letting go of too much control of teaching and other related ‘curricula’. There clearly is a tendency to hold on to things too much which makes those in charge tend to wait around for orders/initiative from the Big Cheese which in turn pisses off the Big Cheese who wishes people wouldn’t come to him all the time for every little goddamn thing and then gradually things get sort of over-ripe, claustrophobic, smelly. Etc. etc.
24. Sandy on February 18th, 2010 3:11 pm
    

    Rob –

    The ominous/onimouse thing was a joke–onimouse was misspelled, a reference to your dream of Mickey Mouse thangka!

    Quite cute!

    Best,
    Sandy
25. ash on February 18th, 2010 3:21 pm
    

    First, apologies for long posts. I guess the opportunity to consider and discuss these things is appealing and there is pent-up desire to do so. Thanks to Mark S and others for setting this up, although personally I don’t share the seemingly intense anger that some do here. Perhaps I am naive but my suspicion is that there is more of an overall muddle than a dark conspiracy at play here.

    Re: “The Dragon Society idea is very interesting; I guess the purpose would be to keep us within the Shambhala Buddhism mandala?”

    Sure. But as Adam Lobel rightly pointed out in his talk last year which I heard just before feeling inspired to post (thanks for that link), you sort of can’t get out. I think that is true. Samaya principle or whatever, in which the other side of connection is a form of hell. It’s a real issue and he pointed it out well I think. Certainly I have experienced this and it seems many others have and still are.

    Leaving aside the undeniable ‘arrogance’ aspects of this dilemma – for truth be told we were/are most of us as terrible as we were admirable both as students and a community! – rather than saying ‘keeping us in’ one could also say ‘letting us out’ or further, allowing the mandala to expand, to become more porous.

    This goes back to my ‘bubble container’ rants. Maybe submarine is a better analogy because bubbles are so flimsy and poppable and don’t contain much.

    We are so used to communicating as a sangha within highly charged containers that I believe both the practitioner-members and the administrators and general leadership tend to over-emphasise ‘control’ (for lack of a better word) of such container principle. That is why there have been largely wasted and literally thousands of man-hours put into non-stop curriculum development the past twenty years, most of it unnecessary since most of the curriculum was set by the mid-70’s and very well laid out by VCTR, VROT, the Loppon and others. That is both the Vajradhatu and Shambhala Paths, the latter basically being ‘done’ by 1978, the former by around 1975 I think. Rather than fiddling around with curricula which require re-training teachers, further controlling content and so forth, we could have / should have just been going out.

    I applied for the job of KCL director a few years ago without any expectation of being accepted, but I was unemployed so what the hell. One of my proposals: take a big tent and go into places like the Boston Commons, university campuses, small towns etc, set it up and offer meditation sessions to the public. In other words, use our communal resources in order to go out into local communities and offer something. That sort of playful, daring but fundamentally generous dynamic which, when all is said and done, would cost very little but achieve far more ‘outreach’ than most of our Levels. (And without the need for zillions of curriculum meetings – just do it!)

    Similarly, send out 10 people every Tuesday night to various local communities for regular lectures with sitting, talk discussion. Just to give, to expand, to breathe, to share, not to recruit them into a program or something. Be part of the local culture essentially versus sacred submariners.
26. Chris on February 18th, 2010 3:34 pm
    

    Ashley writes”
    “1995 I went up to RMDC to attend a Vaj. program with SMR, KTG and a Nyingma Loppon. It was good. I was attending in order to see the new Sakyong in action as such to inform my work in setting up the programming structure at Dechen Choling, the first practice center established during his reign. A student of mine from Europe came to receive ngondro transmission, shortly before which event it was announced that no ‘old students’ should attend. So I didn’t. Afterwards, my student told me that she had been instructed not to discuss anything of what she had been told about the practice with me or any other older student. Then she asked for instructions about prostrations etc. At this point – and as I recall I was not emotional about it – I declined saying that clearly it was His wish that her path not be corrupted by the neurotic tendencies and influences of the older students (a description which she did slip out in her brief summary of the event).”

    So basically, Aslley, you are now reporting , that as early as 1995, SMR is dividing older students from newer students, denigrating older students behind their backs, upon whose back he continued to build his mandala, still using our energy and monies, by the way, to do so. Why would you trust someone who did this, or be “under” his umbrella or ask for his “blessings” to teach or propagate CTR’s teachings?

    There is something schizoid-making about this that I really don’t understand.

    I appreciate all your energy and you certainly made some great points and have some great ideas, ( the bubble phenomena of SI training is very astute) but why on earth would you think that someone, who would have done what you reported happened at SMC, as early as 1995, (it’s called dividing the sangha, by the way, and the 1999 transcript talks just means he wasn’t afraid to put his “view” of older students in writing) would be open or amenable or interested in giving his blessings to a CTR vajrayana arm of teachings and sangha ?

    Thanks for sharing this, it puts more of the pieces of the puzzle together, because there was a palpable shift in 1995, after the “enthronement.” I spent at least four more years denying my experience of this shift and it is a lesson, once again, that we have to listen to our own intelligence. What I find interesting is that we actually did listen, but filed it away, before we were ready to face things.

    If people want to proceed forward, in whatever way, they have to see clearly , however painful the truth , and face it, or anything that is done from this moment, whether in one’s own personal practice or attempts to teach CTR’s lineage, will continue to be still sullied by delusion and wishful thinking.

    Haven’t we engaged in enough “wishful thinking” for the next several lifetimes?

    I have added a prayer to my practices: “May I never be fooled by outer appearances and wishful thinking again. May I never deny my own experience and intelligence on my spiritual journey, in all my fututure lifetimes”.
27. ash on February 18th, 2010 3:43 pm
    

    Returning to Mark’s original post, I agree with much of the underlying thrust in the sense that for me personally, what I would most like to have been teaching was the Vajradhatu path. (Shambhala as well, though not always and only within the Levels container, rather a far less structured series of experiences within the context of ongoing sitting practice over time/nyinthuns etc..)

    That is now essentially verboten and it shouldn’t be. So there is a real issue there, at least for me personally. It is not verboten if you want to go off and create your own separate mandala, Perks-style. Nothing inherently wrong with that I don’t think. But not something I have personally ever been interested in doing nor, I suspect, most others.

    It’s a funny thing. Historically it was a bit hard at first to present ST to our own population who naturally tended to try to translate everything into buddhist terms of reference so in a way we over-emphasized imaging a great division between the two streams and this on top of the 100,000 people in 3 years plan at inception. During this period, well-meaning worthies like Jeremy would cheerfully rant about how the buddhists were all stuck in some sort of dim, miasmal dogmatic bog, religious fundamentalists basically. Some truth to that, but methinks the point was way overblown and for far too long and with unfortunate consequences.

    But the irony is – to my mind at least – buddhism is actually much EASIER to present in the West. Shambhala has ‘warriorship’ (an unfamiliar term in our culture), animal iconography, no known history or cultural references. It is still hard to explain in one or two sentences what Shambhala is.

    But buddhism, although there might be many strange views about it, at least is known and by and large respected even. Furthermore, the way it was presented to us emphasizes spaciousness, lack of dogma, lack of agenda, learning to pay attention to what is versus what might be or should be. It is very open-ended. Along with structured, progressive classes, one can present no end of different materials in no end of different ways depending on the predilections of the teacher, the local culture and so forth. It is very easy – not to mention a lot of fun – to do.

    This is how Shambhala stuff could and should be, but since most of its specific structured content is confined within the official Levels and Sacred Path formats, in fact it is MUCH harder to work with in terms of practice and study within a local/regional cultural context in an ordinary and ongoing fashion.

    So not just in terms of the deeper ‘Vajradhatu Path’ mentioned by Mark above, but also in more open-ended ways, I think a return to ‘pushing’ – or rather offering – basic Buddhadharma is something many of us would love to do, would do very well, and many more people in our local communities would have a much easier time connecting with in terms of sitting practice and related study/contemplation, than the ‘path of the warrior’ which is actually far more advanced stuff to present in the current culture.
28. Chris on February 18th, 2010 3:51 pm
    

    I also realized, from reading your posts again, Ashley, that you didn’t disagree with the Sakyong’s view of older CTR students, and it seemed alright to you that this was happening at a seminary? Because my first hint of SMR speaking like this was when I read the 1999 transcripts .. I did have an emotional reaction , unlike you, it made me sick at heart. Again, if you remember the teachings on this, it is called “dividing the sangha.” .
29. John Tischer on February 18th, 2010 3:57 pm
    

    Ash,

    I enjoyed your posts and think perhaps you have the best idea so far as how to proceed. Like Erica, I don’t believe that SI will ever take anything under it’s umbrella proposed by VCTR students who don’t swear loyalty to SMR.
    That leaves the problem of lineage validation. Individuals can certainly declare they are continuing to promulgate the Vidyadhara’s teachings,,,that’s their karma…but once you create an organization, who is going to lead it? What is their lineage cred? Perhaps if backed or supported by some of the other lineage holders it could work.,,,but given the politics involved, that seems highly unlikely.
    BTW, I don’t agree that Shambhala Training was a failure just because
    great numbers of people didn’t flock to it the way some people thought would happen.
30. ash on February 18th, 2010 4:03 pm
    

    Finally (gasp!), and along these lines, I have another suggestion specifically in relation to Vajradhatu Path, this thanks to Larry Mermelstein with whom I used to be in sporadic contact years ago when I was one of the first group going through the post-Chakrasamvara practices back in the early 90’s before we really knew what we were supposed to be doing.

    He suggested I consider starting a 6 Yoga House somewhere in Cape Breton. Later on I had the money and stupidly didn’t follow through on it, thinking I could first make a little more and then do it because I instantly liked the idea and also it would help further my particular practice journey as well as embed it somehow in my local community context. (Cape Breton is very much about community; in fact they have more to teach us about this than we them. It’s powerful that way, both positively and negatively, and quite unusual in today’s developed world in these times.)

    This idea, though, is good for anywhere. And perhaps more ‘old dog’ types might consider putting together something like this in their areas somehow. The 6 yogas (which I ended up never really doing since I was totally on my own with it and without anything other than a manual to work with, excellent as it is) are the formless side of the sadhanas we worked so long and hard on. They naturally involve yoga-union of self and space, self and other, us and them, here and there etc. including mixing dharma with local energy and people.

    This ties in directly with the latest initiative of SMR. (Every year around Shambhala Day I try to go to the main website and get a sense of the drift of what’s going on.) Shambhala Households. Right on. (And last night I gather it’s also ‘love’. Way to go, brotha!) So I suggest 6 yoga households might not be a bad way to go, some combination of residence for a few living in it along with some guest rooms for paying (or not) guests where people just practice and hang together within good ol’ Vajradhatu comraderie/context far from the madding crowd and beyond, or deeply underneath into the very prana, nadi and bindu of the corpus whose outer manifestation might be ‘Shambhala International’ or ‘America’ or ‘Canada’ etc. .

    Tantric Dragon lairs, basically, spontaneously generating spurts of dharmic cloud, rain, lightning, thunder and all the rest of the stuff that dragons tend to contribute to society!
31. ash on February 18th, 2010 4:16 pm
    

    Zamcheck.

    What a GREAT name!

    Should have been a line in the elocution exercises:

    ‘Erica Zamcheck bravely submits’..
32. ash on February 18th, 2010 4:27 pm
    

    Chris re: “I also realized, from reading your posts again, Ashley, that you didn’t disagree with the Sakyong’s view of older CTR students, and it seemed alright to you that this was happening at a seminary? Because my first hint of SMR speaking like this was when I read the 1999 transcripts .. I did have an emotional reaction , unlike you, it made me sick at heart. Again, if you remember the teachings on this, it is called “dividing the sangha.”

    I didn’t tell it right. I wasn’t emotional at the time with the student in question during our post-transmission interview, mainly I suppose because a fact is a fact and there is nothing to be done about it.

    But I did indeed have strong feelings about it which is why I immediately stopped being an instructor and then stopped teaching formally soon thereafter, after which I essentially slid off the path more or less altogether, although blaming it all on that would probably be inaccurate.

    And indeed, although previously we had been very close, I never again had the chance to talk to Him about it apart from a brief interview a few years ago, saying goodbye basically, many years after that particular event and it didn’t occur to me to mention it, otherwise I would have.
33. ash on February 18th, 2010 4:36 pm
    

    John re: “BTW, I don’t agree that Shambhala Training was a failure just because great numbers of people didn’t flock to it the way some people thought would happen.”

    I agree with you and apologize for my seeming lack of clarity earlier. I did not mean to imply that the whole thing was a failure just because it didn’t grow as intended.

    However, the fact remains that it failed in that core facet of its initial intention and that many aspects of ‘the million man beast’ operationally and conceptually remained long after it became clear (though largely overlooked by those in charge) that this was not how it was going to play out population-wise. I think one manifestation of this residual confusion is the firm sense amongst many who remember its early days that the two streams should remain clearly separate. This created a sort of dogmatic belief from what was originally more of an operational guideline. I might be wrong, but I believe that the main reason for this policy – and it clearly was a policy – was the growth agenda which unfortunately was never realized.

    For example, I believe the main reason for keeping it separate was logistical: to allow it to grow on its own and sustain itself on its own. But without the numbers, clearly this is simply impossible, however worthy. Fact is, there is one sangha, one community, a relatively small one (our entire North American membership is still about the same size, numbers-wise, as the church across the street from the PIC building in Boulder btw). Given this logistical fact, it is very hard to maintain a separation between the two streams either organizationally or psychologically.

    Frankly, I think it ‘failed’ in this regard simply because for it to succeed, a handful of highly charismatic teachers would have had to spearhead it, just as Werner Erhard or Guru Maharaji (who was extremely successful at this at least until 10 years ago last time I checked), i.e. VCTR, VROT and a couple of other emergent stars. The way we did it was basically genuine and real but as is so often the case, mixing dharma and money doesn’t work all that well, and yet to build a thriving, expanding operation usually it has to be commercially profitable which takes a certain type of commercial drive that sangha-style devotion/community usually doesn’t engender.

    Until the late 70’s, the single biggest source of income for Vajradhatu was the Vidyadhara’s teaching activity. His expenses at the Court and travelling were way less than the income from all his seminars and seminaries. Once this activity decreased, so did the income and the rest, as they say, is history.
34. ash on February 18th, 2010 4:53 pm
    

    So John also, I think it could well be argued that the large population vision behind ST was not just overblown inspiration or ambition, it was partly driven by corporate practical necessity.

    By the mid-late 70’s, I believe there were 70 people on salary in the PIC building – again, largely supported by the income generated by ‘The Boss’. In order for this to continue, there had to be growth in terms of the vastness axis so that not only VCTR, and to a lesser extend VROT, would be the main breadwinners for this operation whose mission never was to make money, of course, but to propagate the dharma in society. Moreover, the idea of piggy-backing on the success demonstrated by ex car salesmen like Werner Erhard was not at all outrageous.

    However, our problem was that we were presenting the real dharma and the fact is that is hard to marry to successful business operations – especially when gallons of tantrically fueled saki and terton-related dakini-level shenanigans/obstacles are involved!

    Not impossible, but hard. In any case, for whatever reason, it did not succeed. By the early 1980’s, many many salaries had been cut and by 1989, I believe there were only two people on the Vajradhatu payroll: the bookkeeper and the Loppon. That downward trajectory, although clearly influenced by the two deaths in rapid succession of the main leaders, was also clearly foreseeable already in the mid-1970’s. A greater rate of expansion was a vital necessity, not merely an aspiration.

    That was the purpose of the Shambhala Training operation and why so much emphasis was placed on it. Processing our own people of course was good in itself, but was an opportunity to develop the teaching and operational methodology and also raise sufficient income to take it to the next level – out into America. Unfortunately, as soon as we ran through our own population by about 1979-80, the financial crunch was already on big-time.

    When I moved out to NYC in the spring of 1980, they had just done a Level IV or V there a few months earlier, netting most of the local sangha in the process. There were $20,000 in the bank. A lot of money for the ST office. The day before I arrived, that $20,000 was taken out of the account by the Board and used to pay bills. So that left $0.00 with which to begin ST in NYC – supposed to be the big launching place nationally I was told – AFTER we had already processed most of the local sangha. My first job on arriving was to research billboards in Time Square just to see how much they cost. Partly a joke, but also partly serious. Without any funds, I never bothered and never found out the cost!

    Yes, great program. But it didn’t save Vajradhatu from financial collapse in the early 80’s as it needed to do. It’s not about blame. But facts is facts!
35. John Tischer on February 18th, 2010 5:06 pm
    

    Here seems to be the biggest source of disagreement: …..to say that separating Sh. T. from the Buddhist Path was simply logistical, when the purpose was to create a path that was non-”ist” as in Buddhist for people that wanted to meditate. Any other reading of the Vidyadhara’s intentions has always seemed to me to be revisionism. To say that it is a “dogmatic belief” I feel is simply misinterpreting what VCTR said very clearly over and over.

    The separation of the 2 streams worked well…even through the Regent
    times…for at least ten years after the Vidyadhara’s parinivana.
36. ash on February 18th, 2010 5:17 pm
    

    John re: “I don’t believe that SI will ever take anything under it’s umbrella proposed by VCTR students who don’t swear loyalty to SMR.”

    I agree in part. That’s why I am suggesting something that goes outside the umbrella. It requires a shift in vision and control mechanisms but otherwise need not affect what they are doing and how to any great extent. In fact, it might make it easier for them to expand in that the dharma activity of the Dragons might end up feeding more people into their core structure which they command and control, as ‘they’ should.

    Re: “That leaves the problem of lineage validation. Individuals can certainly declare they are continuing to promulgate the Vidyadhara’s teachings,,,that’s their karma…but once you create an organization, who is going to lead it? What is their lineage cred? Perhaps if backed or supported by some of the other lineage holders it could work.,,,but given the politics involved, that seems highly unlikely.”

    Leaving aside the political considerations, this is a very deep and important topic.

    My first thought on this goes along the lines of:
    on the outer and vast level, we have the Hinayana and Mahayana frameworks and I think just about any of us should be able to operate there freely and without restraint in both formal/organised and informal fashion. Refuge vows, for example, can be taken by an individual alone traditionally. It is not a transmission. Bodhisattva vows really do require a preceptor but it’s not really a transmission either, although I suspect that might be more debatable. But I think anyone after a certain number of years practicing the dharma is qualified to bring others to that path. No politics on an institutional level should really be involved there unless we wanted to have some sort of ‘Minister’s Certificate’ after a certain level of training or something; quality control basically.

    Now the tantric stuff is interesting and there’s a twist: on the one hand it is very hierarchical and you only follow the instructions of the vajra master etc. On the other hand: it’s secret. Indian tantrikas rarely reveal themselves as such. That also means that in theory anyone can start teaching tantra as long as any student is willing to accept them as a teacher – that bond, or samaya, is mutual and fundamentally not all that different from a marriage vow. I am not advocating this, just pointing out that at some level this also is sort of no problem because if it actually does remain secret, then it isn’t there and therefore not subject to political energetics.

    Politics has to do with institutions along with the various roles, both salaried and unsalaried, and properties/assets that they acquire over time. Fundamentally, it’s the secular, nitty-gritty side of all human affairs overlaid onto the underlying spiritual skeleton which is formless and timeless and therefore, when all is said and done, not subject to it.

    I think with a better understanding of buddhism on the local ground level historically, that our view might change on this, both at top and bottom. (It seems there is a bit too much hangover from institutional Tibetan modalities – which developed as a rather unique tradition in a very different time and culture, featuring, for example, extremely low-populated rugged mountain terrain spanning a huge geographical distance (i.e. much larger than France) and without modern technology.)

    Then the obstacles might disappear as instantaneously as dreams – which is all they are.

    But this sort of dynamic has to occur mandalically, not just individually. The sangha principle is there not by choice, but because it’s just how human beings work. ‘No man is an island’ as is well said. The role of leadership is to provide ground, permission, vision, wisdom, judgment etc. Not necessarily to manage or control.

    It’s an old dance.
37. ash on February 18th, 2010 6:10 pm
    

    Chris, I read your second post but missed the first and longer one. Re:
    “At this point – and as I recall I was not emotional about it – I declined saying that clearly it was His wish that her path not be corrupted by the neurotic tendencies and influences of the older students (a description which she did slip out in her brief summary of the event).”

    So basically, Ashley, you are now reporting , that as early as 1995, SMR is dividing older students from newer students, denigrating older students behind their backs, upon whose back he continued to build his mandala, still using our energy and monies, by the way, to do so. Why would you trust someone who did this, or be “under” his umbrella or ask for his “blessings” to teach or propagate CTR’s teachings?

    There is something schizoid-making about this that I really don’t understand.

    ++++++

    Well, I prefer to characterize it differently. First of all, there was a general syndrome amongst many senior students, myself included although I would have denied it at the time, of sort of ‘aping the crazy wisdom drunken tulku’ in the teacher’s chair. I saw this on many, many occasions. This was a symptom of something else, a sort of inability to find our own true styles and perhaps this is a deep topic in itself. Not only this, but this was not so long after the whole schism from the scandals involving the Regent’s sexual pecadillos which seem to have quite possibly caused the premature deaths of a couple of young sangha members. The 90’s were not a time for sake-induced dharmic ‘rock and roll’ and institutionally I think SMR was trying to reign things in on many levels.

    I did NOT like the way in which he did this at the seminary, but at the same time that could really have been just shoddy staff work. Certainly something should have been said to the instructors there and afterwards, and for all I know it was, but if so I never heard it.

    More importantly I would ask for his blessings because he is the spokesperson for the entire mandalic body and we were brought up in a rather wild but also extremely well contained structure in terms of our own paths. Furthermore, I don’t think I am the only one who hesitates at the thought of having to ‘go it alone’, i.e. that teaching and taking on students means you have to create a separate, self-contained sangha of some sort. Just makes no sense to me at all. It’s not so much the act of permission to oneself personally I think is needed, but general atmospheric permission, including an overall shift in view that is widely perceived as such as it happens versus being an individual perception. Group dynamic thingy.
38. ash on February 18th, 2010 6:22 pm
    

    “Here seems to be the biggest source of disagreement: …..to say that separating Sh. T. from the Buddhist Path was simply logistical, when the purpose was to create a path that was non-”ist” as in Buddhist for people that wanted to meditate. Any other reading of the Vidyadhara’s intentions has always seemed to me to be revisionism. To say that it is a “dogmatic belief” I feel is simply misinterpreting what VCTR said very clearly over and over.

    The separation of the 2 streams worked well…even through the Regent
    times…for at least ten years after the Vidyadhara’s parinivana.”

    Valid points, John T.

    BUT: if the point is to create non-ist, is that what you see happening with the cult of the Dharma King, which is semi-secret, which involves arcane spiritual practices in front of shrines with Rigdens? If so, that seems like sophistry to me. What’s the difference between that, structurally speaking, and a tantric mandala, or even a typical community church faith as promulgated by traditional Christians?

    There is a huge difference between the rather open-ended Levels I-V and the Sacred Path, and although the latter prepares one for the former, I believe the former (I-V) should and could stand alone in terms of being a take it and then leave it introduction to a personal contemplative discipline and view which enriches ordinary daily life. But once you enter the Sacred Path and end up taking vows to a Sakyong, I think it’s a cult (which is not a negative word), i.e. is another -ism, whether you like to call it that or not.

    That’s what I meant when I said that Levels 1 – V don’t really need to be called Shambhala in any institutional sense, albeit the imagery/experience of Great Eastern Sun obviously permeates it. But that’s just a very vivid metaphor for the nature of human existence fundamentally, not an ism. No need to join a new religion or group.

    Now one could argue that the termas could be taught in such a way that they don’t funnel people into a group which leads to an introduction and relationship to a mutual King.

    But then you are back to: how to you maintain the wisdom-energy stream of blessings/drala to continue that lineage over time, and surely that is done through long-term leadership, i.e. institutions, and therefore, ultimately, isms of some sort with or without the ism at the end of the word.

    Do you agree there seems to be a huge shift between 1-V and the terma phase? If so, do you think it has to be that way? And if so, can it just go madly off in all directions or will it properly end up funneling people to the same destination, which is at the feet of a Sakyong? Really looking forward to your (or anyone else’s) thoughts on this. On many levels, but also because it relates to what I said elsewhere about Shambhala really being a much trickier thing to present within our contemporary cultures.

    And just to provoke JT further: I don’t think it will work until there are sufficient numbers, i.e. 50,000 plus at the very least.
39. ash on February 18th, 2010 6:43 pm
    

    “The separation of the 2 streams worked well…even through the Regent
    times…for at least ten years after the Vidyadhara’s parinivana.”

    I’ll go out on a limb here but I respectfully disagree: in the absence of clear leadership between 1989 and 1993-ish, there was no clear ‘pull’ for students to aspire to go to Seminary, i.e no tantric master magnetising that momentum for the aspiring students, nor for the dharma centers to recruit new members and mount consistent educational programs. ST, on the other hand, had the virtue of possessing a very clear, orderly and essentially simple framework. But what happened in many cases, I can only conjecture here but with some experience to back it up, is that it increasingly became the main form of consistent program offered at many centers, and indeed by the mid 90’s nearly every center, even those with only 20 members, was offering ST, so that many of the Level V’s being offered had around only 10 participants. Which means that the logistical logic behind the 1 to 5 progressive levels was already essentially dysfunctional.

    Think of all the resources of small centers going to get what ends up being 10 people through a Level V, and then what? They only know how to do programs which involve shipping in qualified people to teach. The emergent leadership in those centers do not develop as local teachers in their own right has happened with forming Dharmadhatus in days of yore. They did not put on open nyinthuns hardly ever. In larger, dynamic centers like NYC, I think if you added up the number of volunteer staffing hours that went into all the many levels done each year and then consider that, finally, they were only hosting about 6 open evening talks (open to the public) for all those hundreds of hours, how can you argue that this is a good outreach program when its trajectory is to host programs which, after about Level IV-V, usually become smaller in number each time from dropouts rather than larger?

    My overly logistical argumentation viz. the growth business might be a little narrow, I admit, but I personally believe that Shambhala Training – which I personally love and think is fantastic in many ways – has quite possibly contributed more to the stagnation of the mandala than any other structured thing we have worked on.

    Please forgive me if I don’t have a specific anti-X axe to grind here. I don’t believe that SMR is responsible for everything in our mandala, for example, and think the biggest weakness we have is a long-term lack of proper Nyen-level functions, which perhaps the Deleg system was a mechanism to address but again: we just don’t have the numbers for the level of vision that was presented.
40. ash on February 18th, 2010 7:05 pm
    

    Also, separating the two streams did not work well in the situations sketched above because the resources were not there to realistically separate them. ST levels were hosted in DSG and small Shambhala Center meditation halls, and still are to this day. The same people were supporting both endeavors; there were not two separate sanghas contributing rent for one shared space. Furthermore, because hosting Levels I-V is demanding on many levels, it essentially undermined ongoing buddhist study and practice for many.

    So not only were they not truly separated, the one was undermining the other.

    Furthermore, I witnessed many conversations in this time around how disingenuous we felt viz new people coming in, and also new people told me this to my face after talks etc. All this talk about creating separate, secular non-religious society etc. and pretending that they weren’t doing all this in a buddhist-hosted context rang hollow. Furthermore, trying to explain the difference between Buddhism and Shambhala all the time is both tedious and often futile. It just comes off as incredibly complicated and therefore also, untrustworthy.

    For this reason whilst at KV in 2000 I offered a formal proposal to join the two streams somewhat, albeit still encouraging/allowing those who wished to have nothing to do with Buddhism per se to avoid it. Buddhists after a certain level of commitment would have their dharmic requirements combined with various ST levels along with suggested time-frames in this path for various different vows which would be like the graduation of each major phase (roughly Hin, Mah and Vaj of course).

    More importantly, the idea was for the same Center with the same staff and the same publicity materials to offer all this, some programs called BuddhaDharma courses, some Shambhala courses, some Dharma Art courses, all featuring the same open nyinthun format every weekend so such programming would not close the doors to anyone during any given weekend.

    Now I did not suggest the notion of ‘Shambhala Buddhism’ – which I find sits rather strange grammatically for some reason, like saying ‘England Buddhism’ but I did suggest ‘The Shambhala School of Buddhism’ (which is no less grammatically challenged but for some reason feels okay, at least to me!). I personally like the term: ‘Shambhalian Buddhist’ since I never thought of myself or any of us as ‘Tibetan Buddhists’ at all.

    Whether anyone other than Christie read my proposal I don’t know. Probably only Moh but he ain’t tellin’. But the idea was around, even though when I drafted the proposal I had never previously read anything along those lines. Kalapa Valley dream inspiration.

    I am not saying I feel comfortable with all the changes, but since I haven’t bothered to find out, I also don’t know what they are one way or t’other. But I do think that given our wide geographic mandala and relatively miniscule numbers in each locale that continuing to present each stream as organizationally and philosophically separate was not only impossible, but harmful.

    Finally, the reason CTR emphasized ‘Buddhadharma’ was that it did not end in -ism, and he often mentioned his dislike of the term ‘Buddhism’. We don’t teach or transmit ‘Buddhism’ either. So it’s a red herring issue on many levels.
41. John Tischer on February 18th, 2010 7:35 pm
    

    “BUT: if the point is to create non-ist, is that what you see happening with the cult of the Dharma King, which is semi-secret, which involves arcane spiritual practices in front of shrines with Rigdens?”

    Herein lies the rub….

    As long as there is an enlightened being at the center
    of the mandala, the mandala cannot solidify into an
    “Ist”. Those who tried to make a cult out of VCTR…or of themselves as his representatives, while he was alive and engaged, had their come-uppance. As a society, he would timely introduce monkeywrenches
    to the same effect for the whole. It seems to me his
    creativity was not in forming structures (although he did) but rather in cutting through solidities in order to refresh openness so that the structures could arise
    spontaneously out of the work that was done. The entire BOD was against having seminary at RMSC in 1985. He went around them.

    Without that enlightened energy at the center, I don’t think you can have enlightened society. No matter what strong opinion I had of VCTR, I always felt I was missing something. His being repelled “ism”.
    Without that, I’m afraid, the system naturally turns
    to dogma and rigidity.
42. ash on February 18th, 2010 7:58 pm
    

    JT: what a great response. And mercifully succinct unlike my blatherings!

    That means we have a personality cult led by someone who cuts through personality cult-ism. (To oversimplify). Makes sense.

    Don’t you think there might be a little dogma and rigidity in terms of freezing Shambhala Training forever? I gather they have changed it somewhat of late though I suspect mainly they have added things around the levels and kept them pretty much the same. For years we/they thought of changing them but so many people feel they are like root texts in and of themselves that this resistance to change won out.

    But well said. Although it’s not the ’system’ but we-the-people that naturally turn to dogma and rigidity!

    There are many sub conversations going on here, largely my fault admittedly. In terms of Mark’s original post viz. Vajradhatu, I have to say that I personally wholeheartedly agree that it should remain and be dynamically promulgated. Whether or not this is ‘easier’ than ST as I have been tangentially opining about is rather irrelevant. I also personally feel loss at its seeming disappearance because that path is what I learned and would like to not only teach, but also continue to share with others on the same path.

    With all these things there is a balance between preserving what needs to be preserved and changing what needs to be changed. I think the Vajradhatu Path should most definitely be preserved and shared. I remember arguing for this passionately back in the mid-90’s but it was a rare topic to broach back then (and when I first heard the bee buzzing in my bonnet about ST after teaching several Level V’s with only 10 participants, i.e. less than the usual 30+ for Level I’s).

    But not on the basis of anger and hostility. I just cannot see that being a good ground for anything, especially a New Vajradhatu. I want to see good ol’ Blue Vajradhatu!

    PS. You didn’t really answer about the difference between the open-ended I-V and the more uni-directional terma-derived paths in the Shambhala journey. But you seem to be implying that the ultimate destination of a Shambhala student is to be a subject of a tantric King. So ultimately it’s just a better -ism.

    I increasingly think the tradition Buddhist model of many linked, friendly, but also autonomous sanghas or individuals part of a larger (quasi national) sangha is more flexible, spacious, less centralised, more revolutionary, and ultimately more effective. Indeed, perhaps even more ‘Shambhalian’!
43. Chris on February 18th, 2010 10:18 pm
    

    Dear Ash: O.K., O.K., so ….what is your purpose in all this?
44. ash on February 18th, 2010 10:31 pm
    

    I don’t know.

    I am somewhat stunned by my own sudden outpourings.

    Maybe it’s the effect of not having any alcohol the past few days whilst running a mild fever and stumbling on here on Shambhala Day?

    Or maybe it’s because I’m a little shocked at this website and needed to vent after years of thinking that it was all basically over and done with – at least for me.

    Upside: I’ve done sitting practice the past two days in a row. That’s 200% more than the past two years!

    But also: I have long suspected that there is something on the Nyen/community level which has long been missing and that we tend to project too much on the leadership and in so doing failed to develop this mid-level strength. So perhaps I am offering some mid-level critique of commonly held views of what happened, what we did as some sort of counterpoint, i.e. that the past, such as it was, was never all that clear-cut, nor all of CTR’s actions perfectly successful in every way. That no matter what, by around 1988 or so it was fairly clear that a huge disruption had already occurred and that a certain amount of irreparable damage sustained, and much of that damage wrought by ourselves and our lack of being able to function together as a sane society on the nyen level without continuous mentoring from enlightened mahasiddha baby sitter. So no matter what he did, SMR’s reign was going to start very, very rough.

    I think all of us need to own that a bit more.

    At the same time, I do not deny that clearly something feels seriously off. But I am not yet convinced that it is still not more to do with our failings than those of the leadership, for the position of the leader is created and maintained by the needs and aspirations of his/her followers.
45. Chris on February 18th, 2010 10:58 pm
    

    So, Ash, how long do you propose that we “take care of the Sakyong” because he comes from a dysfunctional , crazy wisdom family? It’s been 22 years? How long do we feel bad about “how hard he has it?” HUH???? So that its not that we “expected too much,” we expected nothing, really, and we got it. So I say celebrate, like dropping a 500 lb weight.
46. ash on February 18th, 2010 11:15 pm
    

    Chris: sorry, but I just don’t see things that way. Personally I stopped contributing years ago simply because my heart was no longer in it (although I started again a couple of years back as I felt maybe things were perking up again but then soon stopped). I regretted that experience/situation, but accepted is as a truth that could not be denied.

    But in your question you are talking about ‘expecting’ and ‘taking care of the Sakyong’. I think it’s more helpful to examine what we expect of ourselves and how we take care of ourselves.

    I remember in 1980 I was asked to give a toast at a banquet at KCL during a dathun at which I was an instructor. I was not given a topic but knew that the basic ones like VCTR, VROT etc. were already covered. I picked the Noble Sangha. Many people came up to me afterwards and said they thought that was a totally ridiculous thing to toast. Maybe they were right in terms of it being too religious and therefore boring a topic (I like to think I made it just a little interesting…) but that was not their objection. It was that it was wrong to put the sangha forward as being in any way important, i.e. it was a form of gross ego to praise the sangha in any way.

    In 1996 I was asked to put together a banquet at SMR’s first large program at his new center, DCL. Along with having to memorise lines for a hilarious play he wrote following my request that he do so (it is traditional to ask monarchs to write plays for the benefit of the people during festivals, acc. to Confucius, so I asked him, he wrote it and my punishment was that along with organising this whole ridiculous extravaganza I had to learn lots of crazy lines. Somehow a few glasses of wine came my way shortly before the much belated banquet and I couldn’t remember any of them and was a disgraceful flop. But everyone loved it precisely because of that – except no doubt SMR whose charming little piece I had ruined), BUT I asked Dana Fabbro to give a toast to….. the sangha.

    He got up, started laughing, and then basically refused to do it. Having already flubbed my part in the proceedings I could hardly complain, but actually I was sort of hurt that he too found this such an unpalatable topic.

    I think there is something to these two little anecdotes actually. And it relates to our own abilities/practices as peers in the sangha to strengthen that together on our own level without looking towards the Dear Leader to provide all the impetus for everything all the time which turns him into some sort of monstrous ever-available tit on which countless individuals feel empowered to suck.

    Or blame when the milk tastes sour even though as no-longer-babies it is long past time for them to be sucking on such tit in the first place, nor seeking such milk for sustenance!

    And yet we DO need a sangha principle. But we also, as a sangha, need to learn how to sustain it on that sangha peer level.

    Warrior arhats or something.

    But this is also why I think something simple like a ‘Dragon Society’ ( I just learned today that a Garuda Society was earlier proposed so pardon my ignorance and unoriginality) could be formed, simply as a vehicle for the vajra sangha of CTR students to create their own intra-sangha container to maintain their samayas, comraderie and mutual sanghahood without any much agenda beyond that. It doesn’t have to become another project. Simply a way to maintain and strengthen that sangha principle as such, and from that no doubt Buddha and Dharma will come along nicely.

    Dig: and if 5,000 people joined at $50 per annum = $250,000 and all we did was use the money for a website, a forum, and feast sake, I bet in no time we’d be way ahead of SI financially and pretty soon ‘they’ would come to ‘us’ and say: ‘wow, you guys really have your sh*t together, could you please help?!’
47. John Tischer on February 19th, 2010 2:00 am
    

    “Don’t you think there might be a little dogma and rigidity in terms of freezing Shambhala Training forever?”

    Shambhala Training changed a lot from ‘78 when it really got started,
    through the 80’s with the development of the graduate program through
    Warrior’s Assembly…so I’m not really sure what you mean by “freezing’.
    Those developments seemed, to me, natural and organic and built
    on what went before, which was a recipe for fresh baked bread that did indeed bake such bread. The question seems to me, should we change the
    recipe? Has the recipe, in fact, been changed?
48. ash on February 19th, 2010 5:11 am
    

    Yes, once they figured out clear structure for the Level 1-V content in ‘78, that was done. And then gradually formatted the study of the root texts which took a little longer. Correct. But it didn’t really change, just became clear. I mean a Level I in early ‘79 was pretty much identical to those I did in Europe almost 20 years later. Same banners, setup, syllabus (albeit with new commentaries by JH which I never could make head or tail of).

    But has not the situation changed? Or what if it did? Is Shambhala Training a recipe that is always served in the same amount in the same way no matter the budget, the culture, the circumstances? I wonder. That is where I am coming from with the question. I don’t think you can regard it as a discrete commodity, like a one pound bag of sugar, or perhaps we should say a gold coin that always weighs a certain measurable amount.

    This is why I went on about the growth agenda role which its original logistical/structural formation was crafted to engender. The I-V levels, for example, were initially formed in order to funnel the largest number possible to Level V which would be taught by DDM, VROT doing Level IV. So the earlier levels were ways to bring people in and sufficiently prepare them for the upcoming Close Encounters of Cosmic Kindness. That is why there were five levels, not because there necessarily five levels heuristically speaking. (The syllabus for Lodro’s early Level III, for example, in the Oddfellow’s Hall on Pearl St, was how to work with a spiritual friend. Why? Because next up was VROT, that’s why!)

    Is that still its mission? No. So why the same structure? Mainly because people believe in it, and mainly the older generation many of whom worship the mental image of the structure in a quasi-ideological way as if logistical/economic concerns had nothing to do with its original conception and organisation structure.

    I suggest this is an overly romantic, and even dogmatic, pov. So I don’t think all this curriculum and labeling matters all that much one way or another. What does matter is the dynamic. Having read a few more threads, it seems that in some centers people are studying and practicing well and that sounds great. But if it is true that about 80% of VCTR’s students have drifted away, and if many of them feel this is not such a good thing, i.e. they have not joyfully moved onto bigger and better things or no-things, then how can we be sure that these new changes won’t have the same sort of end result 20 years down the road. We can’t say for sure now, but one thing we can say: this unfortunate dynamic should be addressed now because it is happening now in the actual mandala now. And again, I don’t think it’s about curriculum ultimately at all, which was my initial point really about not getting hung up on either old Shambhala or Buddharmic forms, although personally I happen to agree that the Vajradhatu Path per se is worth preserving as it was laid out for us over many years, though how precisely that is formatted, is not so important.

    Put another way: it’s about people not concept. It’s really all about caring for people, which includes ourselves, our sangha brethren, our neighbours, friends and fellow citizens. How best to do that?
49. rita ashworth on February 19th, 2010 7:26 am
    

    Dear Ash

    Some thought-provoking posts!

    Re the KIng thing – I am not against it in the sense of the King saying yes or no to what happens on a local level. So I think the Sakyong should allow for divergence especially in Cape Breton because of course the community is somewhat underprivileged in an economic sense.

    I take your points about increasing the people who are involved in Shambhala -you do need that to create an enlightened society -so yes new structures must be formed for getting the teachings out there. SI is too hierachical in a top-heavy sense so the Dragon Society is also a good idea.

    In the sense of the teachings expanding the way the Sakyong has set out with his vision of a Rigden King -that is one way still to me of going with the whole thing – I also believe in the fullness of time other people whether secretly or not will also join heaven and earth -so accommodation must be made for them in this set-up aswell and surely at some point a Sakyong would say yes to them aswell.

    I am not sure about other people in other religions not getting it-you would have to have them contributing to this site to state what their feelings are on the whole thing. You said you understood this point but I think it is also necessary to get further religious viewpoints on it. The whole Shambhala teachings are still wide open for me for all people -thats a matter of faith to me. I dont like the idea that Buddhists solely have access to these teachings -we must talk to other people about this in a concrete fashion.

    The following is also a very interesting point and also allows for other traditions to manifest in this mandala -could you go into it more?

    “Now the tantric stuff is interesting and there’s a twist: on the one hand it is very hierarchical and you only follow the instructions of the vajra master etc. On the other hand: it’s secret. Indian tantrikas rarely reveal themselves as such. That also means that in theory anyone can start teaching tantra as long as any student is willing to accept them as a teacher – that bond, or samaya, is mutual and fundamentally not all that different from a marriage vow. I am not advocating this, just pointing out that at some level this also is sort of no problem because if it actually does remain secret, then it isn’t there and therefore not subject to political energetics.’

    So on a fundamental level I think we can still have diverse communities and not be all following the same path and also too using the same buildings – for example the Unitarian church is constructed in this fashion to some degree.

    So I suppose again I must say the Sakyong must allow for divergence in constructing a society – I think he needs to address this issue also most urgently when he comes out of retreat -otherwise there could be more friction. He should allow what is somewhat occurring around the world in an ad hoc fashion ie new teachers emerging and new people voicing their ideas more to flourish – I would advise the Sakyong and the Acharyas to say yes instead of no!

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
50. Michael Sullivan on February 19th, 2010 10:39 am
    

    “Now the tantric stuff is interesting and there’s a twist: on the one hand it is very hierarchical and you only follow the instructions of the vajra master etc. On the other hand: it’s secret. Indian tantrikas rarely reveal themselves as such. That also means that in theory anyone can start teaching tantra as long as any student is willing to accept them as a teacher – that bond, or samaya, is mutual and fundamentally not all that different from a marriage vow. I am not advocating this, just pointing out that at some level this also is sort of no problem because if it actually does remain secret, then it isn’t there and therefore not subject to political energetics.”

    I agree that this is a very important point – and that it brings out several differences between Vajradhatu / SI and much of the rest of the Tibetan Buddhist spectrum.

    public group practice and stated hierarchies / credentials

    Now, please correct me if I’m wrong, but outside of monasteries I don’t think there is a big “group practice” tradition – especially for formless meditation. Sure, people would gather for teachings or as spectators at ritual practices in monasteries, but they did their practice either at home or on retreat.

    I recall that group shamatha / vipashyana was a surprise to many other teachers who visited the Dharmadhatus. I am not criticizing this at all, just saying that from jump, rather than a “home-centered” sangha the focus seemed to be on “see and be seen”. If you were there you were noticed, and people’s level of involvement was a public thing. However, once someone enters the Vajrayana in a system like that, one’s level of practice almost unavoidably turns into a credential of sorts – all protestations otherwise notwithstanding.

    That stands out in stark contrast to the example in the quote from Ash. In his example, where the vajra relationship is not made public.

    What it really brings to mind for me is the question of whether the intimate teacher / student relationship can actually scale to the point of large numbers of students, especially in the context of elaborate hierarchies and limited autonomy / empowerment of local teachers. This is even further exacerbated by control structures that discourage feedback that involves questioning….
51. Chris on February 19th, 2010 11:31 am
    

    Ash: wrote:
    “But in your question you are talking about ‘expecting’ and ‘taking care of the Sakyong’. I think it’s more helpful to examine what we expect of ourselves and how we take care of ourselves”

    Exactly, we are saying the same thing. And some of us will take care of ourselves by going it on our own, dropping the whole thing except for sense of lineage, and the practices we are given, touching in occasionally with sangha, (which gets less easily defined) as “my group” and more about practitioners who share the same view, regardless of what stream they came from, and yet still realizing we have been “shot out of cocoon” and are always alone, Others wil take care of themselves by relating to a small sangha of others with the same lineage, by simply sitting together without “elaborate hierachies” and see what happens.

    Anyway, you have been very helpful and I really appreciate your energy and honesty.

    Chris.
52. ash on February 19th, 2010 11:32 am
    

    “I am not against it in the sense of the King saying yes or no to what happens on a local level.”

    1. I very much doubt the King was involved or aware.
    2. If he was, then I disagree: he should have nothing to do with it anyway. King’s should not meddle with individual or local situations.
    2b. The King’s role in both Western and Confucian models including our own is mainly to harmonize Heaven and Earth on the macro level, so to speak, in order to do which they are somewhat ‘not allowed’ to take sides or meddle with particularities.

    Why is this? Many cosmic reasons, no doubt, but also: as soon as the monarch steps in between any faction or parties then he is subject to manipulation on the part of other factions and parties who see where the wind is blowing and maneuver themselves accordingly either with this or future issues. At that point, the Monarch has lost their seat.

    During the mid-late-90’s when I first started having a difficult time with SMR in terms of our previously close and warm relationship and moreover had returned to the mandala and was working at DCL, I called up a couple of close, active, senior people around him to ask for advice and each told me the same thing: they could rarely if ever get anything specific out of him and it was driving them nuts most of the time! That sounded sort of good to me on some level in that clearly he was not meddling overmuch.

    But there’s a twist there too of course: he might be not meddling for many reasons good or bad, and I will never know, but it could be a sign that he feels that things are so confused/tricky/obfuscated etc. that it’s simply better to stay still for a while. That is a helpful service to us in terms of his role, but also a sign that there are still many serious obstacles in play.

    Actually, he asked me in 1990 or 91 before coming back from Asia what I thought about his returning. I strongly urged him not to come back yet saying that we had only just begun to do the work needed after VCTR’s death which was establishing the core nyen-level functionality of the mahasangha, something that was greatly delayed of course by the 1988-90 tragedy. I never really spoke to him after that phone call about administrative matters and found myself out of the loop when he did return, shortly after which I left Halifax and moved to Europe. But obviously, although I am pretty certain he agreed with my assessment of what the sangha needed to do for itself, I presume he felt that this wouldn’t happen and speculate that he felt he needed to come back sooner rather than later otherwise perhaps nothing would be left for him to lead if he delayed much longer.

    That was then. I have no idea about now.
53. ash on February 19th, 2010 11:50 am
    

    This is a tangent but germane (I hope). There is much focus on the problems with the overall thrust of governance, structural strategy etc. especially as mandated from those on high. And I must confess on reading through the organizational charts last night that it does look extremely top-downish. ( Or rather Court-Centred, which could be regarded as a very strong expression of holding the Middle and therefore rather admirable??)

    But one of the reasons I left Halifax, along with personal and financial, was that I was simply tired of always being under the thumb of the so-called ’senior students’ who seemed to monopolize the agenda, had their own internal networks of communication, and by and large were a very territorial, ingrown group comprised largely of people who joined before about 1973 and attended the first or second seminary. I felt that many things simply didn’t move in many ways because of their reluctance to really welcome people into the inner mandala, so to speak, and blossom. It was always VCTR or VROT who moved people up, created new zones of activity and so forth and in nearly every case they struggled against it or undermined it. This is an overly harsh generalization but that was my general impression.

    More importantly, it goes back to my now more firmly held view (after reading much of this site the past 48 hours) that we had then and probably still have now much work to do on our end. That the remoteness of the Sakyong is also a function of our own lack of cohesion, clarity and sangha fellowship, to which he is honor bound to relate but cannot really control or command.

    It is said that the harmony/sanity of the students affects the longevity of the teacher. I believe this is true because on the heart level we are all one. I think in many ways the difficulties in the back-and-forth between subject and monarch are as much a function of the subjects as the monarch. We were spoiled in the early days by having a mahasiddha bliss-master; but he also drank himself to death in about 15 years of working with us, remember, so thick was the sludge of entrenched samsaric goo he had to wade through in order to shine the uncompromising light of unwavering sanity in our midst.

    I think much of the fear mentioned by Reoch in his interview comes from unresolved petty territorial issues at play within the main body at the Nyen level, and a large amount of this has been unacknowledged, both personally and societally.

    In other words, much of the stuff that has been projected onto the Sakyong since he came in as official leader is in fact our own obstacles being reflected in the mirror of his seeming distance. Yes, there is a bit more to it than that, but as is well said: ‘first cast out the beam in your own eye before freaking out about the little speck of dust in your brother’s eye’ – or however it goes.

    We are not blameless in this overall dynamic. None of us because too many of us, myself included, were afraid to stand up and push for what we felt should be done, not to mention indulging personal neurosis, stepping over others to get somewhere, bringing others down out of jealousy, failing to achieve even nominal Hinayana level of true sanity, etc. etc. etc.
54. John Tischer on February 19th, 2010 12:07 pm
    

    “Someone left the cake out in the rain…I don’t think that I can make it, ’cause it took so long to bake it, and I’ll never have that recipe again….oh noooooo…”

    I always thought that those were the worst lyrics ever written…now I see the light.
55. ash on February 19th, 2010 12:27 pm
    

    “What it really brings to mind for me is the question of whether the intimate teacher / student relationship can actually scale to the point of large numbers of students, especially in the context of elaborate hierarchies and limited autonomy / empowerment of local teachers. This is even further exacerbated by control structures that discourage feedback that involves questioning….”

    I think this is an important consideration. However, the painful truth remains that although the situation remains somewhat stable on many levels – despite the many intelligent, piercing critiques offered here – the numbers are miniscule and perhaps what is needed is even more centralization in the short term, I don’t know. But in the long run, I don’t think a single vajra master model will work and it does seem like this is being encouraged. Moreover, I don’t think that tantrikas should be the bulk of the Shambhala-Mahayana population who will mainly live and work as ordinary citizens in their local communities, both internationally and also in Nova Scotia if we ever make more headway here.

    My first MI student in Cape Breton became the first female Roman Catholic “X” (can’t remember the title), someone allowed to give holy water and sacraments and stuff. I was proud of her and proud also that we had worked together well without any need on my part to try to drag her into our troubled world.

    By the way, it is quite interesting to hear the stories – ‘ the goo’ as they call it here – about us from the other side! Boiled down simply it is: ‘they bring in gob-loads money wherever they come, so be nice to them; but they drink and f**k like rabbits, so hold your loved ones close and your daughters and husbands closer!”
56. rita ashworth on February 19th, 2010 12:42 pm
    

    Dear Ash

    Thanks for that feedback on my query re the KIng.

    Yes I agree the King does stay out of the system of government -that is the case in the present British monarchy. But the present Queen is also informed by her Prime Minister and her advisors as to what is the state of her realm and she can advise but yes maybe not say No so concretely on a situation and sometimes her advice even in this modern UK does still have an influence on some matters to a degree. For example the present Queen recently asked econmists how they had made such wrong decisions about the state of the economy -in this respect she earned the pound I pay for her living in her various palaces in this UK of ours!?

    However, the NO I more attribute to the King/Queens ministers because if someone is being so outlandish there has to be some feedback in a general sense of this person being a bit nutty and weird – so a decision would have to be made and the King/Queen would have to sign the papers on that or devise some way the person could be worked with – I could agree with that.

    In addition in the UK the monarch signs all legal papers such as Acts -they come into force because of her signature on them so in an ultimate sense it is the Queen/Kings realm (Funny how such a secularist and republican as I should know about the British monarchy!?)

    So in this fashion this is why a King would say Yes or No and of course we have the situation of CTR saying NO on several occassions.

    But I do take your point about factions and splits and projections. The way I believe a Sakyong or anyone should indeed deal with this is to allow things to be more free flowing -thats why I was interested in your ideas on the Dragon Society and a different way of structuring the shambhala teachings so that they reach people where they are at.

    The Rigden king formation as it now is I still find too definitive for a lot of people who are contemplating their position within SI – I think still there should be found further ways of accommodating people in a larger mandala if we are talking about a mandala in terms of the whole of the world (at some point this is a possibility because people are looking for some way to make sense of their existence economically and socially).

    Who for example have been the greatest monarchs in the UK – women that is, Elizabeth and Victoria because they allowed their subjects to do what they wished to do to a degree. Shakespeare in the 16 century for example was able to debate the divine right of Kings and Victoria in the 19th century allowed Karl Marx to be in the country when he was flushed out of Europe. So yes if we are talking of monarchies they have to be liberal to a degree.

    I hope you can clarify your further comments on the tantric guru traditon that you mentioned and how indeed you would structure the shambhala teachings differently.

    Plus it would also be good if further comments could be put forward re Shambhala Christian ideas on this matter of having a temporal and spiritual ruler in one person. Interesting.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
57. ash on February 19th, 2010 3:07 pm
    

    One point at a time: I think what has been missing since around the early 80’s and seems not yet to have been engendered is the Prime Minister principal, using the UK as a national example since there is still a Monarchy.

    (I asked DDM what he thought of the British Royal Family one day. His reply: ‘Antiquated.’ )

    But the reason Her Majesty signs all those Acts is because without her ultimate approval, they do not have the power to do so on their own. Furthermore, in her role as Protector of the Realm (which principally means the people therein not properties etc.), she has the power to overthrow any official who is deemed to be harming the Realm. Practically speaking she has been castrated (which might not much bother her as a woman, but should as a Monarch!) in this function, but the underlying structural setup is there for a reason and a good one.

    The Prime Minister is both the Leader of the People managing the affairs of the Kingdom and also their main voice to the Monarch. This relates to the Nyen principle I have been alluding to, and which reading through this site has sparked fresh contemplations about.

    So, yes, the Monarch has a NO function, but ideally not in terms of specifics, but organismic architecture, i.e. power over those with authority, the ability to fire them basically.

    Now this brings up a conversation / discourse I wish I/we had had with DDM: if you have the Monarch being head of the Church as well as State, if is necessary for the Monarch to be deposed, do they remain as Lineage Holders notwithstanding? Or perhaps before this: by what rights over time does a Monarch have the authority to rule as such? What is the mechanism of succession? Perhaps these things have already been answered in that Sakyong A designates ahead of time who is Sakyong B and that is it. But there seems to be a little fuzziness in there in terms of chain of command, not to mention the links in that chain that join the Heaven of the spiritual and Shambhala (national) lineages involved with the connection of the citizenry. This is a muddled way of saying that we seem to have a union of Church and State so the line between lineage holder and monarch is rather hard to discern, if indeed it should be drawn at all. But there is something there.

    I mean if you feel that Shambhala and Buddhadharma should always remain separate, then I think it is probably best if a Sakyong is not Chief Lineage Holder as well, or at least that there are several other Heads of various lineages operating autonomously as such within the Kingdom, albeit with the blessings and permission of the Monarch.
58. ash on February 19th, 2010 3:18 pm
    

    “I hope you can clarify your further comments on the tantric guru traditon that you mentioned and how indeed you would structure the shambhala teachings differently.”

    Well, I wish I hadn’t written those tantric remarks because they are the sort of thing that take on a life of their own way beyond the original context. I think I was trying to talk about various aspects of how initiative versus control might function, but really my main thought was about how on the hinayana and mahayana and pre-Sacred Path level of the journey, that really the whole thing should be a little more open-ended to allow for the predilections of individual teachers and the local cultural styles to have more freedom to come up with their own ways of doing things whilst at the same time having that channeled into the central nadi somehow. The tantric level definitely is more tricky, and frankly beyond my pay grade so I should not have brought it in. Suffice to say, I think there is a significant difference in those levels, and although we teach Hinayana from fruitional ground and view, that is not the ground or view of the participant/student, which is the real subject matter. And in that context the whole thing needs to relax much further. Maybe it is different now and I am out of touch, but the strong emphasis on building up the power and presence of the Kalapa principle seems to imply that an appreciation for bedrock local culture as the basis for the entire population hasn’t quite taken yet. Practically speaking, much of the money for the kingdom still comes from people whose sanghas are less than 50, put it that way. How they function and flourish is the main source of sustenance and growth for the current and future mandala. I don’t think this is properly understood, either now or historically.

    I was looking through some old documents this morning to find something to send in as a proposal to the editor here and stumbled across some notes I wrote to Christy Cashman in Jan 2000, just before she and others began to work formally on this. I don’t know this for sure, but strongly suspect that my first proposal about this to which these notes are an addendum (since lost unfortunately) helped spark what later became official policy. It is hard to summarize them as briefly as should be done in this forum but on reading through them I think they had the right idea, actually, and that the good parts were not adopted.

    I’ll see if I can find a snippet that makes sense without the larger context of the letter which is about 2 pages long.
59. ash on February 19th, 2010 3:39 pm
    

    Too difficult to cut and paste (not my forte!). So here goes, and it’s not that long. I think it is interesting for those with serious doubts about Shambhala-Buddhism to see an early proposal written independent of group think. At the time I thought it was my idea alone and it came partly out of the sort of inspiration and clarity that came from living alone at Kalapa Valley during the winter, but also as a result of having recently been quite active teaching ST and other things in Europe and having witnessed first hand the many types of struggle – not to mention outright conflict – that maintaining the streams of Shambhala and Buddhadharma as totally separate entities, as it were, had been engendering.

    ”
    Kalapa Valley
    Date lost.
    (Feb 2000, a few days after Shambhala Day after return to KV)

    Dear Christy,

    I have lost the original file I sent to you about integrating the Shambhala and Buddhist streams of teaching into one overall journey and using the ‘pan-nyinthun’ approach we discussed a few nights ago as the core phenomenal container. …

    The journey can be likened to a course of studies at school culminating in a degree. The reason for this analogy is to highlight that at the beginning one knows nothing about the journey and its lineage which by the end one will have mastered. Simply put… there are beginning, intermediate and advanced phases on the path during which each student studies a variety of different subjects.

    To generalise, at the beginning the course content is generally the same for most students. In the middle there is more specialization which continues until at the end, the pinnacle, all dissolves back into one point or bindu of formless suchness and realisation. But that is just at the very end.

    There is profundity and vastness. Profundity uses progressive stages in order to deepen the knowledge by basing future progress on what has been learned in the past. One can describe this as progressing upwards, i.e. 1 – 5, or downwards, i.e. deepening levels of awareness but the essence is the same, namely that one level of experience provides the ground for the next. This is profundity in terms of the learning journey. However, there is also vastness, which in this case has less to do with the content than the scope of the audience, i.e. the market, i.e. how many people can one reach to include in this particular wisdom lineage Mandala? Vastness might also refer to flexibility of structure so that it is not too exclusive or monastic.

    This latter comment leads me to repeat what we mentioned, namely that an overly rigid format, such as 1 – 5, means that if you miss III you cannot do IV. It is a narrowing journey, one of profundity, but not (structurally speaking) of vastness. By having the open nyinthun format, we can have simultaneous profundity and vastness. On the same weekend, we can have students sitting in the same room from 9-12 and 2-5 on Saturday and Sunday who are fulfilling their nyinthun requirements as instructors or students, who are taking Level I, Level B, Hinayana 105, Mahayana 210, Vajrayana 690 all at the same time. Each group separates in the evening for talks in different rooms/houses, and during the days are interviewed somehow by instructors in various rooms etc. etc. The main value of this is that the nyinthuns continue on like clockwork, ideally every weekend in every centre throughout the world.
60. ash on February 19th, 2010 3:40 pm
    

    And each Saturday (when the talks are over) at 9.00 pm there is a social in each and every centre that people who have been sitting can attend, but also friends and family. It’s just what happens at a Shambhala Centre along with various holiday functions like Shambhala Day, intensives etc. The main point here is that nyinthuns happen regularly like clockwork and the various programs we offer do not interfere with that.

    I urge you to try this at a large centre – preferably Halifax where the Sunday gathering notion from Marty is supported by the new Director Richard John – for one year or so as a pilot program. If it is good, expand it, if not, junk it.

    I also suggest that we begin to think of defining the different levels of content in terms of Beginning, Intermediate and Advanced. In Buddhist terms this is Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. In ST terms it might be Levels I – III, Levels IV and V, and then the graduate levels. The Buddhist graduation is the Refuge Ceremony (optional), as is the Bodhisattva Vow for the Intermediate Stage, and Samaya for the Vajrayana.

    Various teachers in our sangha have special interests or styles. They should be encouraged to develop and expand their own teaching styles, including getting a small share of the program income. But their courses can be graded in terms of which level they count towards, i.e. a student needs to get 100 credits in the Introductory/Beginning/Hinayana level before he or she is allowed to progress to the next Intermediate/Bodhisattva level. There can be a combination of required courses in each phase as well as optional, i.e. in the Beginning/Tiger/Hinayana/ Phase the requirements would be Levels I – III and Hinayana 1 – III in terms of how SMR how teaches it and the new curriculum developed of late. But at the same time there are optional courses offered by a variety of teachers depending on the resources and inclinations of the senior students in the centre. They have to submit their courses to the Office of Practice and Study for approval and to determine how many points they are worth, and then the teacher can continue. Meanwhile the student must also complete required courses that take place at weeknights but which also mandate a certain amount of nyinthun hours per month in order to complete. This is an important twist because it will encourage those senior students who have the desire to teach more and flourish in their own ways whilst at the same time ensuring that their efforts are grounded in and lead the students back into the same overall Mandala. This both encourages individual style and development without at the same time encouraging lots of little gurus and rudras all over the place, or too many cookie-cutter program delivery specialists.

    Anything we do in the Buddadharmic and Shambhala educational journey should be a joyful and disciplined manifestation of the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, i.e. all three at once, which is why I like the open nyinthun approach as the core format. We should encourage progressive levels of profundity via a consistent, effective delivery of formal and informal educational curricula, but also we need to better foster a more inclusive lineage and atmosphere of vastness, which transcends boundary and limitations of time, space, income, culture etc.

    At the core of all the above suggestions is the notion of the open nyinthun approach, in which people are doing the same thing at the same time and also a different thing at the same time. The mind is a living Mandala that can accommodate multiple, simultaneous realities transcending linear logic or logistics. Our educational and community gatherings should reflect the same. Just as our Kalapa Assembly, the pinnacle of secret and sacred warriorship and drala-fest culture, should at once be concentrated and open to all, as would happen should we place it within the Maritime community of Ingonish using the sacred ground of Kalapa openly and publicly as the ‘Lumbini Grove’ wherein the most formal expressions of practice, ceremony and celebration take place.

    ..
    Wishing you and yours all the best,

    Ash,
    Aka Lord Happy Life.
61. rita ashworth on February 20th, 2010 11:25 am
    

    “I mean if you feel that Shambhala and Buddhadharma should always remain separate, then I think it is probably best if a Sakyong is not Chief Lineage Holder as well, or at least that there are several other Heads of various lineages operating autonomously as such within the Kingdom, albeit with the blessings and permission of the Monarch.”

    Dear Ash

    Thank you for your thoughts and DDM thoughts on the British monarchy -very interesting. However I dont think the Queen at present is totally castrated -can you do that to a Queen! She does still have a lot of power in the sense of influencing people around the world especially in terms of the Commonwealth where she is well liked . Some people also might wish to view a series on Channel 4 on the Queen and the various decades that she has reigned -it shows how she conducted herself when at times the nation was falling apart. Particularly in the 1970s when Mr Edward Heath -the Prime Minister almost asked for a state of emergency to be enacted due to the miners strike-very interesting times.

    Re the paragraph above yes this sums up where I am at present – let me say why its because I think the Sakyong and the Tibetan tradition generally has underestimated the ability of westerners to carry the lineages on and perhaps create new lineages. Can there never be another Regent for example or indeed several lineage holders. I think there will be – its a question of not knowing what is out there in the world -space whatever. So yes the future lineage holders would have to be in some way connected to SI or whatever it is to become.

    So yes I thought the intermediary notions you mentioned of the Dragon Society and decentralising power to the communities in the field would be good. People outside somewhat of this set up at present like Ray could be brought back in if maybe an advisory board of eminent lamas could decide on his status. Yes maybe he is not a vajra master now but could he possibly become one -thats a great query in the transmission of these teachings to the west.

    I also think it is stupid for SI not to debate these issues in some coming forum because it is creating a lot of antagonism in the sangha and particularly the idea of people joining outside of SI as dividing the sangha is group-think gone bananas. I would open the floodgates of conversation on all these issues especially in Nova Scotia which is hush-hush society anyway -it would be a breath of fresh air for all these issues to be discussed openly without the stickiness to present system now evolving.

    So yes even though CTR said the British monarchy was antiquated -to my sense he was only half right in this-its a question of the monarchy influencing things which is a much more delicate matter. I dont know why I am writing about the British monarchy in such a defensive fashion afterall I am not a monarchist but I do see lessons from its historical process as perhaps relevant to the way forward. For example politically why did the Australians vote to retain a monarchy -its all very subtle and sort of a mystery.

    Best Rita
62. ash on February 20th, 2010 12:08 pm
    

    I agree that she has a lot of influence. However, I think in terms of her role as embodiment of sacred perception (which in English is somewhat equivalent to the word ‘royal’), she has been castrated. But that happened several centuries ago before she was even a gleam in her father’s eye!

    The more I think about this the more it seems that we simply need to build the sort of Nyen level infrastructure, society-wise, that was sketched out (more than sketched out) in the Deleg-Dekyong structures. I think the main reason it did not work is that we did not participate it in sufficiently and part of that was because we did not articulate a clear enough role within the context of our spiritual Shambala-Buddhadharmic community.

    I read somewhere that the first proposal from the Delegs in Boulder was a request for CTR to not give talks to late because of baby sitting problems. Now that was a real and valid issue. But still it was basically a supplication from the population about something the Monarch could do personally rather than any sort of administrative level suggestion, or form of check and balance or whatever.

    It also seems to me that more positions should come as suggestions from below and then with approval from above. But maybe that has been going on for some time in the application processes, I don’t know.

    Still, it seems to me that also in terms of maintaining the lineage that the Nyen level needs to be activated somehow. The sangha should own most of the properties and be responsible for most of the administration, funding, legalities etc., including long term continuity. I believe this is how it was done in traditional buddhist communities. The loyalty should be to the Three Jewels and each other on some level. Perhaps this means that the tantric level exists outside the realm of the administrative and political which are firmly embedded in the conventional Hinayana and Mayahana realities, and this realm is basically run by the sangha. The lineage holders function both within and beyond that realm and do not run it per se. They are free to teach and gather disciples basically rather than having to be the chief bureaucrats as well.

    But then you have the Shambhala aspect in there which is a country-running model.

    It’s all very complicated, isn’t it! Maybe things are basically fine and there just need to be a few minor adjustments somewhere to include everybody a little better… To my mind there is a real gap between the heavy vision at the top which is projecting a richness and depth of organisation fitting for the population of a small country, and the actual population which is rather small and geographically dispersed. Makes the whole thing too clunky, inflexible somehow.

    On another note, I feel I have been posting here too much. Am sort of astonished at myself actually. Last night I wrote a humorous piece about the nyen level stuff but it shouldn’t be posted in this or any other thread I don’t think. So I resurrected an old blog I started years ago which went nowhere but is still there.

    So here’s a link to that piece if anyone is interested: The Memoires of Sir Oswald Platypus.
    http://samsara-nirvana.blogspot.com/2010/02/memoirs-of-sir-oswald-platypus.html
63. rita ashworth on February 22nd, 2010 9:30 am
    

    Dear Ash

    Thank you for your further points on the construction of an enlightened society and lineage holders and of course Her Majesty!

    Yes it is true that Elizabeth 2 is not an absolute monarch that has not occured in the UK for a long time-religious wars put a stop to that especially with the Civil War in the UK. However in some respects as a constitutional monarch she does a fairly good job -she is for example ruling over a muliticultural society so I dont think you could have an absolute monarch here any way at this time.

    Antiquated monarchy re Trungpa’s remark -yes that probably coverd well the monarchy when he was here until 1970 since then it has modernised itself post the Diana phenomen. I have gone into this a little because yes people do want a monarchy supposedly as a unifying image.

    As to lineage I was reading an article by Dzigar Kontrul Rinpoche where he stated when we have mahasiddhis in the west the dharma will have been planted here. This is I believe is only partially true because with Trungpa I believe the aim was perhaps more on transforming or bringing forth an enlightened society -so yes governance is a major, major issue in Shambhalaland -if you dont get that right however much temporary fundraising you do is a waste of time and a pretty stupid way to fill up your time anyway.

    Why do people for example join any movement? If you look to Russia in a revolutionary sense the whole thing happened for complex reasons- a bad war, a bad king, a bad and corrupt government. So what matters to people in forging a society are somewhat ideals, a caring approach and the means to a better life both politcally and in Russia’s case at the time artistically though not religiously. So I agree with you the nyen view needs to be looked into most concisely so that it includes and does not exclude and here I think the Sakyong is at present excluding discussion, the possibility of revolution, and peoples engagement at a local level with politcs. Here I would urge you to write some formal application for the foundation of a Dragon Society to SI -it is a good idea perhaps also you could discuss it with others-who would they be-call a meeting-create a society now!

    My own private moan – a further problem with SI is this excessive quibbling about money……the finance directors have taken over the ship -I have just read about the tour. In my opinion dont give them a penny-dont dialogue with them until you have some actual clout in the formation of this coming enlightened society -really start examining the ideas behind the concept of an enlightened society and your own place within it -to me it is much more beyond the practice of this sadhana or another sadhana -it is a revolution in consciousness on a planetary level. People in shambhala have to have a grander vision than wallowing around in greenbacks for this and that little project.

    Well Best Rita Ashworth
64. ash on February 22nd, 2010 10:48 am
    

    Sidebar: “If you look to Russia in a revolutionary sense the whole thing happened for complex reasons- a bad war, a bad king, a bad and corrupt government. ”

    I recommend John Robison’s ‘Proof of Conspiracy’ written in 1798 about the French Revolution. I am not aware of a similar tome on the Russian Revolution that is not vociferously denounced as racist etc. but given that Lenin, who was first arrested in Halifax NS on his way back to Europe as a German agent but then released, then traveled through Germany (with whom we were at war) in a govt. organized private train on his way to help lead the subsequent revolution, and given that one of the first results of said revolution was the transfer of all of Russia’s gold reserves to banks in Germany, London and New York, and given that many communes in Russia had supplicated the Tsar (who was well liked both at home and abroad acc. to contemporary anecdotes before the revolution) to incorporate them into his personal domain – because his serfs were well off – I think it reasonable to question the basic story describing a ‘people’s revolution overthrowing a tyrant’, especially given the unprecedented bloodbath which murdered many millions which followed including such anti-Christian niceties as boiling Abbots alive and forcing their monks to eat the resultant stew, or forcing them to eat each others brains. And so on.

    End of sidebar.
    !
65. ash on February 22nd, 2010 10:53 am
    

    “Here I would urge you to write some formal application for the foundation of a Dragon Society to SI.” A couple of days ago I submitted something related to the editors here, although since my ‘take’ or thrust is not quite so critical of various key aspects of concern here amongst many, and since it was written ten years ago, it might quite reasonably be judged as not really relevant or helpful at this time.
66. ash on February 22nd, 2010 11:31 am
    

    re: “the dharma will have been planted here. This is I believe is only partially true because with Trungpa I believe the aim was perhaps more on transforming or bringing forth an enlightened society..”

    the first might true; the second is a larger context vision/aspiration. I always have wondered what Lord Buddha’s contemporaries, especially those of his upper class, must have felt about his traveling around from kingdom to kingdom and in many cases encouraging royal family heirs and so forth to renounce their roles in society and join him wandering in the woods and villages with begging bowls. In his own case, not only did he renounce a potential throne, but then persuaded his son (and thus the next heir in line) to do the same thing. Because after all, the dharma when taken to heart tends to promote a certain indifference to things like success, failure, GDP, the import-export ratio, currency valuations and suchlike!

    So perhaps we could say it is an act of generosity on the part of the established buddhist lineages to also offer a cure for the dysfunction (though not necessarily worse than ‘conventional’ dysfunction) they themselves might engender if their mission goes well!
67. rita ashworth on February 22nd, 2010 11:49 am
    

    Dear Ash

    I agree with you the Revolution did not succeed and was handed badly in the coming years. But there was a desire for change generally in the intelligentsa from the mid-nineteenth century which you find commented upon by various Russian authors.

    I believe the Tsar left things to late to quell a revolution – he should have acted much quicker but he only instituted a few reforms.

    Lenin also instituted many bad laws in the first few years when he was in office but there was a revolution in the arts and social life you only have to look to Eisenstein for this and people generally welcomed getting out of the terrible war in Europe.

    Nuff of Russia -what I was really pointing to was a change in peoples consciousness from seeing themselves as having no power to having power to alter things in a political way and this was begun at the start of the revolution but hidebound by a total war with western powers.

    I believe to forge a society you also need a change in political and religious consciousness -people need to become aware that they do have power to alter things in a concrete fashion.

    Re the Dragon Society -so you wrote some thing ten years ago-so you were thinking along political lines way back then? Cant you update what you wrote -it would be good to read it. I hope you will reread it and redevelop it for an article.

    If Shambhala is to go anywhere beyond a mere collection of centres it has to start discussing the political formation of societies that began with Marx and others and was subsequently added to by Erich Fromm and other twentieth century philosophers and psychologists.

    I am not a political theorist in an academic sense but I am interested in political matters because maybe of my upbringing in a disempowered section of the UK-therefore my interest in politics and literature and the relation to the establishment of a fair and workable society.

    I hope you will write further on your political ideas in regards to Shambhala.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Manchester UK
68. ash on February 22nd, 2010 12:08 pm
    

    Rita, I think you are giving me far too much credit/praise! There are many more intelligent and astute political thinkers on this board and elsewhere in the mandala than I!

    fwiw my proposal was more about a specific thing which I think would be very helpful – in brief regular Mukpo Clan gatherings or Kalapa Assemblies or whatever in the Maritime community of Ingonish, Cape Breton, using the sacred land of Kalapa Valley as the main shrine/practice and ceremonial area and the entire community with hotels and community halls and private homes as the ‘venue’ so that our mandala takes place within the ongoing, secular reality of a living Maritime/Cape Breton community. This sort of dynamic, especially when repeated over successive years, and hopefully heightened by the use/presence of Kalapa Valley in its midst, is the sort of thing -integrating dharma/Shambhala within local community context – which I personally believe is the main way forward on all sorts of levels. That’s it in a nutshell. If done right, it also would be a blast. Ingonish is a thorny, vibrant, very potent little community of about 1,000. They have more to teach us about ‘community’ than we them – in both positive and negative ways!

    The Dragon Society (which I have since gathered is not a new idea at all, not surprisingly) was in response to reading through several threads on this site, but especially this one about Vajradhatu, something I feel strongly about though more in an instinctive than political way. In fact my ‘beef’ with ST years ago was that an unintended consequence of having it a) take place in even small Shambhala Centers and forming groups and b) increasingly becoming the main – and sometimes almost the only – ‘outreach’ vehicle, was a gradual undermining of the Vajradhatu Path which I think was vast and profound, highly workable, relatively easy and fun to teach and study, and along with regular nyinthun practice would prove excellent at both building and maintaining healthy local sanghas.

    But maybe that is just hanging onto the past. Some of the accounts by current newer students who have graduated from Seminary etc. on this board sound very positive and also they don’t sound to me like people who are rejecting the seminal role of CTR in any way.

    It does seem to be sad that so many of the old gang have drifted away and I suspect it is not simply because, as with in days of yore the introduction of suits and ties, or Shambhala, shook some of the weaker limbs from the tree, so to speak. Something happened and it is a pity and I also suspect is at least partly reparable, but probably along the lines of something like the Dragon Society idea versus rigid curriculum, transmission or membership rules reforms. The thing needs to open up, relax, and I think the direction to go is towards ‘empowering’ local sanghas, individuals and so forth to just spread the dharma less formally within their own particular cultural or local contexts.

    That’s really all my ‘political’ musings have come up with, which is not very much.

    Btw, I met Her Majesty once in 1971, when she came to visit my school near London (Harrow). I believe I said ‘Good Morning, Ma’am’, but certainly did not derive much political acumen from the encounter!
69. rita ashworth on February 22nd, 2010 1:31 pm
    

    Dear Ash

    Thank you for your further ideas on the formation of communities – this points to what Fromm described in the Sane Society. Indeed these communities were also quite powerful in that the one in France described was composed of many religious and secular persuasions and as a grouping too they had a large portion of land of 235 acres.

    So your idea for what could happen in Ingonish is somewhat based on Fromms ideas of communitarian socialsim. I suppose if there were several of these groupings within Cape Breton they would begin to get political power as time passed whether in a conventional sense or their own conception of politics if they formed a large body or a co-operative.

    I also agree with you about SI retaining control over study – I feel this needs to be passed down to the locality -so they can work more on their own and perhaps even charge or not charge what they want. Hence my criticisms of fundraising – people have to have some way to run the finances themselves -was not this case in Tibet also with its various monastic bases? So all the talk about the process of dialoguing with people on the present tour could be iffy -if the ‘dialogue’ is one way. I have seen these dialogues happening in conventional politics and they are one-way.

    As to NS -it was to be a supposedly model society for the world to emulate in these changing times but what indeed has gone wrong there? I think too it is not rhyming with the local culture -indeed when I was there SI was full of the middle class and the people I mixed with were continually broke including myself!? So yeh the masses have to take over the building!

    All the above is the mundane aspect of politics -for politics to really work you do really need political theorists speculating on stuff with the people.
    For example I am going to a theatre workshop with Julian Boal, son of the late Augusto Boal in March -to see how politics interacts with theatre in a practical sense. Should I mention that he should visit NS?!Ho-hum – I really am talking about people recognising their own power to accomplish things and that takes a lot talk and listening to people as to the construction of societies. You cant just take your Shambhala like the Sakyong has done and foist it on others. To me still Shambhala comes from the ground up and interacts with the heaven principle -so it cant be set in stone like most things, hence you will have to leave room for people to manifest their own Shambhala according to their experience in a deep way. So I think the Kingdom of Shambhala could arise in numerous ways according to the culture and the people.

    So yes would welcome somewhat more talk on politics on this board as it is one way to go forward in an immeasurable sense.

    Aka Elizabeth 2 -hope you can see the C4 series -its amazing…..from a leftie tv channel it is certainly an intriguing look into the British monarchical set-up and points to a degree why she is still sitting on that ol throne in Westminster!

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
70. Robert Chandler on February 22nd, 2010 4:13 pm
    

    “The Old Gang”

    As the strong limbs became weaker
    From the piling on of bullshit
    That flowed effortlessly from alzheimer acharyas
    And blathering boardmembers
    These precious limbs cracked
    And fell away
    From the charlatan and his minions.
71. ash on February 22nd, 2010 4:39 pm
    

    “So your idea for what could happen in Ingonish is somewhat based on Fromms ideas of communitarian socialism.”

    Not at all. Simply merging our own (temporary) Assembly population within a living community as it is, and which as I said has plenty to teach us about community, and moreover possesses its own quite valid Cape Breton reality which should be retained, of course, albeit hopefully enlivened a little during our regular 10 day visits. Good party time for all after the summer-fall season is over basically. This (for us) in contrast to renting a hotel, or doing things in isolation on our own properties such as RMDC or DDL etc.

    Btw,when I presented this as a possibility to the local Chamber of Commerce 10 years ago they liked it. Ingonish could handle somewhere between 500-1000 people with various different levels of hotel expense, even with group rates being possible since we would come at what would otherwise be the ‘off-season’.

    I don’t know about NS being a ‘model society’. Perhaps that is what everyone aspires one’s society to be. But NS is a place for us to put down long term Shambhalian roots and hopefully the interchange would be mutually beneficial. For it to succeed, the existing population would basically adopt many Shambhalian practices and principles at which point ‘they’ would have essentially taken over ‘us’.

    Personally, I feel it was unfortunate – although inevitable – that most of us immediately coalesced in Halifax. Although great in many ways, in terms of the province it has always seemed to me to be more of a drain, both geomantically and figuratively, than a dynamo. I spoke to one of the chief development consultants there about 10 years ago who told me that the agreed-upon plan is to build up HRM (essentially by draining the rural areas) until it can reach some sort of critical mass at which point it would function as a dynamic engine of growth. I was skeptical of this strategy, and when he told me it was based on the Jane Jacobs approach – whose books I had just finished reading – I found her number, called her up and had a very interesting conversation of which several clear points emerged:
    1. She felt that categorising Halifax as a ‘drain’ was spot on. She knew the chap I had talked to and was aware of the plan and had already voiced her disapproval to others that she was associated with it basically worked in a way diametrically opposed to her own vision/style.
    2. Moncton probably better as regional engine, but she also felt New Glasgow possibly promising (at my prompting because of things CTR had mentioned in a poem long ago).
    3. She agreed that Cape Breton – which it turned out she had often visited on the quiet – could be regarded as a North American Cultural Treasure because of the somewhat unique but markedly potent nature of the rural and local community cultural tartan, of which Ingonish is a strong example. Cape Breton can rightly be described as ‘a community of local communities’. It really is different that way although things are changing fast, and for the worse as everyone gets cable TV and high speed internet.
    4. She offered enthusiastic philosophical support for my project ( working with City officials, of trying to revitalise -or rather reposition – Sydney as a dynamic capital city of the region of Cape Breton) but predicted (accurately) that I would get nowhere because of provincial and federal politics which have successfully stifled any meaningful growth there since it was annexed to NS in 1840. Sydney, for example, would doubtless be the busiest port on the North American seaboard (as it was during WW II) were it not for ‘politics’, i.e. much greater than either Montreal or NYC which would be the natural competition. Halifax doesn’t even qualify on that level because the basin is far too small for a major port. An ex harbourmaster of NYC (who happens to be a Cape Bretoner) agrees with this assessment. Right now, both Halifax and Montreal would fight tooth and nail to make sure that Sydney is never developed into what it should be. If it were, it would lift up the entire Maritime region – as was also ‘predicted’ in one of CTR’s poems (and why I tried to launch the revitalisation project in a sort of w.t.h. fashion. Fun, but fruitless.)
72. ash on February 22nd, 2010 5:01 pm
    

    Sidebar: little known factoid about Kalapa Valley. Developed in the 1970’s as NS’s largest privately owned campground, it was the main vacation spot for working class Cape Bretoners from the industrial Sydney area for about 15 years or so. During the summer weekends about 1200+ people would be camping there.

    According to the Howes Consultative Ad-Hoc Survey Society estimates, it is possible that more than 10% of the population born in the Sydney area from about 1975 – 1990 were conceived at Kalapa Valley. Although this percentage is impossible to verify, it is a virtual certainty that more people on the island alive today were conceived at Kalapa Valley than any other particular location. It is a special place for the locals, in other words, not just us.

    It’s far more than just a super secret, super special nature spot which CTR discovered and now only we know about. A place where thriving ‘modern fertility rites’ (aka ‘good times’) once flourished until the campgrounds closed and then we took over and essentially have kept it quiet and closed ever since.

    If we were to have our Assemblies there and open up the main field, the local community would rejoice to have it back as part of their terrain again, rather than something held by absentee landlords, basically.
73. Chris on February 22nd, 2010 5:49 pm
    

    Patrul Rinpoche on Not Examining a Teacher:

    “Blind Guides:
    In particular, a teacher whose qualities are in no way superior to your own and who lacks the love and compassion of bodhicitta will never be able to open yours eyes to what should and should not be done. Teachers like these are called “blind guides.”

    Like Brahmins, some defend their caste,
    Or in pools of fear for their fief’s survival
    Bathe themselves in bogus study and reflection;
    Such guides are like a millstone made of wood.

    Some, although no different form all ordinary folk,
    Are, unthinkingl,y sustained by people’s idiot faith.
    Puffed up by profit, offerings and honours,
    Such friends as these are like the well-bound frog.

    In commenting about “teachers like a millstone made of wood”, who have no trace of the qualities arising from study, reflection and mediation, he particularly refers to “sons and nephews” who, thinking they are sublime because related to a GREAT LAMA, and feel that their descendents must be superior to anyone else, and therefore they defend their caste like Brahmins. Even though, he continues,” they may have studied, reflected and meditated a little” they did not do so with pure intention of working for future lives but for more mundane reasons, “like preventing the priestly fiefs of which they are the incumbents from falling into decay”.

    Patrul Rinpoche did not mention “sons and nephews” gratuitously, He was warning us, that this happened a lot. It is only because we have thought of ourselves as a “special sangha”, to which this “could never happen”, that it has taken so long to recognize the situation. Another cosmic joke from the mahasiddha. One whose lessons I hope we remember throughout lifetimes, it’s been so vivid.

    Those who have followed a blind guide for years now, cannot see it, no matter what evidence unfolds that makes the situation clear, because that is the fruition of following a blind guide. So to follow those following a blind guide would be like drinking poison from those who have drunk poison.

    Then, there are others, that obliquely see it, or see it, but continuously deny their experience, because they cannot admit it, as they still chauvinistically believe that “it could never happen in CTR’s mandala”, it can’t be true; and so they “intellectualize” every aspect of the situation until they are in a mad fever of conceptualization to try and fit this situation into their procrustean bed of denial.

    Getting over our “specialness” is the first step in “seeing clearly” what has happened, and seeing that it must have happened all the time, otherwise Patrul Rinpoche wouldn’t have specifically referred to “sons and nephews”.

    If we first get over our “specialness,” as a sangha, things will become crystal clear.
74. Divine Lake on February 22nd, 2010 8:47 pm
    

    To Rita and everyone,

    I have been loving this dialogue, esp. between Ash and Rita.

    Rita – I have very much appreciated your spacious references to politics and enlightened society over the past several months on this webite. My belief system includes anglophilia. I have been intrigued by your recent references to the Sane Society, to the extent that it is now awaiting me at my library, so I hope to read it in the next couple of weeks. I read the Art of Loving in the mid 60s, but haven’t read any other Erich Fromm. I was a Vajradhatu-er, thru Vajrayogini Abisheka, but then dropped out with Regent troubles. For twenty years since I have been connected with Springwater Center, NY State – the teacher is Toni Packer, dharma heir to Kapleau Roshi, then letting go of Zen forms to pick up with Krishnamurti. The result is akin to Dzogchen. But I can’t forget Trungpa! So I am looking forward to reading The Sane Society and seeing if there is a way to connect the spiritual and the political.

    So I am so grateful to you and to Ash and the others who write here.

    Carry on, please!
75. Sherab Gyatso on February 23rd, 2010 1:19 am
    

    @Chris, the only reason Vajrayana survived at Nalanda University was the Buddha’s prescription that one should not divide the Sangha. Thus its practice was tolerated along with the officially prescribed Hinayana and Mahayana. You yourself said dividing the sangha is bad, with respect to the events of 1995 hereabove. Yet claiming SMR is a “blind guide” is also dividing the sangha, and can only harm the path of his students. As a boddhisatva, sworn to help all beings reach enlightenment, even if you believe SMR has nothing to offer, remember the tale of the old lady who believed so strongly in the “tooth of the Buddha from India” brought back by her son that she became realized. The fact it was a dog’s tooth is of little consequence. Also remember that unless one is oneself realized, it is difficult to determine whether a teacher is of benefit or harmful to his students. The only clear case, is when the teacher teaches something or behaves in a way that contradict the Hinayana or Mahayana or violate his Samaya. At that time, Mahakhala manifestation may be warranted (but may also be harmful)

    @Ash @Rita: Do you need permission to teach? On the one hand, I am dubious about institutionally sanctioned teaching certificates since personal experience is the point, on the other hand self-deception is all too easy. It seems to me that if “experienced” students attend each others teachings and are willing to correct any misunderstandings, it can benefit everyone. However I think the motivation must be clear. Is this boddhisatva activity? Is it directed at helping the student? As I mentioned to Chris above, if someone mentions SMR, I think it’s neither helpful to be dismissive (”He’s not MY teacher”) or negative (”He’s NOT the REAL DEAL”). Instead one could simply say “Yes, he’s CTR’s son, and he’s the head of SI. He’s synthesized Shambhala and Buddhist teachings. If that interests you go and find out more here. There’s also Thrangu Rinpoche, Punlop Rinpoche (etc).”… the same way as we’re taught to investigate many teachers before choosing one as one’s guru. You’ll rarely hear teachers criticizing others simply because different styles suit different students.
76. rita ashworth on February 23rd, 2010 9:30 am
    

    Dear Ash

    Some interesting facts about Cape Breton when I was there in NS I did read up on the place and how it was a powerhouse for the production of coal in Canada – I think I recall it supplied a quarter of Canucklands coal requirements pre 1920s.

    As to its future – obviously it will rise again as the song goes -why – because CTR dreamt it to be so!

    So as to practicalities into publicising its rise – I would definately do an interview for a newspaper/magazine with Jane Jacobs that you mention – Andrew Safer could help you with this and just circulate subsequent article on the web-perhaps you could angle it with CTR’s dream -interesting. You just dont know what happens on the web these days -its worth a shot or two. Perhaps the drala will connect with some honcho some where -perhaps so. Also discard Canuck fruitlessness harumphs about such words -its a big, big world out there -out of the snow.

    I would also do some events in Cape Breton -something definately on the land connected with music (Glastonbury was very small in the 70s) plus also you could just go to various colleges talking up your ideas on Cape Breton. Its funny -re your end message last time -here we are two English people talking up the future of an island off the Atlantic – empire building yet again!

    You know I was thinking about the tour and the paltry amount of money they wish to raise -that million bucks would just buy a three bedroomed house on Tooting Bec Common in London or maybe a flat in Manhattan -no I think the way to wealth is to really look at NS and magnetise people towards it around the world. SI putting some money into this would pay dividends

    Divine Lake interesting to hear from you and your take on the dharma- I hope you enjoy the Fromm Book- I wonder how many more people like you are in the states with such extensive practice paths accumulated.

    Interesting to read Chris’s posts re Patrul Rinpoche -thought of buying a book on him Dzongsar R -is always quoting him in lectures.

    Sherab I take your points -but the whole scene with CTR is somewhat different from other lamas in that he was into creating enlightened society -if some other lamas started discoursing on this I would be interested in them.

    Finally Shambhala is the heritage of all CTR’s students and whatever way they want to get to grips in manifesting this lineage I would urge them to do so whether in SI or not. Perhaps the people in some respects may have to create their ‘countries and societies’ before the King/Queen says Yes-in some respect this was the position that the Quakers were in in the seventeenth century before the aristocracy started giving them money galore! Whats that corny phrase if you build it they will come.

    Do we need persmission for all of the above -no we dont -what is in the American consititution ‘We the people…..

    I just know Shambhala is in my braincells from experience -do we need confirmation to do what we need to do? I certainly dont.

    Best

    Rita Ashworth
    Manchester uk
77. Divine Lake on February 23rd, 2010 11:12 am
    

    I feel there is some elitism in Shambhala Training, and a missionary sense to uplift the “unawake”. I was thinking about “creating enlightened society”, and then realized that maybe we all we need to do is to discover the jewels of enlightenment already happening all around us. In my suburban world, I see that there are many people around me who are already generous and working for others, and they don’t necessarily know from Buddhism. Maybe I’m just realizing what Trungpa actually meant! – so excuse me if I have mistakenly seen it as elitist… When we approach our world in the way of looking for the beauty already here, we ourselves are lifted up!
78. Chris on February 23rd, 2010 12:22 pm
    

    The Buddha’s tooth has been demythologize . As TR said at a retreat once, when asked about this, He answered it”wasn’t true” because there were charlatans, and you could practice all you wanted, but no blessings would come through. It has to do with lineage and keeping samaya with the lineage Lamas may not say things as directly as we do, they are Asian, but they aren’t afraid to point to things indirectly,( and of course they say plenty privately and amongst themselves and if they know that you are open, they will be more honest with western students, privately ) It is too bad, it took them so long, because by not saying things directly, they have indirectly contributed to most people, who treat lamas as their only reference point, thinking these lamas “approved” because of their public silence. Another case where east meets west didn’t quite work. . They are slowly speaking out now,because it has gone too far, even for them, and that is a huge change, in case anyone is noticing. And its only the “westernized” lamas that are speaking out. I guess they thought we would figure it out for ourselves. But CTR was unique, he told us if there was corruption we should shout it from the rooftops, go to the newspapers, be a “towncrier”. He knew he was in the west not 14th c. Tibet..This was very frightening for other Tibetan lamas when they saw how he was first teaching in the West. I think CTR still frightens some of these old fashioned lamas.

    Dividing the old from”his” new students,denigrating CTR students who remain loyal to CTR’s lineage and teachings, and humiliating them over the years and finally dismissing his Kagyu Nyingma lineage ,and convincing “his loyal students” that this is perfectly alright and in accord with the dharma, AND in accord with CTR’s lineage that he is “expanding upon”as he changes it into something unrecognizable, for some of us, that constitutes the time as having come, “to shout NO from the rooftops”.
79. ash on February 23rd, 2010 1:13 pm
    

    Sherab, I have similar feelings to you about criticism of SMR etc. and find Chris’s posts, for example, very discomfiting to read. However, I think in the post above he makes a good ’shout NO from the rooftops’ case, and also as Rita mentions, part of what is going on with S.I. is that supposedly it is not just a dharma mandala with tantric samayas in the mix, but also an ‘enlightened society’ initiative, supposedly with feet firmly planted in non-religious, non-samaya, non tantric, aka ’secular’ ground.

    Decorum, however, is never unhelpful! But decorum should not be the same as mind control / thought police. I think the fuzzy areas around all this are why very strong feelings have developed over many years – as expressed so well and so decently by the humble, gentle, devoted Lynn Friedman on that tape last year – and why this site, along with its very pointed critiques, exist.

    Rita: I personally am no longer interested in pushing anything. Having tried several times and failed I decided to let it go. Clearly as my posts here demonstrated I am more interested in all this than perhaps I was willing to admit to myself! But also I definitely don’t want to try to do anything like that any more. Let the younger generation take it up, or at least I’ll wait until I am not totally alone in this sort of thing. Just doesn’t work otherwise.

    Sherab in terms of ‘needing permission to teach’ it depends what that means. As mentioned elsewhere, I have never imagined my own path as being separate from our mandala nor joining or forming a sangha that is. That said, I would not recommend any friends or family to join it or take Shambhala Training (because of the ‘bubble mandala’ aspect common to all which can promote a disconnect between ordinary dharmas in one’s local culture in a way that I think simply doesn’t square with what ‘Shambhala’ is supposed to be about), so where does that leave me?

    I have chosen the path of letting it go. Obviously not completely, otherwise I wouldn’t have wanted to post here nor found any of the topics of interest. I think this also relates to your criticism points above: in a tantric mandala where such thought, let alone speech, is verboten, I think the only thing one can do, after attempts to refresh the samayas or come to terms with it etc., is quietly fade away without making a fuss. If it works for others, fine. But if one cannot be involved in a wholehearted, clear fashion, probably best not to be. This of course is not something that is easy to deal with and suspect also why there are still many strong feelings out there even from people who have supposedly absented themselves from the whole thing – though the vast majority of that population, I suspect, has not heard of this website and wouldn’t visit even if they did; they are gone).
80. rita ashworth on February 23rd, 2010 1:39 pm
    

    Dear Ash

    Thanks for your brief reply aka Cape Breton – perhaps others will take up some ideas.

    Myself slowly growing offshoots to ST and Buddhadharma in North West UK –with the help of others. At the moment things are going steadily – hope to mesh this approach with my interest in the Arts aswell.

    Have lots of queries re life outside of SI –but I think its possible …….maybe also things have to be disjunctured for a while for people to explore things for themselves. Maybe the idea of colleges with different bases will resurface in the future and we can re-integrate into SI again with equal rights on the National Assembly that CTR wanted.

    Seems from the amount of people contacting me via facebook there is a growing body of people outside of SI that still want to pursue CTR’s teachings in some way. It would be good if we could do this physically some way in the future and sort out our way of touching into things gently.

    Still believe the magic approach of the Shambhala teachings as exemplified by Dilgo Khenytse Rinpoche and CTR that Mark Szp has often referred to and I still think that magic approach comes from dropping your ego once in a while and opening that door –certainly that’s what happened to me in a ‘concrete’ sense – and I even played the tape back on that to make sure. William Burroughs a very good teacher!

    Hope you can play the tape back in a while! Who knows what Kings and Queens will surface………..

    Well best for now.

    Rita Ashworth
    Manchester UK
81. ash on February 23rd, 2010 2:12 pm
    

    Rita, thanks for the interchange and all best with it! Where in UK are you based, btw?
82. Edward on February 23rd, 2010 2:21 pm
    

    I love Chris’s posts, especially in recent weeks.

    If you want to be blind and avoid any and all feedback, you need to build higher walls, close your windows, start burning books, and start censoring the internet, perhaps within a geographical boundary, as China has done.

    I’m beginning to understand how relevant the story was that I heard as a child about the emperor and his new clothes. As a child I thought the story was kind of dumb, you know, like why would a bunch of adults police each other to say things that weren’t true, or at least outlaw saying what was true. That seemed SOOOO completely ridiculous to me, I assumed such things would never happen.

    Now I miss the naivete of my youth. The conceptual defenses of adults are ginormous, and we like nothing more than religious sayings and dogmas to prop up our illusions.

    Now, if SMR was just doing his own thing in his own world, that would be one thing. But hasn’t he kind of taken charge of a bunch of resources and real estate, not to mention an entire sangha, under a set of promises and assumptions that he later violated, according to some people?

    If I abuse my car, and don’t take care of it, that’s my problem. Maybe also my passengers’ problem. But if you loan me your car, under a set of assumptions for how I’ll care for it, and if I then don’t do what I agreed to do… well, then it becomes your problem then, doesn’t it?
83. rita ashworth on February 24th, 2010 9:35 am
    

    Dear Ash

    Live near dissent land -that is Manchester UK at the present time. Call it dissent land because it is the home of many famous dissenters such as the Pankhursts, Engels, and others. Indeed the University was founded by a Mr Owens who said he wanted people of no religious persuasion to attend the various colleges he opened in the city. This university now rivals Oxford and Cambridge and is the biggest University in the country.
    There have been also many famous people who have come from here – literature wise Christopher Isherwood, Anthony Burgess, the Gaskells etc etc.

    Re the Cape Breton stuff – if anyone does want to write the article send it to me via way of Mark Szp and I will try and distribute it over here. Another query does someone have the poem that CTR wrote on the Cape would be interesting to read. Also had the thought that maybe the dissenters worldwide and others could meet as a group/forum in Sydney -now that would be lark! Could we at last blow up the causeway!

    Re your other post re numbers dissenting – I would hazard a ball park figure of 400 to 500 on the fact that Ray has 400 students and just my reading of stuff and hints that I get through the grapevine of people, the net etc etc -so I think its a substantial ‘minority’.

    Myself really dont know how things will follow through with all the dissenters -dissent a shot in the dark ……….think the whole thing hangs on the shambhala teachings more than buddhadharma and how we can carry these teachings out into the world with what we discover about our own minds and abilities in the coming decades. Could be possibility of re-integration to a degree down the line much further when people have worked out their ‘own’ conceptions of Shambhala according primarily to western culture with some advice and guidance from the East -think this explanation, take would fit into your way of thinking Ash.

    Well best again.

    Rita Ashworth
84. John Tischer on February 24th, 2010 10:31 am
    

    I think there are a lot of VCTR students that have moved on and have ceased their involvement, even with forums like this. Among Khandro Rinpoche’s
    students there must be a few dozen of them…many
    formerly prominent in Vajradhatu.
85. Ash on February 24th, 2010 2:22 pm
    

    Well, just wrote a reply and because email not there etc. didn’t go through and lost the text. Will try again later!

    In brief though: I think the main fault line in all countries, and also our mandala, is the national-local. In order for dharma to spread organically it has to become a more familiar thing in the everyday context, sort of like yoga or organic food. For that to happen a less franchised/centralised/cookie cutter approach has to develop.

    On national levels this might include changing the current tax distribution structure which favors national banks, governments and large corporations to a 75,20, 5 % distribution to local, regional and national respectively. Same sort of dynamic for us as well.
86. Ash on February 24th, 2010 2:39 pm
    

    Yup, it sounds lively in your neck of the woods. Some great revitalisation programs a while back which popped up as success stories in my brief life as a ‘city development consultant’! I think Birmingham has a particularly outstanding one, if I recall, but it might have been Manchester. About time they got out from under the heels of London! Paris has drained rural France. When we were looking for practice centers I found a 70 bedroom (each fully restored) chateau with a stained glass dining hall canopy (seated 200+), numerous outbuildings etc. for about $800,000, i.e. price of a small apartment in Paris/NYC. It was 10 miles from a nuclear station (about to close down) so we didn’t take it. But going for a song, basically, since hardly any local economy.

    Before that someone found an entire village in France for even less, with about 30+ residences and lots of land around a mountain. Same thing: no local economy. Halifax is slowly doing the same viz. Nova Scotia, concentrating a high proportion of government resources, and thus salaries and other initiatives, including medical, educational, military etc. into the HRM to get this ‘lift’ effect, but what they are actually doing is killing the rural areas and small towns slowly and thus undermining their own base. Rather typical situation, unfortunately. Perhaps the same could be said for us, too.

    Although in UK you have massive concentration of population with high immigration in an area about the size of Oregon. Scary! And also very different from our challenges which in NS have to do with sparse population, and the same for our mandala.
87. Jigme Chowang on February 24th, 2010 6:25 pm
    

    John Tischer on February 24th, 2010 10:31 am

    “I think there are a lot of VCTR students that have moved on and have ceased their involvement, even with forums like this. Among Khandro Rinpoche’s students there must be a few dozen of them…many
    formerly prominent in Vajradhatu.”

    By the same token, at Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s most recent big program in Vancouver, I saw a great many faces that were familiar to me from Boulder. I also see a few at Rangjung Yeshe Gomde programs, including former Vdh administrators.

    In a word, there are some great teachers out there, and sanghas that aren’t riven with discord and secrets.

    Dark Matter
88. Tsering on February 24th, 2010 7:01 pm
    

    As well, several sadhakas formerly from Vajradhatu are students and also on the board of directors of Tendzin Wangyal Rinpoche’s Ligmincha Institute.
89. Jim Wilton on February 24th, 2010 7:22 pm
    

    I don’t think that attendance at teachings by other teachers is any meaningful indication of dissaffection with Shambhala International.

    Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche has taught in Shambhala centers. Tsoknyi Rinpoche (one of the most amazing teachers alive today) is teaching at the Halifax Shambhala center in September. I attended Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s teachings on Uttaratantra in Vancouver in 2008 and I am participating in his North American Dharma Gar beginning this year. I am also active in the Boston Shambhala Center and on the Karme Choling Council and I am very enthusiastic about the work of these centers in bringing dharma teachings into mainstream of American culture.

    If you want a better example, Pema Chodron is the best known of the Shambhala Acharyas and makes clear that Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche is her primary teacher these days.

    It is a big mistake to assume that students choose a teacher because they are dissatisfied with another teacher — and not because they are inspired. And you must have a very sectarian mindset to view having two teachers as a sign of a problem.
90. Michael Sullivan on February 24th, 2010 7:31 pm
    

    Quite a few also study with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu – I also remember a few years back one of them wrote an article for our community newspaper that was an appreciation of CTR. While he has an international organization, the hierarchy is very flat and always has been. He has really been at the forefront of bringing dharma to the net – at least 5 or 6 multi-day retreats are webcast each year, and that has been happening since before 2000.

    My other teacher, Wangdor Rinpoche takes the “no hierarchy” pretty much to the limit. No centers, no structure beyond a translator and a secretary, and yet he has taught all over the US every couple of years for a long time. Robin Kornman and I hosted him in Milwaukee many times – at least 6 – (I need to check back through the recordings to get a count..) and in fact, he has taught at the local Shambhala Center more than any other lama by a factor of 3 (!). PS many thanks to the people who let that happen! Even more interesting is that his policy is to allow anyone who shows up to attend, he allows no door fee, and always teaches dzogchen….
91. Ash on February 25th, 2010 12:53 am
    

    Interesting. So lots of ‘inter-permeation’ in the Buddhadharma mandalas whereas it is the Shambhala mandala that is the most exclusive. Sort of the opposite of how it is usually visualized.

    Glimmer of a vague brushstroke of an idea: if the Shambhala ‘teachings’ were simplified such that it would be possible for people to study up through the termas without so much emphasis on the container principle leading into Kalapa Assembly type display with Monarch principle within ‘confines’ of the S.I. ‘official’ mandala and instead various dharma and/or professional groups could invite ‘us’ in to present the material within their own mandalas, it might have an easier time spreading around. If it’s true that the Shambhala methods and view stand alone, as CTR described them, then it really should be possible to study the LoBA, GSGE and stroke etc. without necessarily having to get into such formal group dynamics with set rituals etc.

    This implies that they do not have to be treated as equivalents to tantric samaya-type approaches. Yes, there is a sort of secrecy seal to the termas, which HHDKR for one respected greatly, but also yes they were made available to us and were intended to be disseminated. They are very approachable, if unusual and rather unique documents, they accompany specific practices which are relatively easy to teach and thus represent an effective, accessible and yet unusually pithy ‘instant path’.

    The more formal and concentrated ritual aspects which are more a function of our own internal ‘high society’ mandala need not necessarily be attached to the dissemination and practice of such materials. In Cape Breton, for example, I have met many individuals with whom I really would have preferred to a) introduce them to simple sitting in simple Shambhala style but then b) soon thereafter see how they might take to a couple of those texts and working with stroke practice.

    Through a series of accidents, I actually learned stroke in 1976 a couple of months after it was introduced even though I was a brand new student. I was not especially aware that it was a radical departure from ‘buddhism’ since I didn’t yet even know what ‘buddhism’ was. I also had no problem working with the Auto-Commentary and the practice which I did happily on my own for a year or two after the transmission and feel there was no problem with doing it that way, even though it was not the usual experience. Of course I would not go ahead and and introduce these things to individuals on a personal whim, but I am convinced that far more could be done along these sort of natural, informal, person-to-person lines.

    Actually especially in Cape Breton I think a flexible Shambhala approach would really resonate with the still extant strains of Gaelic/Scottish/Irish/highland ‘clan culture’ much more than Buddhadharma whose presentation/introduction or at least general perception of which tends to be either religious ( because associated with religions like Christianity etc.) or seeming overly intellectual, even with spacious formless meditation and commentary.

    I was at the 2000 New Millenium New Year’s Party in the Roman Catholic Community Hall in Ingonish, pop. 1200 or thereabouts. About 600+ people were in the hall including all generations. The young adults chose to come in tuxedos and formal dresses (such as used for graduation). Nobody egged them on. Their youthful clan lungta was most impressive! In fact that gathering, the overall community lungta, and especially the young people in formal dress gave me the idea of having ‘Kalapa Assemblies’ in Ingonish using their living community as the ‘venue’ versus yet another bubble situation like a hotel or rented campus. I still think it would be a fantastic, and extremely beneficial, thing to do. They have a lot to teach us about community those folks, warts and clan dralas and all!

    Now with such people some sort of Shambhala-warrior approach would clearly resonate. But not via cookie-cutter franchise delivery models, no matter how good they are (and they are good). I used to joke that I was a member of the warrior McPoe clan and nobody there batted an eyelid. Of course I didn’t also explain this was a Tibetan offshoot of the ‘old country’ either!
92. Ash on February 25th, 2010 1:10 am
    

    PS. Now rather than ‘Kalapa Assemblies’ I think they should be ‘Highland Gatherings of the Clan’ or some such.

    Speaking of ‘inter-permeability’, I read through the Aro Ter website about 10 years ago and was most impressed with the marvellous expressive power, in native English, by the Welsh tulku Nagpa Chogyam, Rinpoche (”Spectrum of Ecstasy” on the 5 families is an exceptional book imho). I wrote him a spontaneous poem expressing both sadness and delight and he immediately invited me to join his next retreat in New York State and paid for the travel and everything! We didn’t hit it off all that well in person and I was actually surprised at how incredibly strict – and somewhat arcane – their forms of dress and ritual are, but again his dharma talks were truly extraordinary. Pure nectar of dharma via incredibly articulate and poetic Welsh-British native language speaker-practitioner-vajra master-terton. Mind blowing, actually, and totally delightful.

    I feel similarly about Hookham. His dharma talks are astonishingly lucid and deep as well as being expressed in natural, effortless but dharmically sophisticated English. Yup, the good old UK is still cooking!
93. Ash on February 25th, 2010 1:37 am
    

    Further idea based on above musings: the natural – or at least the easiest – ‘market’ for Shambhala Training and the terma texts are ….. Buddhists!

    Fantasy: Shambhala is taught to all the sanghas in the West and they all end up learning stroke, lungta, enriching presence. Then the Sakyong, as the Dharma King of Shambhala, can travel around and visit these various areas at which point the Shambhala Umbrella begins to become a living presence throughout the dharma world in the West. This can only work if we are not trying to co-opt them into our administrative-financial web. But it could work.

    I don’t happen to share the feelings of several here that SMR is an undeveloped, corrupt phony. I knew him well before he became the Maha Enchilada and I have yet to meet anyone who so effortlessly knows how to have a very good time, not gossip, not get caught up in business/projects and so on. I watched him at a fashion show in Milan. He was wearing a gift from the European sangha: a custom-tailored Austrian formal hunting-wear type thing with reindeer buttons. Very old-school German. He was standing the foyer chatting with Sara Kapp and a well-known designer (Valentino?). A small circle gradually formed around him as people just watched, saying very little. Lasted about five minutes.

    Next year, guess what? That style of dress was featured in several shows for male fashions! Well, that’s a minor story. But I also saw him in India/Nepal surrounded by many high lamas and he clearly had more presence than most of them and they knew it. His strength is not in speaking/lecturing but in presence and action. Clearly an action tulku type.

    I think it would be great if he could tour around all the sanghas in the world as ‘the Shambhala Chakravartin’. Maybe it would loosen the whole thing up too since as I said before, this could only work if he/we were not trying to drag these people into our troubled little world! Maybe learning how to do that would also inform ‘us’ as to how to open up the whole thing a lot more and stop being so precious and insular about our super-high-altitude transmissions and practices etc.

    Speaking of tulkus, another little story: I was in Tashi Jong in Himalchal Pradesh, India around 1990, the seat of Khamtrul Rinpoche who was a boy at the time. I had tea with a little-known Rinpoche in that community one afternoon and he told me a little something about CTR that went something like this:

    ‘ I used to know him when he was young and had just escaped from Tibet. I was in Delhi back then. You know, he frightened most of us, including those who, like me, were older them him. Why? Because he was already fully enlightened and manifested the marks of a siddha. But you see most of us, most tulkus that is, don’t get enlightened – if we do at all – until we are well into our fifties, usually. Trungpa Rinpoche was highly unusual in that he was fully enlightened whilst still a teenager. I wonder sometimes if you chaps don’t have a slightly dim view of the rest of us from having met Trungpa Rinpoche!’

    I have often remembered that story when thinking about the Sawang-Sakyong’s journey and our perception of him both years ago and to this day. I personally hate it when he ( used to) go on and on about how hard his ‘job’ is and so on. But on the other hand, I think we had rather unreasonable projections about who he is and is supposed to be based on our experience of studying with the equivalent of a dharmic unicorn: a fully enlightened mahasiddha at age 19, or barely in his early thirties, I believe, when he came to the US in 1970. He was young, his students were young, the country was in an upheaval of youthful revolution. To expect that sort of confluence to repeat itself in any way, shape or form is too much; moreover to expect him to manifest in anything like the style of his father is as myopic as it is unfair.
94. rita ashworth on February 25th, 2010 9:38 am
    

    ‘This implies that they(the shambhala teachings) do not have to be treated as equivalents to tantric samaya-type approaches. Yes, there is a sort of secrecy seal to the termas, which HHDKR for one respected greatly, but also yes they were made available to us and were intended to be disseminated. They are very approachable, if unusual and rather unique documents, they accompany specific practices which are relatively easy to teach and thus represent an effective, accessible and yet unusually pithy ‘instant path’. ‘

    Ash the above just about sums up my approach to the shambhala teachings and how I would like SI to act as an umbrella for their spread in the world and of course you have mentioned that HHDKR thought that these teachings should also be disseminated which is a big reason to do so also.

    Yes I could see SI initially coming in and setting up the whole thing but it would be up to the organisation/people requesting the teachings to also promulgate them aswell -this would be a quasi-franchise operation because obviously the organisation/people would have to show perhaps in some manner that people were going through a path of some sorts down to the individual level. Its a question of trusting people to do the right thing….schools and universities do the right thing in UK and are for example validated by Examining Boards.

    In this way also I could envisage new lineages being formed in Buddhism and in other religions/secular traditions but also under the King principle aswell ie the Sakyong.

    So yes this would be a separation of state and church somewhat for people who did not recognise the Sakyong as their main teacher
    but this of course was where we are at with CTR in the ‘old days’ anyway-so in some way it would be returning to the old times but also now in the present having checks and balances that were not instituted previously for the teachings to spread widely. The above would also fit the conception of enlightened society -for society does imply to me at least and to a lot of scholars also differentiation -or in laymans turns different strokes for different folks.

    In addition the practice of meditation in shambhala would lay the foundation for many to explore the vajrayana teachings with whoever they chose to study with in the world.

    Yes for if we are talking of society enlightened or not we are talking to a degree of a world view much as we would talk about universal human values and rights and that can not be the ‘property’ of one organisation only-so even if you think SB is right for you you have to allow other points of view and practice into the conversation.

    As to views on Cape Breton I would urge you to write an article on the whole thing in connection with the industrial base – I myself have worked for central government in the last ten years and if you dont raise suggestions nothing gets done so I would make waves about your views on Cape Breton.

    Re people going to other teachers-that would be a research thesis in itself but safe to say many peoples prime focus is not now SI.

    Rita Ashworth
95. Ash on February 25th, 2010 3:22 pm
    

    Rita, just to clarify about HHDKR:

    I did not (mean to) say he thought they should be disseminated. In fact it was the opposite: I heard (admittedly second hand) whilst in Nepal that he was irate with various (young and now well known) high lamas who were reading the texts since they were ‘by permission only’ termas as far as he was concerned and they had not received permission to read them. So he was very strict about that sort of thing. In any case, that is what I was referring to. Apologies for any confusion.

    I was just on the phone this morning with the Ombudsman’s office. But about little stuff: like how they don’t sell measurable cords (hardwood for wood stoves) any more in that what you get is about 2/3rds of a cord though advertised as a full cord meaning we pay more in Cape Breton for hardwood than residents in the highly taxed and very wealthy State of New York, which is ridiculous; also how Services NS is deliberately inflating the valuations of used cars in order to garner more tax income from the poorest people in the Province who can least afford it. I bought an old clunker for $800 recently; the chap selling it could not get $1100 for over a month. Acc. to Services NS that car is worth $4,500 which is totally ridiculous. So I complained and they are now going to have to do an investigation to determine how they are coming up with these inflated valuations. Small stuff.

    As to writing about the larger stuff, I would have to spend hours and hours doing serious research to be able to present anything that would stand up to real scrutiny. And most of the information needed would be hard to dig up since much of the ‘real story’ is rarely recorded in the official record. As I know from first hand experience. Basically, I have decided to opt out of it. Ditto for S.I.
96. Ash on February 25th, 2010 3:30 pm
    

    “he allows no door fee, and always teaches dzogchen….”

    Great approach. That’s why I feel our main ‘gateway program’ should open nyinthuns (with short readings and occasional discussion around tea time), and these nyinthuns should continue whether or not there are programs happening simultaneously. Basically that’s dzogchen right there – apart from certain confusions about how to breath!
97. Ash on February 25th, 2010 3:35 pm
    

    I would like to apologize for nattering shamelessly in this thread and hope that Mark can return to it and bring it back into focus on his particular thrust/issue.

    That said, this website and this thread have been very beneficial for me personally allowing me to clarify various issues which have lain dormant for years. I am now able to practice again. Root text for this year: the brief but complete ‘The Way of Maha Ati’ by CTR and Michael Hookam/Rigdzin Shikpo.

    I found the description/instructions on meditation, brief as they are, extremely helpful and moreover have allowed me to separate practice from any lineage concerns whatsoever.

    So thanks for helping me get that particular monkey off my back where it has dwelt, unacknowledged, for about twenty years now!
98. Jake on February 25th, 2010 3:41 pm
    

    Thanks Ash, for what you’ve added. I found it inspiring!

    The idea of outside groups introducing some teachings and then having folks work with SI or SI teachers in a sort of paralell way sounds exciting and realistic.
99. Michael Sullivan on February 25th, 2010 4:12 pm
    

    Hi Ash

    I have to (again) highly recommend 2 books by Rigdzin Shikpo (Michael Hookham) “Never Turn Away” and “Openness Sensitivity Clarity”. Both are excellent – Never Turn Away is easily available, I had to send to the UK for Openness Sensitivity Clarity check out http://www.longchenfoundation.org/ for more info.

    Regarding your comment on nyinthuns – I have felt for a long time that CTR’s original shamatha/ vipashyana instruction is essentially “stealth Dzogchen” especially since he gave it so much space and left it wide open… Also Robin Kornman (in his chapter in Recalling Chogyam Trungpa) mentioned the connection between Cutting Through and Dzogchen trekcho
100. Ash on February 25th, 2010 5:05 pm
     

     Just ordered Never Turn Away (sounds very appropriate!). Thxs for heads up.

     As it happens, I was thinking this morning that if I had to have only one dharma book on a desert island, that O,S, C might be it. Very good.

     I don’t really think of him this way, but I guess he’s a full-fledged VCTR-empowered lineage holder. I heard he is getting on in years so might not be around much longer. So it goes…

     thxs for kind words, Jake.
101. rita ashworth on February 26th, 2010 9:20 am
     

     ”What CTR introduced was not just the Buddhist Kalachakra teachings on Shambhala – Khyentse Rinpoche himself once warned against taking such a view, and that this is how most Tibetan Buddhists would see it. Related to this, Michael Chender writes

     I put the direct question myself to HH Khyentse Rinpoche, on behalf of the Shambhala Training leadership of the time after the Vidhyadhara’s parinirvana in 1987, “Do Shambhala Training students have to become Buddhists at some point to continue?” He said, “No, Shambhala Training is a complete path to enlightenment–it has view, meditation, action.” ”

     Dear Ash

     What I was referring to with HHKR was the above which you can find above in FAQ heading on this website-so definitively HHKR stated that you did not need to be a Buddhist to access the Shambhala teachings.

     No what I was arguing about was furthering these teachings in the world via a sort University type way of doing so with checks and balances -so yes the teachings could be disseminated outside of the Si set-up and then church and state would be separate.

     Myself I have a particular connection with HHKR in that I took refuge with him in 1976 so you could say I was a Nyingmpa person before a Kagyu person! For this reason I take his words about the shambhala teachings with a great deal of awareness and as you were focussing more on an inclusive approach it seemed right to have a discussion.

     HHKR’s statement also in some way points to the teachings developing in the west because they are and were outside the Buddhist remit somewhat so the idea of settling these teachings in with different cultures around the world is enticing in the sense that they would be contacting the drala of the said environment.

     It would be interesting if people in the US and Canada could ask HHKR about the shambhala teachings again just to get some feedback on things-of course he is quite young but he might say something interesting about them. I hope myself at some point to meet him.

     As to the Cape -yeh something has to be done re the economy there as CTR did indeed forecast it was the capital of Shambhala so more focus in the world and SI should be given to it. Hope some one some where can do an article on the Cape

     As CTR also said his students would be more concerned with setting up an enlightened society – and to me that calls for a radical sense developing in all the world about these teachings – so these teachings have to spread -sociologically I suppose you could say there is a real imperative push needed by people to spread these teachings -that seems to be inherent within the teachings themselves because of the society aspect.

     Think that is all.

     Best

     Rita Ashworth
102. Chris on February 26th, 2010 10:42 am
     

     Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s Lineage and Spirituality – Reggie Ray 3Dec09

     On primordial lineage, practice lineage and institutional lineage:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSvi5rHIrY
103. Ash on February 26th, 2010 10:42 am
     

     Rita, I am not disagreeing with you necessarily about anything, but in terms of HHDKR was just making sure that something I had said was not unclear.

     Quote: [Ash]“Yes, there is a sort of secrecy seal to the termas, which HHDKR for one respected greatly, but also yes they were made available to us and were intended to be disseminated…. ‘

     [Rita] ….and of course you have mentioned that HHDKR thought that these teachings should also be disseminated which is a big reason to do so also.”

     I didn’t say that HHDKR said they should be disseminated, I was only talking about HHDKR viz. the terma secrecy seal. That he did mention about their being a separate/complete path and should be disseminated is great, I have no disagreement etc., just that earlier on I felt you had misunderstood my original (minor) reference to HHDKR viz. the terma secrecy aspect, that’s all. Minor point of clarification.

     I totally agree viz: “so these teachings have to spread -sociologically I suppose you could say there is a real imperative push needed by people to spread these teachings -that seems to be inherent within the teachings themselves because of the society aspect.”

     I am just not convinced that such teachings can be widely disseminated as long as they are delivered mainly by a single organisation and with the same franchise model I-V basic level approach, and then the termas are taught in such a way as to essentially enter the student into an embedded sangha principle with one particular leader who is also the guru, i.e. you end up in a bubble world somehow. So the direction of the journey is not really outward, but ever further into an enclosed society. It’s a cult setup basically and I don’t think Shambhala should work within a cult setup as the vajrayana does and does well.

     So as long as the termas are presented within a tantric-style cult mandala, I don’t see any way for them to spread far and wide.

     This is a long term, rather deep systemic issue which has existed more or less since the Shambhala teachings were first made available so from my pov both CTR and SMR loyalists basically agree on the delivery mechanism/structure even though there are serious misgivings on the part of many viz. the joining of Shambhala and Buddhadharma.

     My view is that as long as Shambhala is mainly presented a) from within Shambhala Centers for the open/early levels and then b) as more or less secret/advanced/quasi tantric process for the terma levels, that it cannot enter mainstream culture in any organic, decentralised fashion. My sense is that there has to be far more trust and openness in allowing dissemination to occur spontaneously on the ground person to person and without being so tightly controlled with pre-formatted delivery ‘containers’ by one particular ’sangha’.

     I just read through Rigdzin Shikpo’s lucid exposition on Maha Ati in ‘Recalling Trungpa’. Now that is far more applicable to contemporary society leaving aside the guru issue which is very well explained there and the fact that it is expressed in a highbrow ‘intellectual’ versus mainstream ‘populist’ fashion.

     However, for Shambhala to be approachable in any widespread way, it simply would have to be presented in a far different fashion from what we have been doing. Basically, the cult question has to be addressed front and center both philosophically and strategically and then most importantly, in terms of how all this applies to the actual experience of someone studying and practicing this Way.

     Note: I am using the word ‘cult’ in its original neutral, versus colloquially negative, sense.
104. Ash on February 26th, 2010 11:05 am
     

     Along these lines, about 10 years ago – again whilst at KV and thinking about these things for what I believed until last week, was probably the last time (!), along with the open nyinthun/open program proposal I submitted to S.T. I also proposed a model based more on commercial lines, as I recall something like the following:

     A local ST operation should run by license, very much like a commercial franchise, with the licensee – as with a MacDonalds franchisee for example – having to meet certain training and quality control standards. The operation’s main internal goal is to both provide excellent journey for its students but also to provide employment for core staff and for there to be no volunteer staff whatsoever. So the pricing of the program would have to be in line with the expenses. A licensee would pay for the right to run such an operation (could be a group of people). They would benefit financially from running a successful operation which could only be successful teaching 1-V (mainly) if they continued to get more new students.

     I am not saying this is possible or even workable, but it was a stab at getting out of the sangha-based ‘church volunteer’ – based operation which is the current model and which I think, ultimately, will never work.
105. rita ashworth on February 26th, 2010 1:09 pm
     

     ‘My sense is that there has to be far more trust and openness in allowing dissemination to occur spontaneously on the ground person to person and without being so tightly controlled with pre-formatted delivery ‘containers’ by one particular ’sangha’.’

     Ash

     Yes the above sort of shows where I am at to in regard to the spread of these teachings and for them reaching many people and subsequently creating enlightened society.

     Some initial parallels that come to mind are the spread of reiki worldwide, and courses on pain prevention using meditation which are also popular in the UK.

     I know the shambhala teachings are somewhat more esoteric than that but yes I agree there must be found more popular and perhaps less time-intensive ways of spreading these teachings.

     Another way to do it besides the commericial way -would be the university way. Its strange how universities in the UK are latching on to different subjects for students for example whole courses such as NLP, and lean management techniques are finding favour in academe of course Shambhala is different to these ways of doing things but shambhala does indeed have a pragmatic approach in some respects in the sense of Art and other subjects -hence my interest in mudra which you could devise levels for for people.

     Yes maybe we have to be more pragmatic in attracting people to these teachings -it certainly could be done in some of the social services in the UK with the emphasis on meditation which is no longer looked upon as being weird and mad. In fact the Buddha figure itself is now quite popular in the UK -you can buy them at most major supermarkets so people are inquisitive about meditation in a general sense.

     So yes the fiddling with the curriculms that is going on now maybe taking us away from more fundamental questions of creating enlightened society in a more political and sociological way. Yes what do the people out there who are not Shambhalians want their society to be like and here of course we are talking about universal values.

     Maybe it would be good for SI and others to get into a discussion about what these values are in a globalised world and how the shambhala teachings can assist people with their lives.

     Does anyone out there also have any ideas on transforming the whole thing in a new contemporary way -think the above is relevant to the website topic because shambhala teachings would then return to being the container for the ‘more’ advanced practices of vajrayana if people chose to follow them.

     Lets not forget that CTR did not lay out the shambhala teachings in stone but wanted his students to be concerned with the setting up of an enlightened society in a most fundamental sense and he urged us to contemplate how to do this aswell.

     Well best

     Rita Ashworth
106. Ash on February 26th, 2010 1:23 pm
     

     I read about 10 years ago that the US Army was looking into buddhist meditation techniques for both concentration/focus development as well as psychological health.

     Several people have delivered meditation in prisons, in which context of course our franchise models are not applicable. And yet I have no doubt there is much benefit for both giver and receiver. In fact one chap here in CB has been doing that on his own initiative.

     As to universities, they are autonomous entities and can pick whatever they deem worthy of study, either as life-skills related practicum(s), or for academic training. Buddhadharma Studies definitely works in the latter case.

     The Reiki model is similar to what I think of mentally as the ‘tai chi model’ which goes something like this in most ’schools’: one chap starts something (usually a Chinese-trained ‘Master’ from a known martial arts line/lineage) and then gives permission to various students to start up their own sub-operations in different cities. They run their own school at that point, for good or ill, and then occasionally send their best and brightest to train with the uber-meister, and/or the Master comes to town to give advanced classes. This model works. A Shambhalian friend of mine did this in Bonn and at one point had about 500 students, including his own sub-teacher with her own sub-operation. So this one person had more’students’ in Germany after 2-3 years, than Shambhala International after more than twenty. It is also interesting that the structure of founder, sub-operation, sub-sub operation etc. radiates out and in some way sort of parallels the levels structure in ST, except in our case that structure basically funnels people into a single central location, so the ‘thrust direction’ is entirely opposite. Therein, methinks, like the rub, or perhaps we could say nub (or hub?) of the problem.

     Something along these lines has to develop at some point. Somehow. And I think Buddhadharma could be even more decentralised into individuals, households, neighbourhoods and so forth with possibly even a parish priest type structure, although that is perhaps another centralised-derived redundancy, albeit still better than what we do in local situations because even though they are ’sent out’ and beholden to a central authority (not necessarily a bad thing), they are also empowered to get out there on their own initiative and what happens in their zone of ministry is pretty much their own responsibility with funds coming from a combination of the local sangha principle (aka congregation) and the central authority who may have funded the initiative in that locality. Personally I suspect this is the way ‘we’ ultimately as an S.I. type organisation might end up. But again, ‘we’ don’t have the population-base to support something like that yet, although we could have a few tries with that approach in N.S. as the initial laboratory for models like this.
107. David Carey on February 26th, 2010 2:45 pm
     

     The dharma is not for branding, marketing, selling. It’s all just selling water by the river anyway. An old dogs life is his/her teaching. Do whatever practice you feel compelled to do, but don’t push your sickness on anyone else. Any desire to teach is highly suspect. Any desire not to teach is highly suspect too.
108. Ash on February 26th, 2010 6:07 pm
     

     “The dharma is not for branding, marketing, selling. It’s all just selling water by the river anyway. An old dogs life is his/her teaching. Do whatever practice you feel compelled to do, but don’t push your sickness on anyone else. Any desire to teach is highly suspect. Any desire not to teach is highly suspect too.”

     If that is true for Shambhala as well, then about time to stop calling it ’secular’. And maybe that is what SMR has done with ‘Shambhala-Buddhism’. Shambhala is now another spiritual path, no more no less. Which then begs the question: what is it about Shambhala that is so good for enlightened society building that Buddhadharma lacks.

     But more practically in response to your brief pithy paragraph above:

     1. I am now a member of the Old Dog School of Dharma. So when I give instruction – which just happened spontaneously a few days ago, and if that person starts to get seriously interested, when it comes up about other resources, networks, the sangha principle (if we discuss the Three Jewels ever) and so forth, I can simply say rather than ‘I left because I didn’t like X,Y,Z or because I’m an arrogant, lazy bastard’ (both aspects of which comment being true of course!) that I am part of an ‘Old Dog’ wing which couldn’t keep up with all the endless changes so I am neither part of it nor apart from it and if you want to check them out, feel free, but personally I don’t go there any more.’ Simple, no big hangover, end of discussion.

     Because it does come up if ever you start working with someone or even if they ask pointed questions which sometimes happens, especially from those who have some background in meditation and are looking for guidance or just comparing notes. Mainly I work with people who have no background at all, but still: I want to feel perfectly okay about not steering them into Shambhala but without that being a conflict.

     And for some reason I think I can do that now whereas before I felt highly conflicted about the whole thing.
109. David Carey on February 26th, 2010 6:31 pm
     

     Spontaneous instruction is good. I would feel fine not sending someone to a Shambhala group. Right now I think Mingyur Rinpoche is where I would send a new meditator. I’m sure there are other good teachers that a student could seek out. That is just my opinion and it could change at any time
110. rita ashworth on February 27th, 2010 8:37 am
     

     Dear Ash

     It is interesting to hear your story about the reiki in Germany -just shows you what can be done if people are trusted to expand the teachings of various masters in an open way with of course checks and balances.

     I dont think I was talking about the teachings being ’sold’ in a conventional sense I was just trying to make a case for how the shambhala teachings could be spread easily and with awareness. CTR often for example talks about it being up to us to spread the teachings so there is something of a gentle command in keeping the whole thing going forward.

     Yes I know doing the going forward can sometimes be a bit tacky and unco-ordinated and may appear power-trippy but I think this gets worn down by the people who you come into contact with -who ask loads of questions and examine you and your org. carefully -people are not idiots they can tell if a person is genuine or not.

     On a different topic I also noticed on a seperate post that you mentioned people had access to the scorpion seal text as of yore – how did you see this text impacting on a secular world – I am curious about that. It seems to me from my own experience that when people sort of give up looking in a literary or artistic sense for example that they might perhaps clue into what is in this text. So yeh I sort of see the furtherance of the shambhala path as a kind of zen-like approach with perhaps ’satori’ at its end – can you have a secular ’satori’ -myself believe you can. Could you talk in a general sense, flavour about the shambhala teachings in a ultimate sense affecting the world. Thats my spiritual query for the day!

     It does also relate to the above topic of keeping the paths seperate because then people could clue into what just is without religious dogma.

     Another teaching in the UK that slightly fits into the shambhala mould is ’spiritualism’ – I mention this because when walking round Manchester trying to find venues for events I kept encountering spiritualist churches that had been built in the thirties and they were pretty large ‘churches’ aswell. So yes I somewhat believe in comparison that shambhala teachings could stand on their own. Of course spiritualism can be debunked severely but then people were searching for something different which is interesting. I have also found in Manchester because of its dissenting tradition many buildings that contain sort of quasi Enlightment symbols that come from exploring religion/philosophy in the 19 century -these buildings are quite fascinating and I hope to use one for a talk.

     So yeh I am cluing more into the sense that shambhala teachings can be a container for the vajrayana teachings through just exploring physical spaces in general -and here of course this relates to the drala of the place as you have commented upon about Cape Breton. I dont think this is being new-agey but just describing how the thing feels to me more and more.

     So if you take the container principle as previously given by CTR -how would the vajrayana manifest-would it be as a further choice or an extension or is
111. rita ashworth on February 27th, 2010 8:49 am
     

     continued….

     that being too logical in approach. Of course the image that does come to mind is the vajrayana being the liquid that inhabits the container. But perhaps then again perhaps this too is too limited approach to container principle.

     So yes | am still for keeping the two streams separate one primarily because of drala and lack of dogma and two because in some respects I have seen physically that a shambhala space could be constructed. Perhaps in the shambhala space we could have people relating to several vajra masters -why just have one -it would be up to the individual to work with who they wanted to work with and the shambhala space could be used for many programmes in the week. Actually this also fits into the quaker and reformation concept of the church being not only church but also a teaching and social institution aswell. Would welcome discussion on the container principle as CTR spoke of it.

     Best

     Rita Ashworth
112. Ash on February 28th, 2010 6:00 am
     

     “t is interesting to hear your story about the reiki in Germany..”

     Tai Chi, not Reiki, but anyway.

     Re: “On a different topic I also noticed on a seperate post that you mentioned people had access to the scorpion seal text as of yore – how did you see this text impacting on a secular world ” I never practiced it so cannot answer but it seemed pretty esoteric to me and thus mainly intended for those with a deep, stable practice, i.e. not something ‘for the masses’.

     I think in general I am tired of all institutions, including corporations, that transcend locality. It’s fine for things to be linked/networked/shared, but each place should have its own underlying autonomy, be it individual, family, study group, business whatever. Legislation or religious setups which dominate local situations always end up promoting further samsara in the sense of encouraging split between immediacy of experience and the view/practice of living in that, or put another way: encourage samsara in that over-arching concept held from afar attempts to dominate the immediate sphere of particular living experience which is the same as operating through the filter of concept versus direct Being/Presence.

     That said, looks like maybe I need a refresher look at the notion of ‘myth of freedom’ and CTR’s various dharmic tirades against ‘individualism’!
113. Ash on February 28th, 2010 7:41 am
     

     Here’s an example of what on the surface looks like an excellent union of (Shambhalian) principles and business practice; more relevant to this meandering thread/topic, it demonstrates a creative, uplifted model of the centralisation/leadership principle (Great Harvest) working to engender strong, independent, autonomous local operators. Certain aspects of the local operation follow the core principles set out by the leadership, such as milling the wheat berry each morning for that day’s batch of bread; but each operator chooses their own menu, develops their own recipes and so forth. Also the mission statement is as much spiritual as it is ‘financial’. Some sort of equivalent approach viz. ‘Shambhala Training ‘might be feasible somehow.

     http://www.greatharvest.com/franchise/freedom.html
114. rita ashworth on March 1st, 2010 9:22 am
     

     Dear Ash

     Thanks for the article – I will read it.

     Sorry for the cross-references but have limited time to access computer hence ideas flowing as I type-(will have laptop soon!)

     Was not being fishy re scorpion seal -just sort of wanted it set in context re what I previously knew of Shambhala Training up to Kalapa Assembly. Thought if I got a quick overview of where it was in the’pantheon’ might influence my choice of a possible new Tibetan teacher -because I have left SI for good in the sense of following the now proscribed path though I might attend some of their arts events.

     Discussions on other threads re Vajradhara, and enlightened society hotting up. Yes I suppose enlightened society is to some extent an imponderable but we still have to aim for it in a pragmatic sense and a universal dharmic sense also I believe because I do think that CTR was working to transform this society on earth aswell as peoples connection to ‘higher’ practices else why the emphasis on delegs, the national assembly and other societal measures.

     Interesting Mr Perks take on V. thangka -yes myself agree with him in that there are many ways to manifest shambhala but disagree in the way the whole issue of the thangka has been dealt with in the sense that people were again not consulted about where it should be housed in future.

     Had a further query re Cape Breton -if you had the million bucks that SI now purportedly wants to raise how would go about transforming the Cape a la Shambhala (this a Chronicle Project type query -but I thought I’d try it) Is interesting to contemplate and sort of screw up the Halifax focus a bit in that the cash should really be going to the Cape as CTR stated it is the capital of Shambhala. Thought you might take the query in the humourous way it is asked -might start a new way of going forward!

     Best

     Rita Ashworth
     Manchester UK
115. Ash on March 1st, 2010 1:10 pm
     

     Interesting question re ‘the Cape’. Well, totally off the top of my head and without forethought:

     1. In terms of teaching activity emphasize the open nyinthun format in all existing groups.
     2. Sponsor regular classes and sitting meditation sessions in various locales. For example DDL staff and/or students in that area could put on regular evening sessions in New Glasgow, Truro, Tatamagouche and so forth. The same all over the Province.
     3. Help invigorate the oldest social organisation in North America, ‘the Order of the Good Time’ which is based in Halifax. Perks (and CTR) are members, so JP knows all about it!
     4. Provide funds for small groups in places like Margaree, Cheticamp, Yarmouth, Digby, Sydney etc. so they have 20 gomdens and zabutons and a basic GES banner and a Buddha Rupa banner and generally encourage local leadership in terms of hosting regular nyinthuns with social gatherings, simple talks and discussion along with local chapters of the Order of the Good Time to boot.
     5. In terms of Sydney: see if there is some way to have a branch office of S.I. there somehow, or perhaps purchase a large house on Charlotte St to function as a sort of Marpa House type thing which in turn hosts regular nyinthuns etc. and help train local residents to become good local leaders/teachers versus shipping in bigwigs from the Mainland. The property can be owned by S.I. until such time as the local sangha can buy it back, but if not it remains as an asset for S.I.
     6. Have Clan Gatherings in Ingonish annually or bi-annually and invite local dignitaries to various feasts and celebrations therein, including CBC personnel and so forth. After a couple of warm-ups, open these gatherings up to public participation including meditation instruction, ballroom dancing classes, how to make moonshine workshops and suchlike.
     7. Somehow get more involved with forestry and agriculture, especially farming and other food-related stuff.
     8. In Halifax, host small conferences at which local political representatives are invited to make presentations, participate in debates and so forth.
     9. Promote a local sangha in Ingonish by licensing out a private development of some sort of public operation in the ‘Outer Zone’ of Kalapa Valley, something which contributes to the local economy and community life, but is also a part of Cape Breton, and therefore also Maritime, culture. Something simple like a park with modest eco-campground, occasional fiddling concerts, walking trails which link to nearby provincial and federal trails. Also have occasional arts conferences there. Purchase more land from the Crown up the valley and settle some small farms there with specialty crops, also a greenhouse operation including flowers.
     10. There should be a rural center in Cape Breton built around a small operating farm with nice grounds, places for people to live in individual houses, a 6-yoga ‘retreat/hangout’ house, a community hall. Not too far from Baddeck area or in the Margarees.
     11. DDL programs should be 50% for NS general public and 50% deep meditation programs for sangha members, but no weekend programs for sangha; such things should be in HRM. For the public, things involving basic meditation, farming, health care, community development, practice in family/business context and so forth, i.e. some sort of ongoing interface with Maritime culture and meditation view/practice. The emphasis should be on Nyen, not Lha, and actually giving/contributing to Maritime people and culture.
     12. Shambhala Tent: this tent, seating 150, appears spontaneously during the summer months, stays for a few days, then goes somewhere else. Sitting practice and instruction freely offered.
     13. Wait until we have 5,000 members in NS before building a very large Kalapa Center in Halifax and another smaller but still large one in Sydney.
116. mark a smith on March 4th, 2010 2:58 pm
     

     Gentlefolk,

     I have forwarded Ash’s 13 pt list to some folk (old friends of many of us who do not seek public naming at this point) who claim to be ‘hard-core for KOS development in Nova Scotia’ & will see if there is any response down the road….

     Ellen Main’s post provides interesting supplement/counterpoint to my ‘Vajradhatu Path’ post as it focuses more on the damage to Shambhala/ Vision/KOS manifestation—the ‘fact’ (in my opinion) that the ShambhalaBuddhism synthesis/combination represents ‘turning the flower inward’ rather than the oft proclaimed ‘turning the flower outward’ slogan of SI. This echoes Mark Spz’s theme. And , as discussed above & in ‘Differing Views/Paths…’ & elsewhere, almost fully precludes the spread of the Dorje Dradul’s Shambhala Vision.

     Enjoy!

     mark

     I would encourage folk who post here to take the time to also post on Chronicles–and more importantly–on sangha-talk & sadhaka-talk as that will potentially reach a large group of our sisters/brothers.
117. Ash on March 4th, 2010 5:26 pm
     

     Thxs Mark. They were written off the top of my head. I am sure many others could come up with excellent ones as well. Thanks to your site, although I still don’t feel great anger etc., I am beginning to concur that there are some serious issues to be grappled with and the official organs of governance, so to speak, seem a bit out of the loop. Ellen’s piece was deeply thoughtful and demonstrates the depth and potential scope of some of these problematic dynamics.

     I am also more convinced than ever that a good portion of the blame, or challenge, is a lack of depth in the nyen-level communications and societal conventions in our mandala. Some things can be done by the formal administration, but many more things have to be done/initiated by the general population which takes much time and effort, not to mention continuous organization, something which for many simple, everyday reasons is obviously rather hard to bring into ongoing being.

     And so it goes…
118. mark a smith on March 4th, 2010 5:50 pm
     

     Ash,

     I think you are saying that, with some prajna & compassion in place, we need to honor our vows (Bodhisattva & other) with effort & diligence:

     Ocean of Dharma Quotes of the Week

     March 1, 2010 Bir, India

     A TRADITION OF OPENNESS

     Taking the bodhisattva vow to help others implies that, instead of holding our own individual territory and defending it tooth and nail, we become open to the world that we are living in. It means we are willing to take on greater responsibility, immense responsibility. In fact, it means taking a big chance. But taking such a chance is not false heroism or personal eccentricity. It is a chance that has been taken in the past by millions of bodhisattvas, enlightened ones, and great teachers. So a tradition of responsibility and openness has been handed down from generation to generation, and now we too are participating in the sanity and dignity of this tradition.

     >From THE POCKET CHOGYAM TRUNGPA

     Enjoy!

     mark
119. awake108 on March 6th, 2010 10:57 pm
     

     I just returned to Shambala after being away for many years. I left over the Regent affair. I could see that alot of time and energy was going to be wasted and I was moving on. I had new teachers and new practices. I came back and support the open houses and the monthly nynthuns(my favorite practice). We have a nice center far away from all the drama that seems to be going on in this dicussion. I can’t help but think this is just a distraction. It is keeping us from taking our seat and just doing what CTR has encourage us to do. Which is to manifest KOS in our lives. I feel fortunate to have several wonderful teachers who say it doesn’t matter what practice you do, they are all the same. What is important is that you do it. I am no longer goal because the proof of the practice is the blessings. I would encourage people to let go of form,hiearchy, the buddhism/shambala divide and just do it. A great book that was inspirational about lineage and terma Blazing Splendor

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