Monarchy and Power within Shambhala
July 4, 2010 by Damchö 
Print This Post
Some Thoughts on Monarchy and the Dynamics of Power within Shambhala
Commentary by Damchö
1) I came to Trungpa Rinpoche’s first Shambhala book after I’d read nearly all of his published Buddhist teachings. Most of the book made a tremendous impression on me, particularly the first main part–”How To Be a Warrior”. The monarchical and Confucian political vision which emerged later in the book, however: this I had to hold in my mind in “negative capability”. I recognized it as a provocative challenge to my inherited Western skepticism about kingship. And indeed it created some real cognitive dissonance. After all, I would say to myself, this man is clearly pretty realized, and I clearly am not, so who am I to disagree? And yet…
Few around me within the sangha seemed to have much in the way of qualms. I remember conversations at retreat centre dinner tables about this topic. Some of the contributors were 20-years-old yet already confidently proclaiming democracy to be lame, an idealistic but naive illusion. Anyone can see monarchy is the only mature, wise choice of government, I would hear…
My personal difficulty with idealizing monarchy stems from an inability to point to any idealized example of it, one which–as far as I am able to see–has ushered in anything close to enlightened society. The chants mention Ashoka, “Emperors of China and Japan and so forth,” but when I read history–history rather than hagiography or wishful thinking–I really don’t find what I would call enlightened kingship anywhere. Very possibly I am missing something. But I would also venture to guess that everything the average Shambhalian knows about Ashoka, for example, could fit inside a (small) paragraph. And how much of even that, after all, can we be truly certain of? Journalists disagree about what happened yesterday, despite transcripts and video footage! Here we are talking about ancient history, where pretty much everything is up for interpretive grabs. And yet, in my experience not only is there little questioning of this view, it seems to have become a new dogma–something unquestionable.
Of course certain reigns have been more humane (or at least less inhumane) than others. Still, mostly what I see in trying to evaluate the ways in which we humans have ruled over each other are the grubby, “human all-too- human” realities of power and the will to power. I see all the manifold pathways unchecked power opens up to corruption, ie simple human grasping and aversion–from subtle through flagrant all the way up to genocidal. And I see the stoking of spiritual materialism and theistic king / emperor worship. I am left with a strong conviction that the various functions of power need to balance each other and have some measure of genuine independence in order for a society or community to be healthy.
2) My last experiences at a centre–after a break of a number of years–heightened all of this considerably. There, I saw the current head of Shambhala treated as not all that short of a god. And saw the effects of this kind of culture on those in positions of authority and newcomers alike. Over time I have noticed less and less disagreement being expressed at centres, more and more uniformity of thought and even style. At a certain point I began to feel I’d entered a realm of True Believers.
All of this crystallized one Parinirvana Day, when I’d been living at one of the land centres. Nothing new happened, particularly; nothing I hadn’t noticed before and pondered. Still, that day everything came together in a concentrated way and I found myself thinking along more definite channels about the state of things.
Simply put, that was the day I began to feel that Shambhala had become a little too much concerned about itself, in relation to the dharma. More about triumphing than simply trying to manifest the teachings, more about self- perpetuation and growth than service. Again, nothing was especially different that day. True, there were more people in kasung uniform than usual so the military vibe was heavier, and the kasung energy, at that time and place at least, was fairly cold, punitive / superegoic in style, not terribly reminiscent of the broken-hearted practitioner. There were more toasts than usual, but not a ton more. Depth of pride in the lineage was very much on display that day, but naturally enough after all.
Still, sitting in the shrine room that evening, listening to the toasts I’d heard innumerable times each in the preceding year and (about four times that day) the Shambhala Anthem; hearing too much news about the three separate weddings Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche and the Sakyong Wangmo were about to have, a few too many assertions about how special the Mukpo family is; hearing a triumphalist “proclamation” read that had just been issued, offering help at governance to the town of Halifax (or was it the whole province of Nova Scotia?); gazing frequently up at the new shrine which now contained only representatives of the Mukpo family, just Sakyong Mipham and his father; seeing a little too much uniformity of taste, opinion, expression, even individual vocabulary … in the midst of all this a sense of claustrophobia which had been creeping up on me for a number of weeks, getting stronger and stronger, finally forced me to pay proper attention to it. I pronounced to myself the word which is always made a joke of at Shambhala centres. Yes, I wondered why the whole experience that day felt so unspacious, indeed suffocating. Why it felt rather like being in a cult.
That was around the time I first heard SMR referred to as His Majesty, and the place he would stay always referred to as The Court, as if there were a kind of superstition against even occasionally saying “so-and-so’s house” or “such-and-such hotel”. It was around the time I attended a server’s meeting at which someone described how something had once been spilled on the floor in the Sakyong’s presence and he actually helped the server clean it up! I put this phrase in italics because it indicates how the story was told, as something truly extraordinary, indicative of superhuman love on the part of the Sakyong. It was also around the time a friend of mine–who’d just come back from serving the Sakyong on a book-writing retreat–told me in hushed tones that he’d seen SMR with his own eyes follow through on a speaking engagement despite being sick to his stomach just beforehand. He described this, again, as if it were another instance of something incredibly exceptional. Yet all I could think of at that moment was the singer (was it Joan Baez?) who in an interview spoke of having to go through nausea and vomiting before literally every concert. Or for that matter all those who get up and go to work every day pretty much however they are feeling. More to the point, it was around the time I began to notice the Sakyong being spoken of like this all the time.
3) As with James Elliott, who has written eloquently here about this topic, my reflections on and around that Parinirvana Day came after observing abuse of power–undealt with by Shambhala hierarchy. And also as in his case this was the catalyst for trying to understand the current environment within the sangha better, focusing on questions about power and how it is dispersed and related to within Shambhala International. Abuse of power in and of itself is maybe not all that remarkable. But a culture which downplays it, looks the other way, or even fails to see it in the first place is another matter entirely.
All these thoughts raise two core issues for me, with which I will conclude:
a) Samaya, theocracy, and inclusiveness
Samaya is unique, unlike any other relationship we could think of. Samaya is the utterly intimate, mind-to- mind relationship that exists between a student and the Lama she has freely chosen. It exists at the level of spiritual practice and not for any kind of collective, political purpose.
When the aspect of obedient submission within samaya moves outside of that relationship and begins to characterize the larger political structure of an organization, we have theocracy, and one to a very pure degree. It is a primordial temptation, an ancient dream, that we might bypass ordinary checks and balances and leap directly to the revolutionary goal: dutifully acknowledging the (generally catastrophic) failings of such movements in the past, yet insisting that now things are, for the first time, different.
The dharma is very clear in pointing out how ever-resourceful and clever is ego, how manifold its tendencies toward self-deception. And Trungpa Rinpoche saw fit to present as his first main teaching in America the sobering truth of spiritual materialism: that not merely even within religion, but especially within religion, can we find the temptations to cut corners and assume ourselves–or more to the point our Church or sect–pretty much entirely on the side of the angels.
I find it a thought very much in keeping with the dharma that the more centralized is political power and the fewer checks and balances upon it, the greater the temptation to abuse such power in the name of the ideal. It does not contradict the reality of basic goodness to assert the need for skepticism in assessing motivation in ourselves and our leaders, of course; it simply follows on from the illusions of ego and ego’s perhaps cleverest creation–spiritual materialism.
Within Shambhala I find a samaya-like quality operating at the level of the collective along with a lack of balance of power between executive, legislative, and judicial functions. In fact I would be hard-pressed to point to any actual distinction of such functions: acharyas traverse all three, and each has pledged a form of absolute loyalty to the Sakyong; the kasung likewise pledge loyalty to SMR and implicitly to his senior teachers as representatives; and everyone else is encouraged to follow the curriculum to its end, a path which involves ever- more-binding pledges of loyalty. A tight and intricate setup of obedience is thus in place, creating various issues of accountability and exclusion which have been aired often in this forum and elsewhere.
The admonishment to evaluate a potential teacher for a full twelve years before entering into samaya came from within a culture far removed from the democratic expectations of our own. And yet within Shambhala today many have pledged even more than samaya long before that span: they have also committed themselves to a King and a hierarchy, a political philosophy and political movement, and an increasingly independent lineage. At the same time Shambhala continues to represent itself as a non-partisan, inclusive umbrella under which all genuine spiritual practitioners from whatever tradition may feel at home. There is a serious discrepancy here.
b) Agenda, ambition, and spiritual materialism
Theocratic tendencies and insufficient checks and balances are concern enough. Along with this is another: that Agenda may become too powerful. That the goal may, too much, become the path.
To some this may seem a contrived question, but still I ask myself: is not the dharma / truth more important than Shambhala? More specifically, are not the teachings of Shambhala more important than Shambhala? I do suspect this distinction is one many within SI would not even be able to make. But it is worth pondering, I feel. Is it not our practice to devote our lives and labour to the creation of greater sanity, dignity, humanity, love, and awakeness in the world? If so then the size or power of our particular community should not be too great a concern to us. Who cares where the good influences are coming from, so long as we are doing our own thing as well as we can and supporting all individuals and groups who are manifesting basic goodness each in their own way, with their own emphases and styles.
This is obviously not to say we shouldn’t work at protecting, enriching, and offering our own precious inheritance. But the trend within Shambhala has been towards ever greater separation from the larger Buddhist community. And here’s the point: I don’t believe Shambhala is going to save the world. I don’t think Buddhism as a whole is going to save the world. If human community is going to survive and evolve, we will have to relinquish possession of the truth, as well as messianic mentality–a mentality that, here, would have to neglect its own teachings on the thoroughgoing interdependence of phenomena and non-duality of self and other.
The trouble is that even the very best of our motivations can turn into ambition and agenda, all the harder to spot because of how much evident goodness is there. This is why Chögyam Trungpa emphasized the perils of spiritual materialism so much. They represent a potential blind spot for all practitioners and spiritual communities. Agenda marks the point at which personally prevailing becomes more important than working with everyone else and simply doing one’s best, unconcerned with the status or size of our group.
I am concerned that Shambhala has been sliding down this path for some time, unawares. Removing Trungpa Rinpoche’s own beloved Kagyu- and Nyingma-lineage holding teachers from the shrine represents one important sign of this. Centralizing new practices which literally only one person in the world–the Sakyong–is allowed to bestow is another. Restricting approved teachers more and more to only those within the Shambhala system itself (and furthermore only those on-board with whatever changes occur, now or in the future) is a third. A little too much self-congratulation at the expense of humility, and difficulty in absorbing critical input from the “lower ranks” and especially from dissenters, is a fourth. And, as worrying as any of these, seeing dynamics of silence and exclusion in operation when criticisms are voiced. For a wise, healthy, and generous community need never fear its good-hearted critics–quite the contrary.
For me personally it has been a wrenchingly sad time. When organizations lack certain kinds of flexibility and correction mechanisms at the same time as they are utterly convinced of their own rightness (I don’t speak of basic View here, but of all the more down-to-earth and day-to-day aspects of direction and relationship), then I would say we are simply begging blind spots to appear and deepen. When we go even further and solidify our beautiful yearnings for enlightened society, peace, and a truly humane world into the figure of a Vajra Guru King who practically speaking is not acknowledged as capable of mistake: at this point, we are no longer learning from the past. Something has closed down. Something is unrecognizable.
Damchö is completing a BA in Music and hopes afterwards to do graduate work in linguistics. He began Shambhala Training in 1997, reaching the final graduate level before the issues discussed above gave him pause. However, he remains very inspired by the View of a complete non-sectarian and non-religious path grounded in spacious mind, tender heart, and fearlessness.
Thank you for writing this; it’s a lot to think about. I think we have to continue to be directed by our hearts and our best understanding of the dharma.
Very nicely written; very well expressed. Thank you.
There you go. Half ungrounded speculation; half self- centered intellectual laziness. Pretty bad form to tell people who have taken samaya what it is when you haven’t taken it yourself. But that’s RFS!
Damcho:
I have been involved with whatever this sangha is calling itself these days since 1974. I was thrilled to read your post, good for you. And you know what, you’re absolutely right! But then again, there is more to it than that. As for the “conformists” I can not tell you how many people have tried over the years to silence my voice, I mean its like an accordion file. However, it was the Sakyong himself who told me , “Don’t ever change for the sangha, let them change for you.” The only teachers I listed to directly were Trungpa Rinpoche, The Regent (before the scandal) and on occasion the Sakyong, and Khempo Trultrim Gyamtso That’s it. NO ONE ELSE. And that is what is really going on here.
It’s weird what this training, Shambhala or otherwise does, even though I went into it kicking and screaming that it was nothing more than repackaged Bon (read Rene Nebesky’s books to get the real scoop). Everything in Shambhala is there. And the rest of what is in Shambhala, or most of it is contained inside the advanced teachings of the Kalachakra Tantra. I asked the Sakyong at Kalap Assembly why the whole thing was so damm bourgeoisie with the cookie cutter white couches with framed black ashes and he said it was because most of the people he was teaching were middle class and it was the only language they could understand.
However, years later when I was having dinner with the President of Mongolia, or tea with the Indian Ambassador to China, or teaching dharma in Cuba, and now sometimes in Beijing, the list goes on and on I thought, “Oh, so this is what all that silverware and place settings and protocol was about.” It was really ironic too, but I got it,. Part of why people are so blindly devoted is because they want to do the right thing. However, some of them really do turn into flaming assholes full of dogma and self-importance out of proportion to the real world. And what’s even more interesting is how, at least for me, years later it comes back. Smeone I had a HUGE confrontation with over freedom of expression, who tried to personally censor me and take away my personal journal during a restricted dharma teaching is now, years later working with me to obtain political freedom for a censored artist. And you had better believe I threw it up to them and said, oh, so don’t forget, censorship is censorship, in Shambhala or outside of it. And it gave me great pleasure to do so.
Keep up the good doubt, because it is your sanity. Sure there is this “your Majesty” thing which is weird, but on the other hand the court has been around for-ever. But, at the end of the day, when you are driving your car, or whatever, there is no Majesty, no Shambhala, no vision, just you, the rubber, and the road. And honestly, that’s all its ever going to be. Also, you can study with whoever you like, when ever you like. There was a dharma long before there was a Shambhala, and there will continue to be a dharma with or without a Shambhala. Mind is mind is mind is mind. Even with Samaya.
Richard, Would you please be more specific? For example, which parts of what he says are ungrounded speculation? And what parts do you find to be self-centered intellectual laziness? And would you enlighten us more on how he has mistaken samaya in a way that all might read? Specific criticisms can be very helpful in discovering the good path. Generalized dismissal doesn’t offer a way to reach better understanding because it doesn’t get at the mistaken points or the strong points. It really only drives the wedge deeper. I think everyone might appreciate more specific criticisms and careful analysis from you. Please go ahead. I’d like to hear. Thank you.
This is an urgently important and well articulated article on the dangers of glibbly thinking the Sakong’s “monarchy” is just a metaphoric symbol for what is really going on politcally. My immersion in SI has evoked a skepticsm that is healthy….didn’t the Buddha himself say, “If you meet the Buddha on the way, kill him!” No one, and no institution has the upper hand when it comes to the truth. Question everything! If you are shut down, you know for sure you are onto something that needs to be examined.
I don’t know who you really are, Damcho, but I appreciate the deep thinking and truthfulness of your exposition.
Thank you Damcho. What a wonderful offering for the Fourth of July. This morning (Sunday) after sitting for awhile at the Berkeley Shambhala Center I went to a wonderful service on Tom Paine at the Berkeley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. At the end we all joined hands in a circle — most of us gray hair — and sang This Land is Your Land, Woody Guthrie’s anthem to genuine equality, justice, freedom, and brotherhood and sisterhood. During Woody’s time he was branded by the power elite as a communist. But at the pre-inaugural concert last year in Washington even President-elect Barack Obama joined in the chorus as Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen led hundreds of thousands of voices in praising the beauty of the land and the right to speak our minds freely without fear of repression or tyranny. As Pete says, “The great thing about America is you have the right to be wrong.”
To my mind, the cornerstone of this country’s (the U.S., where I’m writing from) freedoms from despotic rule — both external and self-imposed — is enshrined in the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. These freedoms don’t exist unless we have the courage to express ourselves freely, as Damcho has done.
Let us never forget Tom Paine’s clarion call nearly 250 years ago to arouse the common sense within his fellow human beings — which we Buddhists and Shambhalians call Buddha nature and basic goodness. As Ellen stressed, the Buddha himself always exhorted his disciples to question everything and never accept anything he said or did on blind faith. That non-questioning attitude of blind obeisance is a key reason why the world is in such a terrible mess right now.
Thank you Damcho for such a well-articulated essay on the perils of spiritual materialism and group think cultism and confusing “capturing the royal seat” with political monarchy.
A few days ago, I came upon a teaching by Chogyam Trungpa on “Cynicism and Warmth” on Chronicles and I paste it here for others to read, and read again.
http://www.chronicleproject.com/CTRlibrary/Cynicism_and_Warmth.html
It is a remarkable teaching, basically on the importance, nay essentiality, of cynicism, which he elaborates as “unmasking” ego, after we have created our little “nests” or “opium dens” of our spiritual trip.
Outrageous cynicism, questioning everything about the “nest of spirituality” , he seems to be be saying is essential, and only by doing this can genuine warmth unfold.
Yet even after opening up, (this is how important he sees a critical attitude, one still remains cynical ….. “ cynical attitude is not only willingness to unmask but willingness to defend yourself from remasking. The point is that you are defending yourself from spiritual materialism so that you cannot be tricked again. You cannot remask in the same familiar pattern as before. You can’t be conned again. So there is a clear perception and understanding of spiritual materialism, as well as having an offensive approach towards it”.
What is also remarkable about this teaching is the view presented on “lineage.” Lineage , in this teaching, is discovering the “inner guru”; only then do you enter the lineage.
“ The lineage is an example of successive people surrendering to themselves and beginning to find the expression of the guru in them”.
This is an amazing, pithy teaching that addresses all the issues we have been discussing directly and indirectly on RFS; the importance of cynicism and its relation to spiritual materialism, the need to unmask all the spiritual trips, imposed and self-imposed, for us to surrender to the “inner guru” as lineage, and that since we create our own world , and recognizing that, we might as well enjoy it.
It is samaya to the inner guru that becomes important, that is our connection to lineage, and anything that becomes an obstruction to that, even if it was once a help, must be “unmasked” and discarded like an old shoe, that wears out. We could even say that the true meaning of “monarchy” is “capturing our own royal seat” of inner guru, discovering that we are creating our world. We don’t have to rely on the “import of foreigners.” The only lama, it seems, that really appreciated the West.
What is sad, is that no one is teaching like this anymore. Perhaps it is true, that a mahasidda, whose only concern is in waking us up ( not rebuilding temples in Nepal and India, to sustain their luxurious palatial lifestyles, or increasing memberships and thus donations, by finding the next politically correct gimmick), comes only once in a millennium. I hope that is not true. But I feel very lucky to have connected with these teachings in this lifetime, teachings that are never stale, always more than current, always terma, to be discovered when we need it.
First, I’d like to say to Ellen:
Dinner with the President Of Mongolia?
Teaching Dharma In Cuba?
You haven’t changed a bit.
xx
Do write to me sometime.
I remember when I first met you at KCL in 1983, and we thought you may paint the rock garden there day glow pink. We were all kind of New Wavish then.
I have mentioned this a few times, but its worth repeating.
After on class with Dr. Reggie Ray at Naropa on Sino Religions, and in this case Confucianism. I asked Dr. Ray if Shambhala was based on Confucianism. He said I think so.
That inspired me to as Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to ask what the basis of Shambhala is at one of his evening courses (I’m sure it’s in the archives). He said “Bonpo”. Bon
Unofficially, I understood yesterday that they are removing the photo of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche in the reception area of Boulder Shambhala Center, and they will only be an official photo of The Sakyong hanging on the wall.
Another sad day for the students of the Vidyadhara who have tried so hard to remain loyal to the organization.
Robo
the line that cut to the heart for me was this one:
“are not the teachings of Shambhala more important than Shambhala? I do suspect this distinction is one many within SI would not even be able to make. ”
The teachings, I believe, as terma are a holy gift to us from Guru Rinpoche, created from his boundless compassion especially for these times.
But the institutions built by humans are something else entirely.
I suspect the Sakyong well knows the difference. But I’m not so sure about anyone else in SI.
Thank you for RFS. I think it is an act of generosity to test our institution for worthiness like any boat, and give it a good rocking.
This article while entertaining to read doesn’t have much to it besides the observations of a newer student who has yet to be introduced to the complete view of Shambhala and what it’s function is.
I enjoyed reading it but I feel the article is a bit misinformed, not only about Buddhism and samaya in general, but also about Shambhala specifically. When you’re new to the community and wind up living at a land center you see, hear, and experience many aspects of Shambhala culture (both good and bad) either out of sequence or completely out of context, which can lead to a distorted view about the path and the community.
The robots who move through program to program without digesting or questioning what they are being taught and shown are not the majority IMHO but are the easiest to spot and disagree with. This does not make them examples of how others should be, but examples of how NOT to be.
Also the students of the Vidyadhara often give Ttrungpa Rinpoche a God-like standing much, much more often than Sakyong Mipham’s students in my experience.
What does your name Damchö mean and were did you get it, is this your given name at birth or a received name from a tyeacher or is it a self-imposed handle? Mainly just curious…
So its a bummer that you didn’t connect with the community or Shambhala vision, but everyone’s path is unique and hopefully yours finds you a way ahead in these dark ages, cheers.
Thanks hashshashin. My sentiments exactly.
it would seem Enlightened Society would in itself produce an Enlightened Leader. perhaps we would then find “Dharma without Credentials”~~~
Damcho, thank you for this brilliant expose of the root problems of the Shambhala community. It will die without balance in the western world and none of us want it to die. That is why we are here. In every post I have made I have tried to point to the problem of theocracy, of NOT separating church and state. You did it just right.
I was once living as close to the centre of the mandala as I could get. I even asked permission to leave Boulder and go live with my parents! (to pay off the debt I’d accumulated working at Naropa and going to Seminary!) Sadie, and Hash — many of us come from the exact same place you are in right now. and we too were once sad and sorry for people we just KNEW didn’t get it. If only we could live longer, it seems we know so much more over time, maybe we’d all finally get it.
I feel that true democracy is an important tool of an enlightened society. Today we don’t see any true democracy around us so it is understandable why many don’t think it’s right. I highly recommend the book “Turning the World Right Side Up: Science, Community and Democracy” — see http://www.fernwoodpublishing.ca/Turning-the-World-Right-Side-Up-John-Kearney-Patrick-Kerans/ for more info.
Damchö,
I respect yours, and everyone’s, opinions here even though I often do not agree. I guess that’s democracy and I like it! But for the record you should know that the Vidyadhara was also referred to as His (Your) Majesty and in that context wherever he was staying was always called the Court. In fact all of these forms did not originate with SMR but with Trungpa Rinpoche. And at the time many of his students had difficulty with it as well.
It is really quite fine for us all to have our issues with “how” SMR has chosen to present the Shambhala teachings and how that might differ from his father’s intentions, but to assume that SMR is creating some kind of monarchy willy nilly misses the point that his father set the system up in the first place. It is there in all the terma texts and specifically in Court Vision. One major difference is that when the Vidyadhara was alive many of these forms and titles were secret, open only to his senior Vajrayana students and only to those that attended Kalapa Assembly. (See, one had to be a tantrika to go to Kalapa Assembly and receive Werma in the old days when CTR was still alive). In 2000 the current Sakyong decided to proclaim who we were more openly, a good and brave choice in my own opinion, and I have found in the decade since that about 98%-99% of the new people who come in contact with the idea of the Sakyong as a Dharma King, a Sakyong, or even as His Majesty, don’t seem to mind.
Last summer I attended the Scorpion Seal Assembly. In my own experience there was only one thing being taught there – Trungpa Rinpoche’s terma. The main thing the current Sakyong expressed over and over again was his profound love and sense of duty and responsibility to his father’s terma. He made it clear that if we all don’t practice and realize these profound teachings they will be lost since we are the only ones Trungpa Rinpoche entrusted his Shambhala teachings to. For two weeks it was Trungpa Rinpoche 24/7. For me I realizedthen and there he had never left. Again, that was my personal experience. Obviously others are having different experiences her and I respect that completely.
Finally, I find the current Sakyong speaks much more favorably about Democracy than Trungpa Rinpoche ever did. If I am not mistaken I believe CTR abhorred democracy! I always had problems with that myself but given the state of the world I would suggest he may have been right.
(See, one had to be a tantrika to go to Kalapa Assembly and receive Werma in the old days when CTR was still alive).
That’s not true.
I know one lady who went to Kalapa Assembly who wasn’t even’ s full blown Buddhist (she is now, but that is not the point).
I recall, and later learned it’s on video, the Vidyahara said only Buddhists went to Kalapa Assembly because he wanted to lay the ground work, or basis to estblish an enlightened society, but he said he’d be delighted when non Buddhists became full blown Shambhalaians, and attened Kalapa assmbly.
Itis is not what he said ver batim, but once again, I’m sure it’s in the archives.
Rob.
yes briefly on the FAQ heading on this site -it details that non-Buddhists could go to Kalapa Assembly -if people want to check that out.
Myself also believe if we again let non-Buddhists go to Kalapa Assembly and practice werma sadhana amazing things will happen in this world. At some point in the future I hope we can have Kalapa Assembly again -we should be thinking about this.
Also I can not be against courts, majesties as I come from UK -the monarchy is in our culture-some kings I admire like George VI some are completely mad like George III – I am not against the principle of monarchy but the monarchy survives in the UK because of the will of the people, if it becomes less relevant like say in Australia it will disappear. If SI wants to survive too it has to become relevant to everyone in the world not just Buddhists. Can they really keep their doors open to people in these troublesome times? Its debateable now I think.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Drala, I really appreciate your post. Many thanks. A lot to think about and respond to.
I knew about the Court of course but had never come across VCTR referred to as His Majesty, despite hundreds of conversations with his students. I’m aware that these basic forms originated with Trungpa Rinpoche. But I would maintain they seem to operate in quite different ways today.
Truthfully, if I had been a student under him I am sure I’d have been one of those having trouble with certain aspects of the Court Vision, as implied in the first section of the article. It’s not my purpose to contrast the situation under the father with that of the son. That is for those here who were students of the former. All I have known is the period of the Sakyong and that is all I can comment on directly. My experience is that the culture and mindset of SI has changed even within my time, and as far as I can see fairly dramatically.
Also, just to be clear: I am quite agnostic on the question of the Sakyong’s role in this context. You say: “to assume that SMR is creating some kind of monarchy willy nilly misses the point that his father set the system up in the first place.” I have almost no direct experience of the Sakyong. I took refuge and bodhisattva vows with him which afforded me in total about 60 seconds in his company. Apart from that I’ve been to a few of his programs and talks over the years and have read his books and poetry (the poetry representing my best connection to him–I think it’s quite wonderful). Mostly my contact has been with acharyas and other senior teachers, centre directors, and the bureaucracy.
So I don’t know how the experiences related in 2) above came to be. Without doubt the roots of some of it do go back to older times, be they misunderstandings of Trungpa Rinpoche’s intentions or not. And truly it would give me great happiness to discover that I am not seeing Shambhala today clearly, that it is in fact much closer to your own perception of it. I try to remain open to that possibility. Unfortunately too much of what I’ve seen of SI as an organization, as a community, troubles me deeply. And since I have never been anywhere close to the inner circle of decision-making, and since questions I ask have been either treated peremptorily or–more usually–simply totally ignored, I have to work at understanding what’s going on as best I can given my own eyes and ears and mind.
I’m very glad to hear of your experiences at the Scorpion Seal retreat. That sounds wonderful.
Drala, also regarding what you say about democracy: I do have a different perspective here. When I look at the state of the world it seems to argue in favour of more democracy rather than the reverse, as Suzanne has pointed out.
If democratic wishes had been respected Iraq would not have been invaded. The US would have had universal health care ages ago. Etc etc. How much of the world is democratic? China? Iran? Russia? How democratic is the US? And surely the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend as many millions as they want to influence elections is taking it even further away.
I think democracy as a political ideal is very young. Just over 200 years I think since we came up with the idea of self-rule married with genuine equality of all. And we’re still trying to implement this. Whereas we’ve had millennia of examples of centralized and autocratic rule of various kinds to study.
Rita, what you have said leads me to make a distinction between having a monarch and having monarchy. I too see value in the UK’s maintenance of the monarch. But the Queen has no real power today of course. She is more a figure of national unity and appreciation of history, culture, and so on. And as you say the people also have the means to abolish it as an institution. By contrast US Presidents have been moving closer and closer to the status of a monarch, but in this case a monarch with real, and increasing, power. This is the distinction for me. I imagine the figure of a Dalai Lama, say, in the position of the Queen of England. Someone with no desire for political power but whom all could consult and would wish to consult. I imagine a culture with a figure of genuine realization in the centre of its mandala. But by “monarchy,” specifically, I think: *rule* by monarch. Not the same thing.
Thinking more aloud than anything: doesn’t the truth of basic goodness after all imply democracy? Since we all, without exception, have buddha-nature, and are all on our way to becoming buddhas, shouldn’t we really be engaged in the practice of ruling ourselves rather than being ruled by a god-like being standing over us?
Democracy, as we can all see, is no panacea. It needs to be grounded in a culture of awakening to achieve wise and compassionate ends. Shambhala could be such a great example to the world of this process. But I don’t see this happening as things stand.
I was very grateful for your post also Drala, it resonates with a few others I’ve heard here from people close enough to the Sakyong’s mind to believe that it is one with the Vidyadhara’s. That’s what I hear in my sangha also from people I love and trust.
Yet I’m even more grateful for your post Damchö because I don’t think I’ll ever get to hear these living testaments drawn out of people like Drala if people like you and like me don’t pose the challenge to the institution to please explain itself and its path.
I was a publicity officer for my center for a couple of years and it was like pulling teeth to get teachers and administrators to share a tiny sliver of the Shambhala view. I never understood where the reticence about sharing the view originated. But to me it seemed important to tell new students that, for example, Level 1 was part of five levels, and they should plan their lives and paths accordingly.
I have wondered from the beginning, what is it that makes this lineage so close-mouthed about its path? Why is it so afraid a student will learn a little of step 12 before graduating from step 11? Why doesn’t it trust in self-secrecy to take care of any accidental overspills of information? Why won’t it deal with people as if they were ruling their world?
The institution is a joke, by which I mean I chuckle at it all the time and I have the conceit that the Sakyong – whom I don’t know – does too.
But the teachings are as strong as the earth, and I was stricken and touched to the heart by something Drala said, that the teachings were entrusted to us and if we don’t practice and realize them they will die out.
And I finally see this is the difference between Shambhala and the rest of Buddhism: only we hold Shambhala.
What a perilous thing.
So maybe it’s not just the members of the great lumbering institution of SI who are lame in their marketing and their teamwork and their willingness to communicate and their ability to proclaim the path. Maybe in fact this has been true of all of the Buddhist volunteer communities forever, but it just didn’t show because the Dharma was entrusted to so many people, and over so much time, and with such brilliant individual arisings of commentary and guidance.
If I were such a young and budding thing as the Shambhala terma, I would be glad that the Sakyong is young and has the wisdom of Manjushri. I find the rest of Buddhism to be vastly more robust, and I’m grateful for that even as I watch this young sprout flower.
I praise you Damchö for the truth of your questions, and I praise you Drala for the truth of your answers, and I am glad indeed for this conversation.
Damchö, you have hit the nail on the head with
But I would take this further – and I think this is what Chögyam Trungpa did. We are all – each and every one of us – Rigden Kings. That is the practice of being subjects of Shambhala. That is also the “peer-to-peer”, and democratic aspect.
In my experience with Chögyam Trungpa this was true in a very direct, personal, experiential fashion. From the very first interview I had with him I felt this to be the case: there was an immediate invitation to join in, to do this together. There was a sense that we were looking from the same place, and an invitation to do so. I realize now that what that place is, is not ego, or personality, but oneself as Rigden King. The peer-to-peer aspect is king-to-king. That is the true king’s view.
In 1973 a friend of mine dropped in on one of the final talks of a seminar on the Nine Yanas of Tibetan Buddhism, in San Francisco. There had been a lot of build up through Hinayana and Mahayana, and now CTR was starting to lay out the Vajrayana, including images of deities in kingly garb. My friend, a staunch democratic, socialist, ex-civil rights participant (since 1965 in the deep south), radical Berkeley resident, got to ask CTR a question, saying that this monarchy stuff turns his gut, when he thinks of a king he thinks of Richard Nixon. CTR’s response was, “first, you should be king of yourself.”
Years later my friend told me that that had stopped his mind (for a moment at least). I think that’s the essential point, though.
I think this also sheds light on statements by CTR such as (from the 1979 Ambassadors Meeting):
This is in line with how people alternated being served and serving at “Court” events.
By the way, my comments here are on the personal experience I have of how Chögyam Trungpa manifested, and how that may provide hints on how enlightened society could be – they don’t address systemic issues about monarchy.
Damchö,
Just a quick response. I am no historian but democracy is not 200 years old as you say. It originated in Greece a couple thousand years ago (is that correct historians?) and what we have in America is not Democracy. It is Corporatism if anything. Or consumerism. Honestly, I have been contemplating the Four Reminders a lot lately (and I highly recommend anyone who hasn’t seen the Rigden ngondro version to get it – it is beautiful) and I have to say that whenever I think that there is a political solution to any of the mess we are in I realize that it is all Samsara/Setting Sun. There is no hope in thinking that setting sun politics will work. Ever. I was a true believer in Barack Obama – his inauguration was so Shambhalian I wept. But once again he has proven to be another one who has been swayed by the gods of materialism. I am disappointed.
I will gladly write more later but I am now the happy recipient of a great dinner of gourmet pizza and awesome wine and that, my dear Shambhalians, is IT.
I should add that I am not a direct student of the Vidyadhara and yet at the same time I am. I am a Center Director. Our local sangha is wonderful, open, questioning and gentle and caring. There is no hierarchy of snotty senior students who turn their noses up at new people’s inquisitiveness here and yet we have many senior students who were close to CTR. Oddly, they seem to all be quite devoted to SMR as well. Maybe we are unique in the mandala. We are growing, expanding. Our sangha are not being duped by an evil SI with Dr Evil motives. I am so honored and proud to be able to serve such a wonderful community as ours. My perspective is from one who has been in the sangha 22 years. (or 35 depending on how you look at karma and my meeting the Vidyadhara).
May all beings know profound brilliant glory.
Dear Damcho
I welcome Marks comments about monarchy and socialism at the 1979 Ambassadors meeting. This comment seems to replicate the extensive discussion Ash, I and James were having on
The Triad of monarchy, democracy and communism on our cafe table.
Therefore its seems to me that enlightened society is based on a symbiotic and integrated principle found in these descriptions. So really you can not have a theocracy in Shambhala and what is a theocracy –well I suppose in the western sense you would say the Catholic church before the Reformation where the Pope had political and religious power, so if you were excommunicated basically then you became a non-citizen.
But those times have been over in the west for about 400 years-they will never come back en masse even though you have many fundamentalists calling for ‘religious’ states in the west and the east.
So even within SI for it to fundamentally work in a western sense you would have to have a diversification of powers if we are talking of world politics. And indeed Trungpa did allow for this with a suggestion for the creation of a National Assembly with voting powers given in his comments to David Rome on the Project website. So yes no Congress but a National Assembly is called for.
As to the ideal society of Shambhala coming forth crunch time might be approaching for a lot of people if there still continues to be no accommodation for people who want to follow CTR’s conception of the Shambhala terma and vision for an inclusive and diverse society with these teachings. People might have to ‘do a Ray’ with these teachings also.
Yes here too it depends if you think westerners are capable of joining heaven and earth in the most ultimate sense and in doing that through both secular and religious means. Certainly from the present arguments given by Ellen Mains on the project and odd comments here and there by Michael Chender and of course the various CTR posters on rfs the present SI form of teachings is definitively not acceptable to many people. So will these arguments go stronger or weaker –will SI be pinpricked by these comments for the next couple of years – if they are it will have deleterious effects on people wanting to join the organisation. So to me the only answers would be some form of accommodation or split. And here again I think people are testing the waters as to what they should do.
Re The Queen thing I was being slightly flippant – no UKer can get away from the majesty thingeroo but you can play with the whole thing like John Lennon did when he said the rich should shake their jewellery when he sang. But no monarchy is useful its slightly better than Thatcher, there is a modicum of commonsense in the monarchy in keeping people on board in a broad church and anyway most people in the UK support the Queen even John Lydon mockingly at times. So I have to pay my 64 pence to keep this broad church aristos going and if they still have the best notions of the state at heart in providing some sense of unity thats enough for me. At Her Majesty’s Pleasure –its a laugh and a comedy. But it would also be great if a lot of the hangers on could disappear into the backwaters too.
The monarchy concept re the teachings is a different psychological and faith matter I believe –seems to be a centre to most religious and secular experiences in the sense of people experiencing a sense of awe/grandeur which can be transposed into the King/Queen motif. As you are studying music would you say that there is a heaven aspect to it that could be visualised in monarchical forms –yes what about Handel’s Messiah –surely that is majestic and I dont know much about music. Yes what would you call majestic in music?
Well in conclusion we are all in this great debate about the future of the dharma and shambhalian teachings that is at least good even if we go our separate ways because it does mean that the basic teachings of basic goodness will get out there in the world.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Greetings Drala,
Well, we know democracy in ancient Greece was highly limited–excluding all women and cheerfully coexisting with the practice of slavery. Personally I don’t know how one calls that situation “democracy”. But even so it was rather a historical island, wouldn’t you say? Not a whole lot was very similar to it for the better part of two millennia in either Europe or Asia, as far as I know (someone who has greater knowledge here please chime in).
And of course when Enlightenment ideas about equality found their way into the US Constitution they still managed to coexist with slavery and to exclude women from the franchise… So I do think real “self-rule” is a very young vision in the scheme of things.
I’ve always liked the quotation: “democracy is the worst form of government ever tried–with the exception of all others”. It echoes some of that healthy cynicism Chris C. discussed above. Reminds us that ego and delusion are going to be present no matter what political situation we find ourselves in. So then the question becomes: what kind of system in general is most likely to provide plenty of opportunity to catch collective blind spots, manias, imbalances of all kinds? What kind of system is most compatible with human dignity?
I’m really inspired by the ideal Mark has directed us to–the possibility that we might learn to relate “king-to-king”? What do you think of this? And how would we begin to achieve it, within Shambhala and within the world?
Two things stand out, so I’ll comment in two posts:
First, Monarchy versus Democracy.
Then the samaya issue.
I’m in full with agreement, dämcho, that how people are treated is paramount. If I and others around me had been treated like respectable human beings when we had conflict in our group, rather than as abstract members in a Machiavellian social experiment (that went terribly awry in our case), I’m sure I would not be involved in any of this.
I don’t care about forms of government. If I and mine were treated well within a communist dictatorship, and didn’t see (or could ignore) any troubles others had, I’m sure I would think communist dictatorships were the best form of government.
I strongly suggest Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” for an overview of the development of society going back well over 10,000 years. From this we can see forms of government changed, not due to ideological choices, but rather to evolutionary demands. In my opinion the separation of church and state is such a development; not an ideological choice invented with the American Constitution, but rather an evolutionary process that has been going on with stops and starts for millennium. (“Give unto Caesar what is Ceasar’s…”)
That monarchy is not a form created by SMR is too obvious to mention. But how that form is being tended now is demonstrably different than when Trungpa Rinpoche was Sakyong. Under Trungpa Rinpoche, on the few occasions that an appointed official showed some pattern of abuse or was teaching or relating to dharma, him self or others in detrimental ways, Trungpa Rinpoche himself got directly involved, with equal concern for the official and importantly for those they may have harmed.
In my experience that is simply not the case now. Appointed officials are protected in a way that is neither good for them, nor for the people who fall under their influence. In my experience, if you lodge a complaint against a highly placed official, you yourself are seen as the problem, not the official.
Another thing gleaned from Mr. Diamond is the vital importance of a system for conflict resolution and justice, without which societies either fail to develop beyond tribalism or fall apart altogether.
As far as democratic representation, any form of government we’d agree is healthy, would include an unobstructed representation of its citizens; even within an absolute monarchy or dictatorship. Or we could say regardless whether dictatorship, monarchy, communism or democracy if the ruling class has no interest or involvement in what their citizens are going through, then no genuine leadership is even possible.
I think Mark’s quote from Trungpa Rinpoche is a beautiful way of putting this: “Basic idea of shambhala kingdom is that of monarchy and socialism put together… We are in contact with people thoroughly and fully… Mesh yourself thoroughly with society: then you become a good leader.”
Without that sort of involvement, enlightened leadership not to mention enlightened society will remain an unrealizable ideal.
I understand the misgivings about samaya being brought up in an open context, I did take samaya vows, and it’s probably something we should be cautious about.
I don’t agree with dämcho that “a samaya-like quality [is] operating at the level of the collective”. That would assume samaya could be a collective function. I don’t think it can. I think he is seeing something else. (Perhaps vajrayana being used for the political purpose of creating group identity?)
However it is true, without being able to put a finger on who authored this move, samaya has been used politically within Shambhala in the last years. I know of several people who received letters admonishing them to relate to their dues properly and if not it would be assumed they had ‘changed their minds’ about their samaya commitment and should herewith return all their vajrayana transcripts, texts, and materials. This was sent by an administrator who had no direct contact with those people, who by definition has no jurisdiction (samaya is between a vajra master and a student, not a tool for administrators), sent to people who had never taken samaya with SMR.
I want to assume this policy was rescinded after it was pointed out how flawed it was, but it was tried and was a very nasty way to go about forcing support (or getting rid of those who might not implicitly accept that relationship). I also know of other times in which people’s devotion and loyalty was called into question if they had the temerity to question an official’s actions. It is this sort of use of religious or spiritual principles and methods being used to engender specific political results which are a predictable aberration when there is no distinction between church and state, or our spiritual endeavors and our social interaction.
There is some good reasons not to focus on samaya. (Samaya is very well defined, not all vague or something that can be morphed into, for example, political principles.) That samaya or other spiritual principles and methods are used for political ends, is merely a classic example of what happens when religion and power of state are seen and thought of as being exactly the same thing.
Brilliant, James, thank you….a great read.
“As far as democratic representation, any form of government we’d agree is healthy, would include an unobstructed representation of its citizens; even within an absolute monarchy or dictatorship. Or we could say regardless whether dictatorship, monarchy, communism or democracy if the ruling class has no interest or involvement in what their citizens are going through, then no genuine leadership is even possible.”
For me, that hits all the nails on the head at once.
So, Ladies and Gentlemen,after all this expession of ideas,what do we do now?how about a Shambhala Declaration of Interdependance,A charter? A Shambhala’s subjects partition?a conferance to write it?where do we want to go with this?the Regent said “words do not cook rice”
is there any action here?
The subjects are expected to take an active interest in all affairs of the Kingdom–social,political,cultural,and economic.If anybody feels that he or she is just one of many and so will not be noticed,that person has lost sight of the Great Eastern Sun……..If they feel hesitant about writing or expressing their opinions to court officials,that is a sign of doubt,……..Subjects are encourage to write to the Sakyong and the Sakyong Wangmo.This will help maintain a genuine relationship between them.
The Court Vision & Practice,
Dorje Dradul of Mukpo,
September 1977.
This Sakyong is not open to feedback…fer crissakes, some of his “loyal students” down here in Mexico follow a shaman and commit animal sacrifice!
And he knows about it. And he didn’t put a stop to it. This is not a healthy government. What do you want to do, John P., have a parallel Shambhala?
It will never happen.
Johnny me lad,I think there are enough fine people old dogs and new dogs to form a Shambhala government based on the seperation of church and state,incorporating the principles and vision of CTR,then SMR could be invited to join,all we have to do is want to do it,We are CTR’S heir’s…not just SMR……..
PS or we do not have to invite him…..
Dear Mr Perks and others
Thank you for your interjections on the court principle on this thread – I think they are timely and take us back to square one as it were. However, I believe the Sakyong Wangmo (the senior one that is) has said she believes the present Sakyong is following the correct way his father wanted to go.
So I think this avenue for letter writing has been closed off somewhat.
In addition I cant see the present Sakyong changing his mind about the way he proceeds ‘at the present time’ –why because we have had not interaction with him after the petitions of Mark Smith, the discussions with Adam Lobel at the Halifax Shambhala centre and the articles on the Chronicle project and the numerous postings on this site. Furthermore although there are many reasons why you and Ray have broken off from the main grouping aswell as Patrick Sweeny to a degree again no discussions are happening as to matters of accommodation of you and others within the SI framework.
Me personally I think you have every right to break off as you are senior students and to start your own lineages I have become convinced of this by listening to Ray over the web. That to me seems logical if you want the teachings to go forth in all manner of ways and to be inclusive and diverse-that is to create an enlightened society on the aspirations of various ‘clans’ one could say, or in the Catholic church –colleges.
As to Shambhala and the ‘one-way’ I would again have to say a big no to this whole approach. My first and best reason for this is when I read Bernbaums Shambhala book just quite recently and discovered some things in there which matched up with my own experiences coming from a secular background. So I really do think the whole caboodle is passing to the west and that should be encouraged by the present Sakyong after all things are investigated in an appropriate fashion. CTR also hinted of this by saying the forms of deities could change in the west and indeed that we would get American Tantra as I believe also more shambhala teachings from the Cosmic Mirror.(see
Mr Neutrals comment on further shambhala terma appearing on the Project website in his reply to the Mains article).
So how would I proceed with the present situation –well you can do it really on two fronts – set up your own groupings according to your connection with CTRs teachings. In addition you could volunteer to come to a conference where all these matters could be discussed further over perhaps a week. I have heard this idea mooted by several people on rfs and in emails to me. So thats what I am suggesting – I dont think individual letters, articles, posts will make a dent on how SI is going forward but as a separate grouping ‘we’ could have some effect on how SI sees us and perhaps on how the Buddhist world generally sees CTRs legacy.
Yes Mark Szps. posting was really interesting. I hope he can go further in unpacking the notions of monarchy and socialism that Ash, James and I did on our table. I think we are talking about the same thing but I would welcome his
continued
further comments on shambhalian/vajra politics.
I am also beginning to be interested most greatly in how a future vision of Shambhala will pan out outside of the SI set-up if indeed the Sakyong sticks to the one-way approach. Reading the FAQ on this site in relation to non-Buddhists who practice what did Trungpa actually mean when he said that people of other faiths should relate to carrying on the shambhala practices in a practice-orientated, ‘yogic’ fashion –this is another area for fruitful discussion and a way that the shambhala teachings could match with many peoples lifestyles. I would welcome Shambhalian Christians dropping into the debate here and discussing this.
So in conclusion I ‘hope’ the Sakyong can reach some accommodation with all of us to reach the apex of an emerging enlightened society but I also feel that ‘we’ the people outside of SI should be really looking at how we can take the shambhala teachings forward in the appropriate manner according to CTRs teachings. As to Mr Tischers comment that this will never happen which I have just read, well thats all up to us as individuals as how we see that comment panning out in the next few years and what we do indeed do with the teachings that we already have.
Best from the UK
Rita Ashworth
Hi Ross: I send thanks back to you. It was heartwarming to read your posts. I think that whether someone is more inside Shambhala or more outside it pales in significance with how much openness is there in mind and heart. With real respect and receptivity towards the “other side” I think anything is possible. Without it, not much. Great to hear from you.
James: when you talk about samaya having been “used politically,” that’s pretty much exactly what I meant in my comment about “a samaya-like quality”. When there is no separation between church and state, the kind of situation you refer to is more-or-less bound to arise I feel. And continue to arise. It can become difficult to distinguish between varying degrees or kinds of loyalty / devotion, and environments can become overly tight with the need to maintain discipline.
I’m very much in agreement with what you write, as usual, with only one real exception: when you say “if I and mine were treated well within a communist dictatorship, and didn’t see (or could ignore) any troubles others had, I’m sure I would think communist dictatorships were the best form of government.”
I have trouble with this idea. Firstly because it depends on ignorance (not seeing or else ignoring others’ troubles), and I can’t see you as the kind of person who would choose only to look at the fortunes of self, family, and friends. And secondly because we know the kind of government in place inevitably affects other aspects of life. Communist dictatorships, for instance, have always created atmospheres of suspicion and paranoia, horrible erosions of trust–friends betraying each other, even children reporting on their parents. They make a mockery of art, which for the most part becomes mere propaganda. And on and on. But the basic point is that there is something oxymoronic about a “healthy dictatorship”. I would say there is something necessarily antithetical to human dignity there.
Closer to home we can see how a political system so corrupted by money has spawned so much frustration, resentment, apathy. How a new group of vicious demagogues has risen within the media (itself at the mercy of the ratings system), and how this polarizes and degrades public discourse even further.
For me it’s not a question of “monarchy versus democracy”. I think I only used the latter word once in the article because I feel it has largely become one of those big vague abstractions like “freedom”. I chose to focus more on specific values: checks and balances, separation of powers, separation of spiritual and political functions. “Democracy” can mean a number of different things. So can monarchy of course–but I struggle with the idea of actual *rule* by monarch. That is more the point, and especially in the way it has been manifesting within Shambhala.
Yes Rita,I think this is a good approach,and then there is the Japanese scientist,who at this very monment is reading the Shambhala teachings,and is seeing the vision.how many Shambhala’s could there be?one for each of the 4 directions?How vast is this vision?I think all beings want enlightened society,and CTR tapped into that energy…So if it is important for enough of us to meet and discuss how to move ahead,and work together in achieving that without self interest,then I for one will commit…
Love to you
JP
Dear Rita: Thanks for reminding me of Mr. Lydon. Talk about glorious cynicism! I still like some of those old PIL songs…
I also like your approach to “the majesty thingeroo”. My experience has been of heavy energies swirling around such a figure–lacking sense of humor.
You ask about the heaven aspect of music. My first thought is that it is difficult to conceptualize since music is fundamentally … beyond concept. In the case of a piece of music like the Messiah which you mention we have non-musical factors as reference points of course: text, relating to the figure of Jesus; the fact that it tends to be performed in churches and cathedrals, in the season of Christmas, and so on. But pure music in and of itself? I’m not sure. I would tend to say that great music of any variety naturally contains heaven, earth, and human all together. ?
Probably I’m not a good person to ask though because this is one of those Confucian aspects I was referring to which I’ve never related to all that well. I instinctively will think in terms of the energies and elements rather than heaven / earth / human. I understand the value of this teaching in certain contexts, I think–it just doesn’t arise very naurally for me. Hmm, perhaps I need to reread Rinpoche’s remarks there…
To Damcho, Mark, Barbara, & Co.,
Many responses come to mind reading Damcho’s piece and the various Comments that have engaged with it, though I will spare RFS readers the temptation to wade through them, one by one: they would be a matter of indifference to most, anyway. Though I will express one, in particular, in a quote by Slavoj Zizek. But, first, I’d like to put it in context.
Increasingly, what I am seeing on the RFS website—which is very valuable, don’t get me wrong—reminds me of that Salvador Dali painting, “Geopoliticus.” It depicts a rubbery/elastic globe hovering in space, with someone “inside” obviously trying to get out, stretching the surface of the globe, but not penetrating to the space “outside.”
I see the division in the sangha that way, but with the “two camps” (if we can call them that, with many “nuanced” shades of gray, overlapping, of course) inside that globe—that sphere—: sort of Siamese Twins joined at the buttocks, trying to get outside what is essentially a “spiritual” sphere, and enter the raw and rugged “temporal” sphere—of politics and economics (though “economics,” of course, is never mentioned in this string, much less the word “capitalism”—Rigden forbid!)—“out there,” that vexed world of intensified conflict (though that conflict is clearly being replicated, in subtler, sugarcoated fashion, the banner of “kindness” flapping loudly up above, within the rubbery “Geopoliticus” sphere itself—as Barbara Blouin’s investigative reports on sangha finances makes clear).
So, for the “profit-oriented” approach to “spirituality,” we have “cutting through spiritual materialism” and the application of the Sword of Manjushri. For the “profit-oriented” approach to “materiality,” we have “maximize profit, minimize loss”—what we might call “un-cutting through material materialism.” Though, of course, being “spiritual folk,” we might piously wish the functioning of the Pig, Rooster, and Snake in the “temporal” sphere might be a bit “kinder” and “gentler.” Once, during the Great Depression, we even applied the Glass-Steagall Act to lessen the intensity of that “profit-oriented” gobbling. But the application of that legislation (nullified by the world’s arch Uberbubba, Bill Clinton, and that fork-tongued pack of weasel-headed hos in Washington known as the “U.S. Congress”) was only the equivalent—in terms of sharpness—to the rubbery tip of one of those Pik-O-Pay toothbrushes some of you might be old enough to remember applying to the (then) pink gums between your teeth.
The foregoing provides a context for the quote I wanted to cite from Slavoj Zizek’s Introduction to a re-issue of Mao Tse-Tung’s ON PRACTICE AND CONTRADICTION (Verso, 2007). It contains perhaps the closest articulation we’re likely to find outside Buddhism to a prajnaparamita-like dialectical logic. In fact, if memory serves, Mark Szpakowski did a brief talk on this text in the Vajra Politics class at the 1975 Vajradhatu Seminary in Snowmass to the group I was in (which included Larry Mermelstein and Bill Merwin, among others).
Had the High Lamas running Tibet engaged with the Chinese Communists at the time (now, of course, they’re Chinese Capitalists, so it’s too late) on that basis—that is, engaged the logic of prajnaparamita with their logic of “dialectical materialism”—it seems to me it would have been relatively easy to have gotten that wooden (but at least TWO-EDGED) sword out of their hands and replaced with the one of meteoric iron—still a bit “sequentialist” in its functioning. Then, it would have been easy to replace that sword, in due time, with the one made of crystal, with its “simultaneous” functioning.
But the High Lamas did no such thing. They were content to ignore the situation (not only Chinese racism, but their gold throne “center”/mud hut “fringe” social set-up next door to people at least nominally “Marxist-Leninist”), and imagine they were “magically protected.” And if some Tom Paine (perhaps a self-educated yak herder who had studied the subjects I just described) had shown up and pointed this out to the High Lamas, it’s likely his head would soon have become the gold-embossed rainbow-colored ball in a game of Mongolian polo! (Ask Jeremy Hayward.)
Here’s Zizek:
“What are the violent and destructive outbursts of a Red Guardist caught in the Cultural Revolution compared to the true Cultural Revolution, the permanent dissolution of all life-forms necessitated by capitalist reproduction? It is the reign of today’s global capitalism which is the true Lord of Misrule.”
So, even if the “two camps” managed to claw their way out of the rubbery sphere depicted by “Geolpolitcus,” and get the necessary surgery performed on their behinds, only two scenarios seem likely (and both in the context of the Vidyadhara’s proclamation that “the contagious energy of Mahamudra conquer the world”): one, a Dalai Lama-inflected Podunk Backwater (Peacenik) Kingdom in Larimer County; the other, a somewhat swanky (maybe a converted country club, THE VAJRADHATU, with the Vajradhara Tanka on the wall?) dollhouse-looking palace in some upscale New England suburb, with valet parking.
For an interesting alternative to both these views, people to whom we ought to be speaking—in THEIR neo-Marxist, neo-Socialist, neo-Indigenous language hadn’t our intelligence—our ability to do so—been NEUTERED/SPAYED by the conservative/squishy liberal ideology generated by, and radiating out of NAROPA, and permeating the whole of Shambhala culture—see DemocracyNow!, June 21st, 2010, with Oliver Stone (the filmmaker) and Tariq Ali (author, and New Left Review editor). They showcase Stone’s new documentary, “South of the Border,” on the Latin American ALBA nations (Bolivarian Alternative for Latin American). And there’s a couple books I’d recommend to go with the DN! video: Noam Chomsky’s new HOPES AND PROSPECTS, and Tariq Ali’s somewhat older PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN.
Of course, with the recent (U.S. backed) coup in Honduras, and the building of bases in Columbia, Obama has set the table for the rollback of that “glimmer of hope”—if we can surrender to a little hope (at least for others) for a moment. After all, the next president (maybe Hillary Clinton, with her current advisor—who architected the 1980’s Contra War against Nicaragua from his post as Ambassador to Honduras which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 Nicaraguan citizens—John Negronte, OUR Eichmann—in tow?) will have to fulfill that one primary component in the job description of all U.S. Presidents: not only maintain, but expand the Empire, and liquidate all threats to that all-pervading enterprise. Now, that means cramming the rotting corpse of “neoliberalism” (i.e. capitalism METASTASIZED) down the world’s throat, and destroying anybody resistant to being so stuffed.
Jim Hartz
P.S. I forgot to mention: I would like to dedicate my post to those people whose ineluctable COWARDICE masquerading as “Shambhala Warriorship” inspired it, made it possible. First, Khenchen Leslie Fiack (Rusung, and Head of Practice and Education for the Denver Shambhala Center) for accusing me, while acting as the “continuity AD” for their Sacred Path Program, of some transgressive remark (or remarks), but refusing–after pleading with her numerous times, and after many sleepless nights racking my brains trying to guess–to tell me what it (or they) was/were. Secondly, former friend (and last minute inductee into Shastrihood, I’ve been told), Roland Cohen, for doing the same: refusing to relate to me alleged transgressions I made in the inaugural Way of Shambhala module he lead recently in Boulder (where I was an AD), and in which capacity he was supposed to be–you guessed it–”mentoring” me. (That had more to do with a woman he and I were “involved” with at the same time than anything I ever said or did within that WOS container.) And to Melissa Robinson, former lover, friend, and M.I., who refused to intervene of my behalf (as my M.I.) with these Shambhala Buddhist, up-and-coming, COWARDLY WEASELS. Thanks to you all. You left me no choice but to be myself. Adios.
Well, Johnny, me boy, first of all, I’m not your lad….secondly, who’s going to lead such a movement? Sorry, but all of those that have struck out in their own….you know who you are….strike me as a bit loony….and I worked with Reggie on two dathuns before he left SMC..
Jim Hartz
What a delightful ride. Thank you for the effort. I’m not sayin’ I agree with everything, but I like the gist.
There are a number of kernels in your rich post I would love to see unpacked, it feels like you have researched some of the issues brought up much more than can be illucidated in this format, a restriction to respect because it allows any and all to contribute.
I loved the dedication and have had run-ins with one or two of those characters myself. I would suggest that being treated in those ways is not only about being “…left … no choice but to be… ” yourself. They also brought you to a point where you had to start questioning and thinking about the context these things were happening in, and what it was that was being demanded of you in order to ‘belong’.
Trungpa Rinpoche once said “You should live by your principles.” (without defining what they should specifically be…)
In the inspiration that if we don’t do that, then what are we up to at all?
Dear Johnny,{not me lad or boy},It is true I am loony,I do not think we need a leader,after CTR,how would that be possible?
It is just a matter of not being able to give up the ship Shambhala,and living or dieing with that yearning,
So from that point of view getting together with others in the same boat.
Love to you,
JP
P.S.I think Reggie is loony as well.
Dear Mr Tischer and others
Whilst there are elements of Rays teachings that I would wish to discuss with him I dont believe from what I have read of him and heard of him over the web you could characterise him as a lunatic for what he has done. Likewise other teachers who are going their separate ways.
In addition one has also to consider the reasoned arguments of people who are sort of on the edge of SI such as Ellen Mains who also might leave SI -I dont think she is voicing lunatic arguments from the fringe in fact she has worked with the Sakyong in the present decade quite closely. And then also we have people on rfs such as Suzanne Duarte, James Elliot and Mark Szp. who are also voicing arguments against the present set up aswell –the one way of SB.
Yes I really do agree with James Elliots quote from CTR that ‘you should live by your principles’ – my principles re my leaving from SB have come from my own ‘spiritual’ experiences as I expect Mr Perks have and that in the end is a matter of faith which is personal. However I am willing to discuss all these things with SI in a National Assembly that CTR wanted with voting powers as perhaps a ‘separate’ clan/grouping within an enlightened society. Yes even the Sakyong will have to discuss these groupings within such an Assembly if he does attract people from other religions –what is SI going to do with all those Christians who maybe still attending shambhala centres for example? Well to me its just illogical the whole SB set-up having one level of political and social power for people of different faiths, but then again SI will have to consider this if it does indeed attract more Shambhalian Christians and Jews.
As to Mr Hartz’s post the bit that I did follow on this early Tuesday morning and being a bit over tired was the total unpreparedness of the Tibetan nation for the Chinese invasion. For example on a recent documentary on Tibet I heard one of the former aristocrats from a high family in Tibet saying that yes Tibet was insular and that people were trying to change the system there and have more interaction with the outside world but that there were forces also in Tibetan society that were against that. So I think internal Tibetan politics did indeed hasten Tibets downfall.
Why is this political discussion about Tibet relevant to the present discussion on SI and its organisation –well I believe it too is becoming too insular by the present set up both in terms of governance and social relations. It is my contention still that the shambhala teachings should be open to everyone and by limiting the teachings to Buddhists the whole conception of a universal enlightened society is closing down with every flicker of the eye.
I just dont know what is going to happen but at the present time I think its better to be out of SI and creating our own groups from the grassroots – whether we will at some time get together again in the future is open to conjecture.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Dear Mr Perks
I am surprised about your comment about Ray.
I have listened to him over the web and yes well there are some things that I am not so hot about re his teachings but I do think over time he will get feedback on that from his students and that things might indeed change. What I think he is doing right is a providing a space for people to follow the Kagyu teachings and to practice samatha so that is indeed good.
I also take your point that after CTR everything is a bit dull in life to say the least and that we are somewhat going through a transition stage where everything is to a degree in turmoil. So yes with you I think the best thing is to return to square one and just do samatha meditation and see what comes out of that –indeed what do the great unwashed want of the shambhala and Buddhist teachings out there. Yes I think its too early to become so definitive about the whole thing re SB –so I am for letting practice be more interactive from the beginning stage again in not laying down so many rules and regs about stuff. So yes a return may be to practicality, and openness.
Best from the UK
Rita Ashworth
Dear Rita,
Sorry about comment on Dr Ray,It is possible he is not as loony as me,but then only his hairdresser knows for sure,
me I do not mind being loony,but have not been to the hairdresser in 20 years,my wife cuts my split ends,she says”you are loony”[me]my children say “I am loony”freinds say “I am loony”enemies say “he is really loony”.and check this out,we are now meditating on posts 12ft off the ground,Thats really loony….
But all is not lost we have talke the town into playing a cricket game on July 24th……
But I do think we could get together and write Shambhala constitution….
Cheers
JP
John….I agree with you about Reggie….that’s why I mentioned him.
It is interesting to me that – in terms of alternatives – no one mentions Rigdzin Shikpo (Michael Hookham) who was empowered by CTR, HH Dilgo Khyentse and Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso (sp?) and doesn’t strike me as “loony” at all. (BTW, that term is loaded…. are they loony for leaving SI? or did they leave because they were loony? is what they teach loony? I’m sure that there are some who label anyone posting here as loony!)
He teaches pure CTR with a Nyingma emphasis
Dear Mr Perks and Mr Tischer.
Yes perhaps I was being a bit English re my stuck-upness about looniness- I thought about your comment afterwards – and yes Ray could be quite loony after associating with the Vidyadhara for so many years!
But whether he is really, really loony is a difficult matter to decide –perhaps he is and if that is so he must be the beesknees! I will leave that up for his students to decide. So looniness a condition of many Kings and Queens in the UK aka George III and maybe indeed Queen Vic.
Do you remember the Monster Raving Loony Party in the UK –they are still going and still getting votes but no-one elected yet perhaps you could start a chapter in Vermont-may be you would get elected-one never knows? You would need a top hat though and a bowtie for election night -it would get you known in that state for sure.
Well over and out from a rainy Manchester…..roger.
Rita Ashworth
Mr. Perks,
I’d love to work on a Shambhala Constitution (or something along those lines) if there is any way from this remove. Please let me know if anything takes off. I’m not sure an open forum is the place to do the work, even as reports of developments could be posted.
I was thinking of something like that when suggesting in our café table that we develop some kind of list of basic requirements or definitions of a government anyone could agree was something like enlightened. (If it’s so obscure nobody or only a chosen few grok why it is enlightened, chances are pretty good… it isn’t.
The idea that every Sakyong can step in and change the entire culture by decree, sweeping out the old while trying to seduce the next generation, is a precedent that will ensure Shambhala culture has no basis for continuity or cohesion. A constitution, or something like that, could potentially ensure some kind of continuity in spite of whatever bee is in the bonnet of whatever Sakyong.
In Tibetan Buddhism they have tradition within which there are a plethora of fairly staid rules and regulations about succession, ownership, immutability of teachings, transmission, on and on, many of which we have already stepped outside of, or switcherood from one to the other.
It seems if there is something other than a traditional Tibetan absolute monarchy, and certainly Trungpa Rinpoche was not setting out to recreate Tibetan hierarchy and politics, then perhaps a constitution, or something along those lines, would be worth exploring.
I’m game.
The constitution sounds like a great and forward-looking idea.
Beyond this, I don’t think it has to be an either / or situation. Jim’s “PS” tells me that if everyone who recognizes what is wrong leaves entirely, then only those who think it’s okay to treat others that way will remain. And there will then be too many others who come along in the future and experience the same thing Jim and many others have.
I think that all who were students of Trungpa Rinpoche can still do some positive things with regard to SI. Maybe that is a naive belief, but wasn’t VCTR also fond of saying “never give up on anyone or anything”?
I’m always horrified (and I mean that strong a term) to see the kind of treatment Jim described. To me that’s just about the most unkind and yes unwarriorlike way that one can treat another. But Big Agenda combined with unchecked and unbalanced power will produce it. The Mission takes over and nobody notices it is happening. So I do think we have a duty to somehow try and protect the others who will come along and go through that.
I was hoping Drala, as a centre director, would respond to Mark’s post. But I suspect teachers and centre directors are not allowed to engage with any of the ideas put forward here. Sounds hopeless, right? Still, I don’t think it has to or should be either / or. Change occurs in mysterious ways…
So–write a brilliant and beautiful document folks! I think that’s one of the most positive things that can be done. Publish it here and publicize it everywhere and show that there’s another way. In itself it could be a great teaching for others.
Wow, you go away for a few days to live your life and then come back here and look what happens! So many posts, so little time to read. Hmmm, so since I did see my name mentioned I could respond I suppose….
“I was hoping Drala, as a centre director, would respond to Mark’s post. But I suspect teachers and centre directors are not allowed to engage with any of the ideas put forward here. Sounds hopeless, right?… ”
Damchö, I have never, ever felt stifled or shackled within Shambhala at expressing my opinions whether they be positive or negative. Quite the contrary – I feel empowered to say what I feel without fear of recourse. I haven’t said anything before because I am not one of the dissatisfied and I want to respect the opinions and experiences of all the people on this list. BTW, what part of Mark’s post would you like me to respond to? The part about Monarchy and Socialism? If so then I agree. As far as setting sun politics are concerned it is all flawed but if CTR said that then I must say I agree…
Mr. Tischer’s comment “This Sakyong is not open to feedback…fer crissakes…” has not been my personal experience, and other than being a little center director in a far off center away from the big centers I am not nor never have been a part of any inner circle. I am in fact just a regular citizen. But several years ago something happened that shook my faith in the Sakyong, in the “organization” and all the rest. I was ready to leave and I felt relatively okay about it. Relatively. Yet I was encouraged by several people who obviously should be unnamed but very prominent inner circle people, to not drop it, to contact SMR, to be honest. I did. I was told he took it to heart. I was told it meant a lot to him. But he didn’t contact me directly so I let it go. I wasn’t sure I believed them. I continued to practice and my practice seemed to change and deepen. Several months later I was in the same place as the Sakyong. He asked to see me. I felt completely heard, honored and respected for being so open and, well, pissed off. He told me I was important to him and that my feedback made a difference. At that point is when he became my vajra master because I know we have a two way relationship and I knew I mattered. It was how I learned to find my trust. It wasn’t a one way situation.
Now I really respect that others have not had this experience, in fact quite the contrary, and that saddens me. SMR is not CTR that’s for sure. And he IS far less available than his father was. But it’s also not fair to expect him to be his father any more than I should be expected to be mine, or you yours.
BTW, my experience with SMR that I described is very personal and I have not shared it with many people. It was between us. But when I hear that people say he isn’t open to feedback, well, I had to share that my experience was not the same. I hope that people here will respect that I shared this for what it is and leave it here on this web page.
And I also want to say that, although I don’t know the whole story that Jim mentioned, and there are always at least three sides I’ve discovered, still the way he was treated sounds like bullsh*t and it saddens me a great deal. That never happens out here in the hinterlands and I never understand why people act like this. Jim, I am very sorry you were treated like that and I hope all your experiences in this sangha haven’t been like that.
My personal experience again has been the opposite. I came in full time in the late 80’s and the exclusiveness, “specialness”, snobbishness, etc., of some of the senior students of CTR would have sent me out the door (it sent many others out the door) had it not been for my own deep connection to the Vidyadhara and his teachings, which are unchanged to this day. My experience then of some people was they were angry, close-minded and possessed a “we’re holier than anyone else” view. These days I find people to be a lot kinder, gentler, and more skilled in dealing with each other. More open to others and their paths. Obviously Mr Hartz clearly did not have the same experience in Boulder. The Sakyong has been making a big pitch for quite some time now that we all try to be kind to each other and that we care for each other. I truly hope that we, all of us ultimately students of the Vidyadhara and all of us citizens of the Great Eastern Sun kingdom in some capacity or another, can take this to heart. It may not be pith Dzogchen or Mahamudra instructions, but it may just save our sangha. And our own lives.
My 2 cents…..
Damcho,
We don’t know each other, but I’d rather not rehearse altogether my somewhat tumultuous relationship to the sangha–to the Vidyadhara, Regent, and Sakyong (and I’ve been acquainted with him since he was 10: I was the childcare person when he first showed up at Tail of the Tiger summer of 1972–he was painfully shy, had a nervous tick in his eye, and could hardly talk–so there is a considerable degree of appreciation on my part for what he has accomplished, on the personal level).
I just wish the Vidyadhara or Regent were around. They both knew me very well, and could accommodate my somewhat–what’s the right word, “thorny”?–style, way of being in the world. (One close friend, one of the best teachers in the outfit–in a Letter of Support for my attending Kalapa Assembly in Digby in 1994–used the word “unorthodox.” Well, that WAS kind compared to what passes for “kindness” in the sangha today, more a marketing ploy than anything genuine.)
In short, both the Vidyadhara and Regent could accommodate me, and both encouraged me to teach–that’s what I discovered (a real surprise) to be the most useful thing I could do with my life: teach. After 14 years looking after a bedridden in Tennessee (who died on her birthday in 2007), I moved to Boulder in 2008, and hoped, after being on the bottom of the pile for a while, to be able to resume teaching again.
So, what is really aggravating to me is to know I’m very useful to students, still, much appreciated—ask any of them who have worked with me, in one way or another, over the last 20 months or so in Shambhala Training—here (in Boulder) and in Denver. It’s my lack of CONFORMITY to something largely unspoken, hidden, sneaky, weak, behind-the-scenes, cowardly—as I made clear above—that has NOT been presented to me in a straight forward and direct manner, and that has disabled me from being able to be useful to people—basically, BE USED UP, and with a serious heart condition, I haven’t got much time left.
And I must add: I have never spouted my “temporal” and “political economic” views–which are, admittedly “radical” (which means “roots,” by the way, so I don’t shy away from labeling them that way) within the Shambhala Training container, even though those views—to me (and a few others who understand them, and so can offer useful feedback)—are indistinguishable from my “spiritual” and “psychological” views (i.e., the “capitalist world-economy” IS the “Five Skandhas” W-R-I-T B-I-G: maybe THAT’s what these lily-livered “insider” Conformity Police don’t like, but don’t have the collective balls or ovaries to discuss with me openly—to my face?) And maybe it’s simply—as Suzanne Duarte and I seem to agree: the whole culture, including the (new and improved) Shambhala culture has been re-bozo’d back into the 50’s (if not the 40’s) along with the rest of the culture? Maybe THAT’s it? Of course, some Old Dogs never left that earlier mind-set, either….at least “politically” and “economically.”
In any event, there’s no Vidyadhara or Regent to turn to, and it’s difficult not to experience the Sakyong—though it’s hard to be angry with him, he’s so remote, so “high up,” so elevated on his throne, and radiating so much “love” and “light”—as a kind of “absentee landlord.” Apropos of a comment Ellen Mains’ made in her piece on The Chronicles, last summer while I was at SMC I happened to have lunch in the dining tent one day with the young man who takes care of the Sakyong’s horses. He said the Sakyong had not said a word to him in the 3 years he’d been on staff. I recall hoping it would never occur to him that the Sakyong had probably spent more time talking to his horse than to him.
Anyway, as many do, I feel the ache of the Vidyadhara’s and Regent’s absences, and would feel better about the current “current situation” if it weren’t for the fact it is being marketed by the “insiders” as an improvement, progress, becoming more “up to date,” in sync “with the times”—WITH IT—and that “there is no alternative”: our way, or the highway. It strikes me that this is the same type of rhetoric (and maybe coming from the same diminutive world-view?) that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union and began to be formulated around the same time under the New Dispensation: that “there is no alternative” to capitalism (TINA was the acronym).
So, I’ve circled back to that, and gone on much too long to say the main thing I wanted to say: I haven’t “left.” I have been pushed “out,” sidelined, and I’ve no intention to beg my way back “in.” So, as the Vidyadhara used to say in such instances: “boo hoo.” And one other thing: anyone who thinks you can build an “enlightened society” perched atop the capitalist world-economy (which is constitutive, as a global system, of a PERPETUAL STATE OF WAR against everything, “animate and inanimate”: that is, it is “center” vs. “periphery,” “this” vs. “that” warfare W-R-I-T B-I-G….hint, hint….) has got his (or her) head up there where the Great Eastern Sun don’t shine.
Jim
Dear Jim, I have seen so many ‘facts’ misrepresented here. No one responds because there is largely no point, and those who read just take it as confirmation. But I have to call bullshit on this one:
“last summer while I was at SMC I happened to have lunch in the dining tent one day with the young man who takes care of the Sakyong’s horses. He said the Sakyong had not said a word to him in the 3 years he’d been on staff. I recall hoping it would never occur to him that the Sakyong had probably spent more time talking to his horse than to him.”
First, the Sakyong does not own any horses. His last horse, Rocky was put down in 2002 after breaking a leg. I was there. Second, that ‘young man’ currently works in my department, and those horses are his. Further, I have personally seen Rinpoche speak to him as recently as last week. Though he may not have by that time, I doubt it. That ‘young man’s’ personal horses are the only ones that have been on this land for years. It is not possible that I am mistaken. I can confirm every word I am saying. I will let others decide how this affects your credibility.
As far as what happened in Boulder, if what you say is accurate then it is a shame, and things like that do need to be addressed.
I only wanted to point out that whatever you thought you heard from my friend, it is not correct.
Yours, Craig Morman
Hi Jim, I didn’t mean to suggest you wanted to leave as opposed to being pushed out / sidelined. My comment was directed towards the view that SI isn’t worth having anything to do with anymore. I just meant that it’s possible to work outside of it and still be concerned with it, still try to express different points of view and to insist that one is just as much a part of the lineage as anyone else. Maybe I’m mistaken and no one has ever meant to say otherwise! I just don’t want to see any more people treated the way you and many others have been.
Drala, thanks for your posts in reply. The part of Mark’s I was interested in your views on concerned the possibility of relating “king to king” within Shambhala. I was wondering what you thought of this–if the idea resonated with you, and if so how you think we might go about creating this result.
“The part of Mark’s I was interested in your views on concerned the possibility of relating “king to king” within Shambhala. I was wondering what you thought of this–if the idea resonated with you, and if so how you think we might go about creating this result.”
Damchö – this is certainly the hardest part, the warrior’s part. It is very easy for me to see others as fucked up and it’s very easy for me to see myself the same way. In Buddhist terminology I think what we work with is Buddhanature – seeing it in ourselves and then seeing it in others. In Shambhala terminology we are all inherently Rigdens. As the last line of the Shambhala lineage supplication says “Grant your blessings so that I may realize my nature as the profound, brilliant Rigden.” So that’s the aspiration. I don’t think it is important to relate “king to king” within Shambhala. I think it’s important to do that everywhere. In fact it’s easier for me to see the Buddha/Rigden in my sangha mates than in my wife, who I can absolutely see as not a Buddha/Rigden!
So Mark hits it square on when he says “We are all – each and every one of us – Rigden Kings. That is the practice of being subjects of Shambhala. That is also the “peer-to-peer”, and democratic aspect.”
For me the practice of Werma is the key. But so is tonglen, so is Lungta, so is contemplating the 4 Reminders and so is practicing compassion and loving kindness. AND SHAMATHA! I am personally a hack at all of these practices. But I keep at them because I trust both Sakyongs implicitly and I know of no other way for me.
YMMV though, as the kids say…. btw Damchö, I got a BA in Music years back. So maybe we are kindred spirits?
Dämcho,
Only one point about samaya: if we see it used for political ends, it is not samaya. Trungpa Rinpoche taught it was important to be very precise with language particularly in vajrayana contexts and teachings. From that point of view I sympathize when someone is offended seeing the term described as if it were a political problem. We can describe it differently.
Of course I don’t ignore things I see. That in a nutshell is why I think these discussions have merit; at the very least it serves as a heads up for others.
And it isn’t that a communist dictatorship is fine, though I’d wager there are pockets in China that would fight against any change and may even exhibit Shambhalian principles. The idea of not seeing bad things happening to other people is not necessarily intentional denial. (Omniscience is a myth.)
I have a friend who grew up in communist East Germany. I’ve met people who lived in cities there and they seem weirdly passive or hyper-careful in their social interactions, due to a hangover from the culture the Stasi engendered.
But my friend grew up on farmland in a village, and is open and optimistic, no scars at all. He said other than having no bananas (something he didn’t know he was missing till later) life was great. There was lots of free time, open communication, town meetings etc., people all felt they were involved in a project in which everyone carried their weight, they weren’t morally or sexually repressed by an overbearing church, and there wasn’t the kind of materialistic drive that seems like omnipresent wallpaper in Western culture.
Since the wall fell, his parents view of the world collapsed, but they still believe the vision, think it was more humane than what’s going on now, but see their government wasn’t genuinely carrying it out. But my friend was born into it, not involved because of vision, so he never crashed. While understanding the lies of the East German government and how that caused so much suffering, and without wanting to recreate that particularly, he has for himself zero complaints about what his life was like under communist rule. Quite the opposite. He himself would not have been part of the revolution against Herr Honecker.
And we have people coming onto RFS and commenting how off we are for having the temerity to criticize Shambhala. (In another forum someone actually called it treason!) They are devoted to Shambhala Int. in spite of the number of people who have been disenfranchised, marginalized and at odds in the community they grew up in. That’s apparently a non-issue for them. Do they see the cognitive dissonance in the Shambhala vision as it is talked about and the results it is having in its own community? Don’t see how not, but are they wrong that they are having a good time in Shambhala? There may be a lack of empathy we could talk about, or how Shambhala could be ennobling rather than territorial, etc. and so on, but are they wrong?
Dear James and Mr Perks
Thanks for your comments on Eastern Germany – I have heard the same views of East Germans on unity with western Germany on British TV expressed in a similar vein.
So yes the Communist revolution did go astray in the 1920s in Russia but the people who were involved initially had the highest aspirations for society –you only have to read the poetry of the era and see Eisensteins films to recognise that.
So if we are to really magnetise this enlightened society into being we will have to discuss may be the socialism aspect more than the monarchy at present I believe –so yes too I am game into drawing up some fundamental principles for such a society. I will email Mark Szp. with my new email and start thinking about this in earnest.
Yes part of my leaving from SI is the lack of a concrete legislative assembly such as the National Assembly that CTR wanted and that is described on the Chronicle Project – I am still willing to see the present Sakyong as an earth protector in this set up but as to him being my main teacher I dont see him that way and some how I dont think I ever will because I know the shambhala kingdom can be reached in many ways both secularly and religiously. So yes a National Assembly for all with all the various groupings with voting powers and indeed with control of the budget by elected officials. I dont think the present system in SI will in any way endear itself to western sensibilities about politics so you need fundamental reform of the whole structure –now whether you would have to have new acharyas put in place to make this happen with equal weight to the present acharyas is debateable –but yes you would have to have a balance of powers for the teachings to go forward in an inclusive manner. I dont think I am stating anything different from what Trungpa Rinpoche described with his talk about a National Assembly so I am only reiterating what has been said.
Now as to the various posts on this thread of course they are personal and detail interactions with the Sakyong on a friendly basis where people have been impressed by his kindness and his manners. This may all be true –peoples viewpoints may indeed be being heard, I am not disputing any of this but what I am arguing for is the vision of an enlightened society where all such views about its creation can be done in a formal, creative, powerful, influential manner where the constituents of this society actually have some real input on the legislative and economic way this society should evolve. Whatever you say about western democracies about the abuse and destruction within them we still can get rid of our bad politicians as I know from my experience in the UK.
I dont know whether Mark Szp. could put up some political treatises about Vajra Politics on this website so that we could discuss them –that would be very good if he could do that because sometimes I think we are working in a vacuum about what actually Trungpa Rinpoche said about politics in the west.
So yes I look forward to some more fruitful discussions on social and political matters.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Dear ,James Elliott,
Let us move ahead with the Shambhala Constitution project,Iwould like to be of help,and you have also said you are game,Mark has my personal email,others will join.We will need a form to work on this,everyone should be heard with openess and kindness,So what do you think or any one think about how to start the process,and a form to keep order?
Although it can be hard to manage,I think an open Forum might be best,but how to sett it up and manage it?any
idea’s,What does Mark Spz; think ? Rita,? Ashley?
Thank you
JP
Dear John Tischer,Where are you in Mexico?and what are you doing?
Maybe we are talking about egalitarianism.
That was why I loved Denmark, and used to go there evry Summer.
Rob
Rob,Say more about Danish egalitarianism
John….that’s probably not for this forum….
e mail me at johntischer@gmail.com
In the Court Vision it talks about not only the constitutional law but also the civil code of Shambhala..under the Lord Command Justice the “Katrim Siwang”…So it would be important at some point to work with the Sakyoung not in his role of SI president ,but in his extended role as Sakyoung of the subjects of the Kingdom of Shambhala…the crown it seems does not make up the rules it’s self but works with the people and not just SI people..but yet I run before my horse to market..Friends let us start a public forum…the time of complaining about SI is over now is the time of constuctive engagement..what do you think?
John,
it may be that the best way to go about this, if we aren’t going to sequester into private chambers is to set up a table in the Cafe, or set up it’s own thread. Perhaps Mark has a suggestion. Given the nature of this endeavor, it many turn out that monitoring is necessary, but we can burn that bridge when we get to it.
It also sounds like we will need, or ought to have access to some common resources. You mention for example the “Court Vision” text. Isn’t that somewhat restricted? Maybe there is a way we could share it privately? I’m not sure what protocol is on that.
And I wouldn’t assume Danish egalitarianism is so irrelevant. They have a monarchy. Are there aspects to that which could be understood as Shambhalian?
Dear James,
You could Email me at celticbuddhist@gmail.com
Thank you.
John
PART I
Dear Khenchen Craig Morman, SMC Rusung,
ON “FACING FACTS”
So, let’s go over some facts, as you use one minor mis-assumption of mine—typical in such cases—that the Sakyong “OWNED” the horses the young man I mentioned cared for on the land—and pump it up to 10 times its normal size in order to call into question the veracity of numerous other more important REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT I made in my communication to Damcho and to the RFS readership—which readership, I might add (and it’s certainly NOT homogeneous), you seem to demean, generally speaking (“I have seen so many ‘facts’ misrepresented here. No one responds because there is largely no point, and those who read just take it as confirmation”), as merely some dimwit echo chamber of dis(or mis)information, promulgated, I presume (from your “insider” reference point) by people who couldn’t discriminate yak shit from shinola, even if they were neck-deep in it, and if they could, they’d be a “replica of you,” and be more inclined to swallow whatever SI or the Sakyong rolls up to their mouths—or, I should say, drops from “on high”—from “heaven”— into their eager “earthbound” little beaks. Isn’t THAT the subtext of what you are REALLY suggesting here, in your Comment, and so you latched onto some—as I said, minor “mis-assumption of mine”—to “make your point”—: confirm the (implied) magnificence, not a little arrogantly, of YOUR “reference point”?
* * *
HORSE TALK
So, I stand corrected: the Sakyong DID NOT OWN the horses on the land the young man I mentioned cared for—the young man owned the horses; they were his.
And we can dispel another possible mis-assumption of mine very easily—that is, whether the Sakyong spent more time “talking to the horses than to the young man” by letting RFS readers know, one way or another, whether or not—over the 3 years in question—the Sakyong rode any of those horses on the land when he resided at SMC, and which the young man would have been in charge of at the time. Did he? If he did, there is the distinct possibility the Sakyong DID “talk to the horses more than to the young man.” If he didn’t, I am guilty of another mis-assumption.
You owe it to RFS readers, and myself—since you made it a bigger issue than it was intended to be (it just rhymed, in my experience, with a statement Ellen Mains made subsequently on The Chronicles that, as Head of Practice and Education at the Boulder Shambhala Center, some years back—and no doubt working her behind off—that on a visit to the Center by the Sakyong he just breezed by her office, she sitting there, without any gesture of recognition, whatsoever, like she were part of the furniture)—to let us know. Will you?
If the answer is in the affirmative (assuming you DO answer)—seeing you have His ear from time to time, and I don’t—you might relay this message to Him from me: he might be a High Lama, but this is not Old Tibet, and his students—and those working very hard for him—are not Tibetan peasants, even if some of them may have been induced to imagine that they are: ideologically (in the pejorative sense) and figuratively (a kind of subtle identification based on Everyday Life experiences like the ones just portrayed) speaking.
If the answer is in the negative, that the Sakyong didn’t ride any of those horses during the 3 years in question, I stand corrected again: he not only didn’t speak to the young man, he didn’t speak to his horses, either.
* * *
FALSIFYING HISTORY
Next, in that context, based on what the young man had told me (and you, and/or he, NOW, seem to be questioning whether or not he even said that to me last summer—that “the Sakyong hasn’t spoken to me in the 3 years I’ve been on staff”—you say 1) “Further, I have personally seen Rinpoche speak to him as recently as last week. Though he may not have by that time, I doubt it,” and 2) “I only wanted to point out that whatever you thought you heard from my friend, it is not correct”), you are now re-writing history, refusing to FACE FACTS, yourself.
In FACT, you are actually PERFORMING what people posting on RFS have been criticizing for years—weaselly bureaucratic manipulation, sometimes outright lies—long before I ever re-showed up on the scene. You would be wise to consider (in the context of the Rigden Ngondro) how it is you and your cohorts are ACTUALLY producing “enemies”—“enemies” being those pushed “outside” by you, the “insiders.” You know who you are, and you know how you justify it, even if you don’t always communicate it, straight forwardly and directly, to those whom you are pushing “out”—which is certainly the “gist” of my recent experience, anyway. I mean, is it a requirement to be a coward and/or a liar to be a Rusung? (I’m thinking, primarily, of Khenchen Leslie Fiack, the Rusung in Denver here, but if the shoe fits….)
To reiterate, he DID tell me that, and I must add, when he DID tell me that he was emphatically NOT making a big deal about it, a big “complaint.” He simply mentioned it, in passing, matter-of-factly, in casual conversation, over lunch, that was it. But he DID say it. (As people who know me well know, I have virtually total recall, and I found his comment significant enough to even write it in my notebook at the time—which I just checked. I mean, why would he have “made it up” at the time? Or, why would I be inspired to “make it up” now?) In FACT, it is quite possible I was more disturbed about it than he had been—he seemed to have taken it “in stride.”
So, I am glad the Sakyong is now speaking to him, after 3 long years of ignoring him. That is good, because it was clear to me observing him from time to time over the course of the summer what an intelligent, dedicated, devoted, and hard working person he was. And you know that, Craig. That was what bothered me about it—: I couldn’t imagine the Vidyadhara (or Regent) ignoring someone like that, walking past him like he was a potted plant, or a white lawn jockey, or the “help,” or a Tibetan peasant: they’d virtually always COMMUNICATE in some way or another with whomever they encountered, if only a word, a small gesture—something; anything. And anyone with a few still-firing synapses has got to wonder where THAT is coming from when the Sakyong ignores people like that—it may not be “Inscrutability.”
* * *
PRIMARY MOTIVATION
Perhaps what (primarily) motivated your Comment was to cover for this young Kasung [and maybe he isn’t “young,” but he seemed “young” to me, perhaps due to my advancing age, in case you might want to quibble about that, too] in your charge, and there’s a nobility in that, I admit—cover for his being perceived, possibly (due to my admittedly importune reference to him within my lengthy Comment on RFS about other matters, though I made a point not to mention him by name)—if not by you, then perhaps by others within the Kasung ranks (or maybe even by the Sakyong, Himself)—as being a bit “leaky,” or whatever; maybe his devotion to the Sakyong (though I definitely DO NOT think this is the case) being suspected of NOT being 100% pure–: or maybe, even, to “leak” in such a manner is synonymous (in the Kasung handbook) with devotion NOT BEING 100% pure? Who knows? I’m just guessing (educated guesses) as to what is motivating your manipulation and falsification of the truth in what is, in reality, a very clear and simple situation, straight forward and direct.
(Soon, I half expect, the simplicity and clarity of that situation—that event—will devolve into one of those “he said, she said” things, designed to obscure and abort any possible—any GENUINE—reconnoitering with REALITY. (Melissa Robinson is quite adept at this maneuver.) People “outside” the Kasung (like me) just experience effects radiating out from “inside,” causes largely opaque to them: as in this situation. But it’s not difficult to smell a skunk—and this one, with a Trident down its back, rather than white stripe.)
So, censorial eyebrows might be raised, automatically, within the Kasung ranks, due to my Comment—all the yucky rest of it—so you had to quash it, with manipulation and falsehood, on RFS—likewise, automatically: that’s DEVOTION for you! Pure as the driven YAK MANURE! You had to try to “cover it up,” even if what he said to me was IN FACT, t-r-u-e. But as always happens with cover-ups, it makes the situation worse. It’s a variation on what the Vidyadhara called “negative negativity,” and calls for being CUT THROUGH. Rather than someone mustering up the gumption to suggest to the Sakyong that maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea for him to “bite the golden bullet,” and be a little less aloof—particularly with people working for him, and probably for a pittance—then the seed of this exchange might never have been planted, and now come to fruition. Who knows?
So, that seems to be it: you are trying to manipulate the situation and apparently lie based on your Kasung “point of view” (that is, based on a view that is clearly not the “pointless point of view” of basic sanity) in order to cover up a miniscule indiscretion by one of your cohort. Or did the young man feel compelled (that’s called “peer pressure”) to fib to you about it resulting in you, Craig, having to be the recipient of my wrath—once whomever reported my Comment to you, or you read it on RFS, of your own volition, or whatever?
Either way, it reflects VERY POORLY on the type of VETTING and SURVEILLANCE going on “inside” the Kasung, and which, quite possibly (it has just occurred to me) might be the source of the crypto-surveillance and “heavy vetting” going on “outside” the Kasung, in the community at large, as well: the source, the prototype, and the kind of behavior writers and readers of RFS have been, as I said, Commenting on and reading for many years now. Apparently, I’m “catching up.” (Also, I lived at Thomas Merton’s monastery in Kentucky for 2 years in the early 70’s just prior to meeting the Vidyadhjara. I’m all too familiar with the acres of monkey poop spooned up to him by the censors and canon lawyers of the Catholic Church over many years. But, ironically enough, as they are loosening, opening, we are tightening, closing, beginning to resemble the OLD Gethsemani, all Shambhala Buddhist jabber about “love” and “kindness” to the contrary notwithstanding.)
A good portion of the comments on this site regarding SI and SMR are not dissimilar to the kind of vitriolic conspiracy theories you might find regarding Obama on the Sean Hannity forums or Free Republic. Jim Hartz’s response to Craig Morman’s post is case and point.
Do you, Jim, really believe you are being censored or bureaucratically manipulated by Shambhala Int. via Craig’s post? “VETTING and SURVEILLANCE”. Really?
This site NEEDS more loony’s like Perks. He at least is not bent on some “the world is out to get me” bullshit.
Eye:
another apologist of SI….vitrolic indeed. . . another anonymous dharma brat comment?
My comments about SMR relating to the situation in Tepoztlan and, if not
condoning, turning a blind eye to his students here being taken over by a false guru are absolutely true. He did listen to feedback (Drala) but only from the center directors….the ones who are most involved with this charlatan… his “loyal” students. He did not examine the phenomena for himself. His only suggestion was that publicity should be separate. The group here failed to do even that. Ask RR, if you think I’m lying.
Your comparison to right wing demagogues is childish and silly.
….as far as vetting and surveillance goes. yes, it’s been happening….from what some people involved in SS have told me.
There is fire and we have to take joy in working with that fire,it is the source of creation that we all have ,and when it is dowsed with false loving kindness or wanting to have harmony,you move further from the guts of the primordial world,There is corruption now as in the times of CTR ….from Court Vision..
“Since he does not allow any genuine feedback from the world, if his subordinates express negativity they are charged with being traitors, whereas if they are sympathetic and supportive they are just being conned into his corruption. …. There is a great difference between mimicking the Sakyong and emulating him. To understand this properly the official must begin at the beginning and first understand the notion of meekness. The breeze of delight is first experienced on the basis of being genuine and without any deception. This experience of delight inspires a sense of discipline and also a sense of positive fear. Fear here means being aware of the great responsibility and trust that has been placed in one. When the breeze of delight expands further, one’s simple appreciation of the great vision is felt as a burden–not in a negative sense, but in the sense of a precious burden. The official of the kingdom is holding the Great Eastern Sun in his hand. He should feel the burden of holding it, the necessity of not dropping it, and also the burden of making use of it properly.”
John,
“another apologist of SI….vitrolic indeed. . . another anonymous dharma brat comment? ”
Not a dharma brat. Apologist? Please..might as well call me a “libtard”, or whatever pejorative is fashionable on the “right wing demagogue” sites. You have qualified my observation.
Hell, why not just coin a new term for anyone who doesn’t tow the line for your particular agenda. “Shamclown” or “Sakyong Zombie” might be a good place to start.
This reactionary bullshit
I’ve got a litany of issues with the direction this organization is taking, and many misgivings about the Sakyong and who he has surrounded himself with.
This has, at times, been a great forum for people who have these misgivings to relate with each other and try to develop ways to work with the changes that are occurring in Shambhala so their practice and connection with the dharma as presented by the vidyadhara might find some kind of continuity. Or they might resolve to themselves that these changes are untenable and move on.
The kind of bullshit you spout on this forum is especially disheartening to those of us who would hope that outside of the political distractions there is some profound truth that transcends this nonsense,and that long- time practitioners, such as yourself, would display the fruit of this practice. Instead you, John, make an ass of yourself.
And to the Venerable Mr. Perks- this is genuine kindling.
I kind of resonate with you EyeSwear, except I wish you wouldn’t respond in kind. Aren’t these things all the daughters of Mara?
I’m following this thread by email and I get quite discouraged when I feel the negativity in some of this stuff.
Not quite ready to bail yet because I cherish the nuggets of gold that wash out of this stream, and also there are people here who are kind of legends in my heart – that’s you mister Perks, and lad is fine with me.
But the negativity prompts me to wonder, where is the skillful means for communication? Where is taking life onto the path every moment? Shouldn’t we here in every keystroke be as presently on the path as in every breath?
not looking for a doctrinal discussion to my comment, just my heart pained by negativity. Nothing wrathful or holy about it at all that I can feel.
But carry on, I don’t mean to intrude, and please don’t flame me.
John,
“He did listen to feedback (Drala) but only from the center directors….the ones who are most involved with this charlatan… his “loyal” students.” For the record, I was not a center director at the time. I was a nobody. I wasn’t even loyal, I was disenfranchised and ready to go it on my own. I only became a center director recently. We need to keep our facts clear to avoid miscommunication and misrepresentation.
PART II
To Khenchen Craig Mormon, Rusung SMC,
TO CONCLUDE: NAMING NAMES
I mentioned, above, in connection to my earlier post, the lack of straight forwardness and directness—COWARDICE, really—manifested by 3 people who had power or authority over me, or at least who were officially associated with me, but did nothing on my behalf when asked to intervene concerning those other highly irritating situations, that went on for months, resulting in health problems: my cardiologist recommended calling a “time out,” as far as the pressure involved in participating in the 2009 Teacher Training Program, which I had been accepted into—which might have afforded me little space to breath in, in terms of teaching, had I “successfully” completed it to some degree. So, in terms of “Monarchy and Power within Shambhala,” I’m “ON TOPIC.” This could be regarded, perhaps, as an exhaustive “case study” of sorts, in that regard.
But, really, Khenchen Leslie Fiack, the Denver Rusung and Head of Practice & Education accusing me of some transgression and refusing to tell me what it was, for months on end, resulting in sleepless nights and increasing irritation—this was in collusion with her sidekick, Laurie Wilson, who probably instigated the whole thing in the first place. Obviously, if their concern was Program Participants, they would have told me what my “transgression” was, in no uncertain terms, so I wouldn’t repeat it, wouldn’t they? But that wasn’t it—it was THEM. So you’ll have to ask THEM, Craig, as Rusung, what it was all about—specifically Leslie—: maybe she’d tell YOU? She’s your “opposite number” in Denver, isn’t she, a fellow high ranking Kasung? Who knows? That way you’d KNOW, and would not have to cast aspersions on my claim, wouldn’t you? Or if Leslie continued to be chickenshit and not tell even YOU what my “transgression” was, SPECIFICALLY, at least she could confirm for you the FACT I basically begged her for months (I could show you the string of e-mails) to tell me, but she has continued to refuse to tell me, to this day. I mean, REALLY, is that ASKING TOO MUCH? (Once, though, she issued this snippy little retort like I was some “grunt” in her Shambhala Buddhist Army and she was my Commanding Officer, to basically shut-up about it, case closed, go read The Manual.) And then there was more of THE SAME obfuscation around a weekend Kunga Dawa Directed and he asked the other AD to leave (a first in 40 years of teaching) when she persisted in trying to micro-manage the weekend, and boss Kunga around, and disregard his instructions, all of which were proper—again, it seemed, in collusion with Laurie. Leslie LIED about that one, promising Kunga she’d consult me about what went on, but I knew she wouldn’t—and bet Kunga she wouldn’t—when she PROMISED HIM she would. So, “kindness” and “courage” and “love” running rampant here “in Shambhaler.”
And I mentioned my M.I. at the time, Melissa Robinson (who is also a Center Director), declining to intervene on my behalf with those people in Denver. She was worried about her “reputation,” like she was still in high school. (So, is what is happening today—behind the façade—within “Shambhala Buddhism”—akin to the reproduction of “high school,” in some sense—speaking pejoratively?) And she began to weasel out of—make the claim—that she really WASN’T my M.I., even though she had recently written Letters of Recommendation for me—AS MY M.I. (which she had been for many years while I was in Tennessee looking after my mother)—to Rigden Abhisheka, Scorpion Seal Assembly (I think), and the new Teacher Training Program! And I attended Scorpion Seal #1 last summer, and could have swung attending Scorpion Seal #2 this summer, had the Shotoku School not been closed, where I might have spent the summer (again this year) working—had I been re-hired; plus several other financial possibilities—loans and jobs—all fell through at once: that is, I got the same cold shoulder from about 5 different sangha members (virtually) simultaneously. So, I’m inclined to presume they were in sync with that same “behind-the-scenes,” unspoken, “central source”—whatever.
And then my dear old friend, and M.I., Melissa, did the “he said, she said” maneuver relative to Roland Cohen—who had been doing the VERY SAME THING as Leslie Fiack with me (that’s a FACT): accusing me of something, but refusing to tell me—be specific—about what precisely it was: and he was my mentor in the inaugural Way of Shambhala module in Boulder, no less. But I NEVER d-i-d OR s-a-y ANYTHING inappropriate within that Shambhala Training container. Nothing whatsoever. That’s another FACT, Craig.That’s why Leslie Fiack asked me to be the “continuity AD” for the Sacred Path Program in Denver in the first place, referring to my “gentleness and enthusiasm for the Teachings,” having observed me working in that WOS container for months! Roland was “leader.” Some leader; some mentor. (And Melissa’s “maneuver” purely self-serving: she couldn’t help herself.) But Roland: he’ll make a wonderful Shastri, very good at “talking the talk,” if NOT “walking the walk”: he knows how everything fits together. But he’s a COWARDLY WEASEL like Fiack, masquerading as a “Shambhala Warrior,” and according to the woman we both became acquainted with at the same time (she a Lenz Fellow at NAROPA), Roland is a CONTROL FREAK extraordinaire—real Ricky Lake material. Some of you RFSers may have experienced that side of Roland over the years? Generally, he keeps it well hidden, but it pops out from time to time—quite horrific, actually; if not creepy.
(I once had to endure Roland’s telling me about an erection he got once while giving a meditation interview to a particularly attractive young Kasung [female]. It would have been Icky enough, but it was Extra Icky due to the fact I knew he frequented a porn cite called “Naked Teens.” Check it out. Many of the girls don’t appear to be much older than 12. So, I hope whomever is in charge of the Shastri has Roland do a thorough clean sweep of his computer, just in case something stuck—I mean “video” traces, of course: I wouldn’t want to see his face, one day, on the front page of the Boulder Camera.)
And he’s a stoolie, to boot, a Supreme Rat, worst of all. Last summer, like some lousy FBI Informant (remember those narcs from the 60’s: long hair, but a wig; lots of beads; bell bottoms; a Big Buckle belt; but when you got to their shoes—shiny black cop shoes!), he asked me at the end of Scorpion Seal #1 about whether or not the retreat had taken care of my “social concerns,” which he had some vague idea about. I responded by letter (first copying it into my notebook, knowing he’d go straight to Jim Fladmark with it, who had just displaced Cynthia Kneen [at the time] as Head of Practice & Education in Boulder—she, of course, one of the most capable people in the outfit)—and I knew what I had to say was not going to be “kosher,” for either of them: and I was going to be straight forward and direct about my experience.
While the practice was extraordinarily powerful—the whiteness, after a while, really does induce a kind of auto-“ordinary mind” experience, quite overwhelming, and extraordinarily beautiful. But then there was a string of dismissive cracks, starting at the Teacher’s Academy (which I also attended), about “social justice do-gooders” (Acharya Judith Simmer-Brown), then “placard-waving environmentalists” (Eva Wong chimed in), then “the one thing Lenin was right about” (the Sakyong, recycling the Vidyadhara’s silly truism—which no one who has studied THAT subject with any degree of thoroughness could possibly utter, and think its “clever” or “cute,” much less “accurate,” remotely worth stating: but radiating out from the CENTER, and starting with the acharyas [hopefully NOT Acharya Gaylon Ferguson: he knows better!], the assembled throng duly began to bark, and whack their flippers together in unison. And there was, of course, the blanket pooh-poohing of “protestors” in general. I guess we want to keep the whole world “down on the gompa,” perpetually performing that Old Standard, the “bend over and spread ’em” mudra.”
So, I kept thinking of Thomas Merton and one of the many things that might have grown out his friendship with the Vidyadhara, had Merton lived. I don’t think we would be hearing these snot-nosed characterizations of those “others” (“out there”), these class-based EXCLUSIONARY litanies (and that’s what they are), had Merton’s influence made its impact on the Vidyadhara and had it meshed, seamlessly, with his Shambhala Vision, which I am confident it would have.
But we HAVE BEEN hearing this kind of dismissive crap radiating out of NAROPA and the hierarchy for decades: it has achieved the status of a kind of full-blown New Agey IDEOLOGY (pejoratively speaking), so no wonder we have to listen to endless (unconsciously “antidotey”) jabber about “diversity”! I mean—duh! Again, it’s “our way,” or the ”highway,” the same aggressive imposition of the “inside/outside” boundary, clanking into place. Are we ever going to apply the heart of these teachings to the world “out there,” or even to the world “inside here,” to our community, in that regard—I mean those subtle teachings about boundary that the Vidyadhara taught us? Maybe the Sakyong teaches it, too? I don’t know. I don’t see it functioning, though, in the Everyday Life of our community, that’s for sure.
Here’s Merton from his dying-breath Bangkok Talk, December 10, 1968, recalling his stop-off at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara on his way to Asia:
“At the head of these notes, which I am not necessarily following, there is an allusion to a remark that I heard in California before coming to Asia. I was at a meeting to which many revolutionary university leaders from France, Italy, Germany, the Low Countries had been invited. This meeting took place in Santa Barbara, California, at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and the purpose of it was to give these young people a forum in which to express their views and to state what they were trying to do. In a lull between lectures I was speaking informally with some of these students, and I introduced myself as a monk [Merton later in the Talk defines a monk as someone who “takes up a critical attitude toward the world and its structures”—for “structures,” substitute the ubiquitousness of “dualistic fixation” or “center-periphery polarization”—JH]. One of the French revolutionary student leaders immediately said: ‘We are monks also.’
“This seemed to me to be a very interesting and important statement, and it had all kinds of interesting implications. One of the implications, for me, was a sort of undertone of suggestion that perhaps he was saying: ‘We are the true monks. You are not the true monks; we are the true monks.’ I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT KIND OF CHALLENGE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE DEDICATED IN THIS PARTICULAR WAY.” [Emphasis added.]
So, that’s the punchline, that’s what came to mind, and was at the heart of the letter I penned on my “social views” (in the context of Scorpion Seal Assembly #1) in the letter to my former friend and “mentor,” Roland Cohen, which I handed to him on Departure Day. Perhaps that was enough to get me “benched”? That MIGHT very well be the “heart of the matter.” There were other things, more technical, like a dialogue based on “dialectics” (I placed a little teaser on that in a recent post on RFS) as a way to magnetize the intelligence and infiltrate the Marxist-Leninist mind.
Most Vajrayana Buddhists, Shambhalians, and Shambhala Budddhists probably think most, if not all, “Marxist-Leninists” ARE DEAD, croaking willy-nilly at the same time as the collapse of the Soviet Union—which was the collapse of “Stalinism.” But they aren’t dead. Anyway, know, the way to a Marxist-Leninist’s heart is through his (or her) head, and dialectics—introducing them to Prajaparamita—is the way to go, in my not so humble opinion.
But you have to approach it by suggesting to them Prajnaparamita would be a better “analytical tool”—a sharper “dialectical” system (than “dialectical materialism”)—for analyzing “society,” not the head; not the heart. But by that route, you would eventually reach their heart, inevitably, and you will have learned something about “society” (that largely opaque something or other “out there,” beyond the walls of our so-called “kingdom”) in that process of engagement, so then it would be easy to understand what I’ve been saying—that is, if you WANTED to. Some do; most don’t. “Boo-hoo,” once again.
But it’s just a matter of studying the subject, engaging with the texts that have inspired THEM, those “others” “out there” in TVland, rather than being dismissive of them. It’s a simple matter of mundane prajna elbow grease. In fact, it’s easy to see the Primordial Purity at the basis of Christianity—Merton manifested that. That’s easy. But you can even detect the Primordial Purity at the basis of Marxist-Lenism, if you study that subject, too—with the peerless theories and practices we have been presented! But that’s another story….
On that note, have a nice BASTILLE DAY—especially you, Craig. I enjoyed getting to know you a little bit recently when we got on the subject of Yellow Springs, and Antioch College.
Jim
So…why, Eye, won’t you tell us who you are? My agenda is the truth…which I assume is everyone’s here…including you. I’m just telling the truth….which you say is bullshit….ok….people will sort this out for themselves….so, whatever you call it is just reactionary bullshit. If you can prove me wrong, please do…/go ahead…that would be much more helpful than your idiot ramblings
Drala, I didn’t misrepresent anything as far as you’re concerned. I wasn’t even talking about you. Get your head straight. I was talking about the specific situation here in Mexico…and it was accurate….don’t “misrepresent”
yourself/
Jim Hartz
Get down…I can read you now….I want to incite you to include all the details that may be……..
We need them for our history…whom ever we might think we are, or how we relate to all this. We need every bit that otherwise might be lost. Let God
sort it out, to quote Patton.
“Whereas attack from outside can always be overcome, corruption fom within is the only effective way the Kingdom of Shambhala can be destroyed. As it has been said, ‘The lions corpse will not be eaten by other wild animals; rather it will be consumed by worms from within’”
The Court Vision 1977
Dorje Dradul of Mukpo
Friends and countrymen,
It has already been established by the many reports that corruption on many levels exists within the Kingdom. The continual in-fighting will not achieve anything. Rather, one has to use the established form. Letters of dissent concerning officials must be sent addressed to the Sakyong at the Kalapa Court. In the meantime, everyone is needed to work on forming a national government, that will represent ALL Shambhalians, not just those who belong to the Shambhala International Corporation.
We hope to establish a public forum to present ideas concerning the establishment of such a representative government.
I personally am a strong advocate for the seperation of church and state, and will be asking those of like mind to petition the Sakyong towards this end.
Yours in the Vision of the Great Eastern Sun,
John Perks
We really get our ego wrapped up in the words we write. And then a criticism of the words feels like a personal attack — and aggression wells up.
It might be an interesting experiment only to permit replies to posts that are two months old. Ego leaches out of the words over time (as Sylia Plath says in the poem “Years later I meet them on the road; Words, dry and riderless . . .”). Then it might be possible to have fresh, unbiased thinking about the concepts. If the concepts are worth discussing.
Or you could try the hinayana approach — patience when aggression flares (count to ten). Or the mahayana approach — recognize the klesha and the fact that we are stuck in samsara, and let it break your heart and extend that broken heart to the object of aggression. Or the vajrayana approach, quick, find who is angry. They are all good.
Or we could just either suppress the anger or lash out — but then we would not be Buddhists or Shambhalians and there would not be much point to this discussion or this site.
Dear Jim, I also enjoyed getting to know you a little.
I wanted to say that I didn’t mean to imply that you were lying about your conversation, just that I thought The man in question had actually spoken with the Sakyong previously.(though he certainly could have said otherwise) I was trying to be brief and wound up being unclear, I haven’t figured out this internet comment thing, and often come off in ways I don’t intend.
I will answer your question, and it is no. The Sakyong did not ride his horses.(or really have any contact with them) I was not trying to imply anything about the veracity of your story about Boiulder.
I have had a few bad run ins with people as well, but have had better luck with redress (actually for two bad experiences I am fifty-fifty as far as getting concerns addressed). As far as relating to the people you had a run in with, I don’t really know them and don’t have a channel for finding out anything.
We certainly have problems with addressing potential abuses of power, and have as long as I have been around, but gradually I think things are improving. And while a center Rusung is by no means a high ranking officer, I and do what I can to encourage improving these situations. I am genuinely sorry for the pain you have been caused, and hope you can find some resolution at some point.
As far as my particular comment, I was not trying to cover for anyone. But the implication of what you said were so different from the reality that I had to point it out. I didn’t mean to start a war. My experience of Rinpoche is vastly different. He actually takes a very deep interest in the sangha, to the extent that he actually seemed to know better what was going on with literally hundreds of students than I did. Sometimes these were people I spent a lot of time with. It was really pretty amazing. So, when it seemed that you were implying that he ignores people who serve him closely as if they are some kind of indentured servants I had to speak up. I am sorry for the confusion.
As far as m comment about misrepresenting facts on this site, I would get carpal tunnel trying to address everything I have read here that is simply not true. My favorite example is the four or five times I have read that the sangha has stopped saying protector chants. When people pointed out that it wasn’t true, the same posters just kept repeating it. You have been much more forthright than that, and I appreciate it.
Anyway I was just trying to make a singular point that I felt was important. I acted personally, and not in any official capacity, just something that bugged me. I am sorry if I unintentionally implied that you were lying. I really didn’t mean to. I think I will step out of the conversation now.
Yours,
Craig
P.S. Hello, John Tischer, It ’s been a long time. Here’s hoping you are well. Drop me a line if you want, My info is on the website.
Drala–I like your answer (re: Mark’s post). But feel it is only half the story.
Practice is at the centre of it all, as you say. At the same time we all know there are no guarantees, right? Even if everybody in the sangha were practicing all day long there would be no guarantees. We must have all met newcomers to meditation who seem to have more maturity than some who’ve been in it a long time. I have heard teachers speak of how even the monastery can become a spiritual trap, how it can lead to regression as well as progression.
That’s part of it. The other is the communal aspect, the fact that we can so easily mislead one another within a group. Especially when engaged in a grand enterprise which renders one “special”. And there are all kinds of peer pressure at work in a hierarchy as intricate and large as that of SI.
So that’s why there’s another half of the story which involves creating a system of real checks and balances. Wouldn’t you agree? So there’s the personal side of things–practice in all of its forms. And then there’s an institutional side. I think it’s this latter that needs a deep and thorough overhaul within Shambhala. What do you think? I realize your own experience is different. But don’t we need to try and understand the many people who have been deeply mistreated or damaged?
For instance, I don’t see how anyone could trust the minimal system of redress in place. As James has put it: “Appointed officials are protected in a way that is neither good for them, nor for the people who fall under their influence. In my experience, if you lodge a complaint against a highly placed official, you yourself are seen as the problem, not the official.”
As for the kasung–I honestly feel something has broken down there. I feel the kasung are often more concerned with proper obedience to their superiors and defending SI against often self-created “Enemies” than they are with the practices of wisdom and compassion. (Doesn’t “drala” mean “beyond enemy” anyway? At least that’s what I was told.) Newcomers to Shambhala need to know the extent of their power, the way it is all set up. They need to know what they are getting into, honestly and upfront.
To throw out one suggestion for the document that is being planned: I believe any committee looking into questions of abusive treatment needs to have genuinely independent power. Otherwise it will not attract much trust. If it is made up of acharyas and senior kasung no one bringing forward an issue of redress can feel they will be treated impartially, given the vows of loyalty which link those two main bases of power under the Sakyong. I wonder if the best system might be non-Shambhalians making up such a committee. People who have no stake whatsoever in the politics of SI, who seek no promotion and fear no disapproval or exclusion. Who have fixed terms and cannot be fired, and who are known for their wisdom and compassion. That is just a thought.
James–I see your point about systems of government. I think we were talking slightly at cross-purposes there. Obviously you would not advocate a Soviet-style regime…
As for the term “samaya-like,” I understand your concern. Perhaps it would be better to talk about, as you say, “vajrayana being used for the political purpose of creating group identity”. Really what I was trying to get at was precisely that sense of these distinctions having become confused. Of solemn bonds of loyalty and devotion in a political context taking on qualities they oughtn’t to have. And it’s hard for me to see how this can be avoided in a system that is fundamentally theocratic.
The Pope is said to be “infallible,” but only when speaking on certain issues of faith. It’s certainly not an exact parallel, but I think it would be helpful to draw a firm distinction between the personal advice we receive from a lama regarding our practice, and other kinds of pronouncements or opinions expressed, including political ones.
Jim W.–Well said. Though I also understand the extreme frustration generated when those in power will absolutely not relate to you human-to-human. Worst of all, when they simply will not engage with questions related to their accusations. Spiritual community is as intimate as family. Abusive treatment within it creates similarly deep harm. Feeling humiliated and degraded, being treated with contempt or exclusion–within a sangha this is major trauma that can take many many years to recover from. I can’t see how anything will improve until SI takes all this as seriously as they take anything.
Dear Damcho,
I think you are correct,If SI puts together any Forum it is all over,just more of the same.But there are enough good people in the Shambhala community who are brave enough to form a group,and from that base work with SI to help clean up the complete mess everyone has made of CTR’S vision for enlightened society…but that would require Discipline openmindness and a willingness to work for the greater good for everyone…it may already be to late…I do not know of any other way to help…it makes me very sad…as for blaming people EVERYONE is to blame…thoes who did nothing and thoes who did something…But for the benifit of all we must find a way ahead..you could help…
I also think it might be important to have a person or persons to look into allegations of abuse from within the Shambhala International Corporation. The person who comes immediately to mind is Fleet Maul, who I believe has already done some work in this area. Personally, over the years, I have received many complaints about the goings on within Shambhala International. With many of these I was somewhat surprised, and initially not wanting to get involved. But now there’s such a crescendo of complaints that something must be done.
For The Record, lets review what Samaya means according to The Wkidedia. It seems on target.
__
Samaya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Samaya ” redirects here. For other uses, see Samaya (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Samādhi.
Part of a series on
Buddhism
Portal • Outline
History
Timeline • Councils
Gautama Buddha
Disciples
Later Buddhists
Dharma or Concepts
Four Noble Truths
Emptiness
Dependent Origination
Five Aggregates
Karma • Rebirth
Samsara • Cosmology
Practices
Three Jewels
Precepts • Perfections
Meditation • Wisdom
Noble Eightfold Path
Monasticism • Laity
Nirvāṇa
Four Stages • Arhat
Buddha • Bodhisattva
Saṃsāra
Schools • Canons
Theravāda • Pali
Mahāyāna • Chinese
Vajrayāna • Tibetan
Countries and Regions
Related topics
Comparative studies
Cultural elements
Criticism
The samaya (Sanskrit; Japanese: 三摩耶戒, sanmaya-kai, Tibetan: Tibetan: དམ་ཚིག; Wylie: dam tshig), is a set of vows or precepts given to initiates of an esoteric Vajrayana Buddhist order as part of the abhiṣeka (empowerment or initiation) ceremony that creates a bond between the guru and disciple.
According Keown, et al., Samaya may be defined as:
• A particular system of teaching or doctrines;[1]
• The conduct required of a tantric practitioner, often as a set of vows or commitments;[2][1]
• The realization (abhisamaya) of Buddhahood;[1]
• In Tantric Buddhism, union with the Three Vajras, the body, speech and mind of the Buddha.[1]
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Indo-Tibetan Buddhism
o 1.1 Fourteen root downfalls
o 1.2 Root and Branch
o 1.3 Repairing Damaged Samaya
• 2 Shingon Buddhism
• 3 Notes
• 4 References
[edit] Indo-Tibetan Buddhism
[show]
Part of a series on Tibetan Buddhism
[edit] Fourteen root downfalls
In one of the most widely followed teachings on samaya, Sakya Pandita, a preeminent 12th century Tibetan Buddhism scholar, outlined fourteen primary points of observance to consider in keeping one’s samaya vow “pure.”[2] Other outlines however contain three, twenty-eight, or other denominations of points of observance. These may be further divided into root and branch samayas.[3]
These vows pertain specifically to the anuttarayoga tantra class of practices; they are incurred after one has received an abhiṣeka into that class of practices. The fourteen vows described by Sakya Pandita, as described by Shamar Rinpoche,[4] are transgressed by the following fourteen root downfalls (Wyl. rtsa ltung bcu bzhi):
1. Physically harming or slandering the teacher from whom one received the empowerment – The following conditions must be present for the samaya to be broken: one must be fully aware of one’s actions and intend them, be aware that they will displease the teacher, and fail to regret them. With intention but no follow-through, only a breach is committed. Further, the severity of the breach is considered small, average or great depending on whether or not the student has received empowerment, explanations and pith instructions–if just the former it is small, if the first two it is average, and if all three it is great.
2. Opposing the words of the buddhas – Denigrating Buddhist teachings.
3. Strong negative emotions towards one’s vajra brothers and sisters – Becoming strongly hostile towards men and women who have received empowerments from the same teachers as oneself
4. Abandoning loving kindness and compassion for sentient beings
5. Abandoning the bodhichitta in aspiration or application
6. Criticizing other Buddhist traditions
7. Revealing secrets to those who are unworthy “If one describes the meaning of great bliss as taught in Vajrayana to individuals who do not possess the required educational background, they might misunderstand and abuse these teachings. ”
8. Mistreating one’s body “The human body is the support for dharma practice, the basis upon which realization of the two buddhakayas is attained. With respect to Vajrayana the human body is considered to be an important instrument on the path. Therefore exposing the body to extreme conditions such as whipping, burning or destroying it by suicide, contributes to the breaking of the samaya.”[2]
9. Abandoning emptiness
10. Keeping bad company Associating with samaya corrupters
11. Failing to reflect on emptiness
12. Upsetting those who have faith in the teachings
13. Failing to observe the samaya commitments “During specific occasions the Vajrayana master, who should be a highly qualified teacher, will require that the student carries out certain practices such as secretly eating the 5 types of meat, drinking the 5 kinds of nectar and dancing nakedly. This is requested in order to test whether or not conventional concepts are relinquished. If, due to moral tendencies, one hesitates or refrains from carrying out these rituals, this contributes to the breaking of the samaya.”[2]
14. Denigrating women “Within Vajrayana women are considered to be the embodiment of wisdom. Regarding women as inferior or abusing them as witnessed in certain cultures, contributes to the breaking of the samaya.”[2]
Shamar Rinpoche states, “Breaking one or a number of these 14 points requires purification within a short period of time. The most optimal is to purify this difficulty within one day. From among the various practices offered, an effective and simple method concerns the meditation and recitation of Vajrasattva. This practice involves the flow of nectar throughout the body by which all defilements and broken commitments will be purified. Due to conscious and unconscious reasons one often breaks the samayas. It is therefore recommended to apply this practice at least once or twice a day.”[2]
Jamgon Kongtrul comments on the Lamrim Yeshe Ningpo that samaya is established by taking empowerment and samaya is the manner in which practitioners “preserve the life-force of that empowerment within your being”.[5]
[edit] Root and Branch
Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche defines root samayas as any which if violated would remove all the benefit from practicing. He defines branch samayas as any which if violated would diminish or impair the benefit of practice. He states that the most egregious root samaya to violate is the commitment to one’s guru.[6]
Foregrounding the mindful observance of the mindstream, whilst intimating the binding reciprocity of samaya, Gyatrul (b.1924)[7] in his commentary to Chagmé (Wylie: karma-chags-med, fl. 17th century), rendered into English by Wallace (Chagmé et al., 1998: p.29) states:
If a Lama obstinately refuses to grant instruction to a qualified disciple, this constitutes an infraction of the Lama’s samaya. It is proper for the Lama to show some hesitation by not consenting on the first request in order to arouse and examine the disciple. It is not a ploy to see if the amount of offerings can be increased, but rather provides time to examine the student’s mind-stream.[8]
In the Nyingma lineage, the three root samayas are categorized as body, speech, and mind. Each requires refraining from non-virtue as well as maintaining sacred view. Maintaining sacred view generally means to view all beings and all phenomenon as ‘primordially pure’ (Tib: kadak). The samaya of body is to refrain from non-virtue with respect to body, and also to always offer yourself to your guru and to your vajra sangha. The samaya of speech is to avoid non-virtuous speech, and also to never forget one’s commitment to practicing mantra. The samaya of mind is to refrain from divulging the secrets and to always maintain the view that one’s mind is dharmakaya.[9]
[edit] Repairing Damaged Samaya
According to Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, there are four increasing stages in which one’s samaya may be damaged: “infraction, breach, violation, and complete break”. Once damaged, samaya may be repaired. But if it is left without repair for more than three years, it is not repairable.[10]
Samaya is easily damaged. Patrul Rinpoche said it is very hard to maintain samaya and used a famous metaphor that maintaining samaya is like keeping a mirror or tile clean that is lifted up into a sand storm; dust settles on it as soon as it is clean and we must continuously clean it. To repair samaya, a practitioner may restore mindfulness and awareness of sacred view; confess the violation to another practitioner that holds samaya;[11]; recite the one hundred syllable mantra (Vajrasattva mantra);[10] or use other methods determined by their guru.
[edit] Shingon Buddhism
Japanese
Buddhism
Schools
Hosso • Kegon • Ritsu
Tendai • Shingon
Pure Land • Zen
Nichiren
Founders
Saichō • Kūkai
Hōnen • Shinran
Dōgen • Eisai • Ingen
Nichiren
Sacred Texts
Avatamsaka Sutra
Lotus Sutra
Prajnaparamita
Heart Sutra
Infinite Life Sutra
Mahavairocana Tantra
Vajrasekhara Sutra
Glossary of
Japanese Buddhism
view • talk • edit
In the esoteric lineage of Japanese Shingon Buddhism, the Samaya precedes the Abhiseka initiation ceremony proper. The initiate undertakes four precepts:[12]
1. Never to abandon the True Dharma.
2. Never to negate bodhicitta.
3. Never to withhold or be selective of Buddhist teachings toward others.
4. Never to cause any sentient being any harm.
I have read this essay a couple of times and still find it amorphous. It’s written, presumably, from a Vajrayana point of view. Yet at the same time there’s a tone of town meeting; as though people were discussing monarchy in preparation for a vote.
That seems to be connected to some vague issues that have nearly always been under the rug in Vajradhatu/Shambhala: Are we all lineage-holding disciples of CTR? That was always the party line. But in practice, only a few of his closest students have had that sort of relationship. Most of us have been more like students at an academy. There is a curriculum that everyone follows. There is guidance available from slightly older students. But discipleship? Not really. (Not that I’m complaining. When I finally had a chance to ask the Vidyadhara a personal question, the gist of my question was, “How much do I have to let you into my life?”. Clearly I wasn’t ready or willing to be a disciple.)
That ambiguity and uncertainty is manifest now in these discussions. Who, if anyone, has adequate realization to take on students? How would such people get authorized? Now that CTR is gone, is the Sakyong the leader? Is he our guru, or someone else’s? How does that work? Are we students of a teacher, a lineage, a college, a socio-political project, or a golden-age kingdom? If the teacher is the teachings, then where does the rest of it fit in?
I don’t think these questions are often dealt with in the open. Everyone would like to feel that they’re at the forefront of a grand transplanting of enlightened lineage to the West — that we’ve chosen the Cadillac of paths.
Everyone would like to think they’re a close disciple of CTR, or of the Sakyong. Yet most of us have been merely students at the academy; units on the assembly line of enlightened society. I would suggest that the Sakyong is the new dean of the academy. He’ll make some changes. It’s his school.
If it’s a school then where does kingdom come in? For that matter, how does a group of mainly upper middle class “consumers” undertake monarchy? In a slightly silly way, it seems. Everyone hopes to be a lord or lady, just as everyone hopes to be a senior disciple. There’s something very absurd about the whole idea of discussing the merits of monarchy… putting it to a vote… deciding how much money the king should make. In all the years of hearing pro-monarchy pep talk from highly-educated, property-holding sangha members, never have I heard anyone volunteer to be a peasant. Monarchy is mostly peasants. But when monarchy is presented to upscale capitalists they see a pyramid scheme.
I guess I’m trying to clarify questions for anyone who struggles with these issues: What is a teacher for you? What does it mean to be part of the Shambhala Kingdom? What’s your stake in that? Can you practice Vajrayana and still vote on it? If you distrust the Sakyong then why are you trying to come to terms with his behavior? Do you feel you made a promise to the Vidyadhara? Do you feel that you can’t afford to risk friends and business contacts in the sangha by not taking part? Are you just afraid that you might miss the most authentic boat if you don’t take part?
I think these questions are confusing in part because the whole thing is foreign to the West, but also because contradictions and ambiguities have always been part of “the scene” — and people fear looking too closely at
those most basic presumptions.
PS – I’d just like to add a thank you to everyone taking part here on this website. It’s so difficult to maintain right View in general. I’ve found it very interesting to see so many comments and insights of various kinds in
relation to View.
Joe P your post rings bells for me. A very clear and clean dissection of many of the questions, and where they fit, each in turn, each with a bit of air between it and the other questions.
This kind of air-ventilated framework could become a list of points, each point kept a little separate from the others, and I suspect a greater consensus of clarity would emerge from a lot of the currently merged concepts.
I love your academy example.
Mark Szpakowski made a reference to the 1979 meeting with the Ambassadors which actually took place at RMDC and I was there and some years latter I did an edit of the rough transcript of the talk which unfortunatly got lost somewhere.The talk that CTR gave was a essentially giveing us instructions about how to be leaders. It was poignant, very simple, straight forward and I think relevant to the above disscussions. His instructions/suggestions were very important to me at that time. I would reccomend reading it. I think you can get access to it by contacting the Archives through Gordan Kidd.
Cheers
Dan
Dear all:
I totally apologize for being partly responsible for a rumor that the large photo of the Vidyadhara was removed from the Boulder Shambhala Center. In actual fact, they are doing a heavy duty remodeling and painting at the center, and in the process, it APPEARED to my (overly quick to judge) mind that the photo had been removed permanently. I was upset and talked with friends about it without actually verifying it with any proper authorities.
While in fact, it was only being taken down IMPERMANENTLY. I am so sorry for any angry confusions I may have started. There is a large photo of the Vidyadhara there now, and the one they will use permanently is at the framers being framed.
sincerely,
Ginny Lipson
Dear Joe P.
A very interesting post.
The monarchy thing I am beginning to see it more psychologically in terms maybe of action and maybe being the centre of the action or mandala – so that everyone becomes awake – so that is vajrayana also to me.
Now considering the vote thing in the context of the vajrayana if we were really all awake yeh I suppose there would be some measure of agreement but as we are not and we are all still on the path there has to be interaction and discussion within an enlightened society.
Enlightened society or the glimmerings of it discussed by Fromm, who Trungpa was greatly interested in, is inclusive and diverse and also multi-political and multicultural if you do indeed read the Sane Society and the groups mentioned in that book did work together in the example given of the co-operative in France. So could one conjecture that thats where the Vid was heading with less mega-powerful business barons and a ‘kinder’ form of capitalism?
So the one way approach of SB just doesn’t fit the philosophical aspect of the Fromm book from what I have read. And as far as I have read of Trungpas statements about politics and discussed them with others the monarchy thing is interactive and has a seamless quality reflecting also the meditative disciplines.
So yes I dont think SB is the ‘most authentic’ boat –its one boat amongst many and we have to allow the setting to the sea of the many boats if we are thinking of the enlightened society concept. For when we begin to talk about enlightened society to me we are also talking about community and eventually world hopefully. If we are just talking SB I think we might aswell give up on the whole project at this very moment because SB is only one vision amongst many. I think with the society thing we could make comparisons with the beginning of Christianity – its that big a concept.
So this sadhana and that sadhana to reach some paltry connection with what we think is the big switcheroo is also too limited. Look there is nothing new –stuff is always there and the Times I think will make things surface if we just sit, so yeh karmic ripening otherwise why the Regent and the possible other Regents out there?
For example also just read an article today by Geshe Michael Roach which points to this in the sense that the discipline of yoga which was once very secret in Tibet is now taking off in the west in a most public fashion. Also yes too Tibetan lamas giving teachings on Dzogchen quite openly aswell. So why is this happening – is it karma?
Yes I believe too many people asking why now of SB for it to remain in the same mode-maybe it will morph-maybe ‘others’ will morph-perhaps what is happening with the splits ‘should’ happen almost in the sense of peoples connections with the shambhala teachings flowering. Yes all very interesting and complex.
And yes too JC ‘we’ are moving on and I know our explorations of the shambhala teachings will be just as great as any happening within SI.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Dear Craig,
After checking my secret double-dorje decoder ring computer device and determining you not too long ago had a relationship with Catherine Fordham, and knowing, moreover, that you have a current relationship with Faith, that is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that you are a Basically Good person, so I’m going to let you off with a Warning Ticket this time—returning the favor you once granted me at SMC.
But you should be more careful with language, if that is really what the problem was: let’s let it be that. RFS is actually a potent Vajrayana and Shambhala environment, and someone recently reminded us that with Vajrayana—Buddhist or Shambhalian—precision with language is key, according to the Vidyadhara. And I most assuredly don’t want to cause you, or your friend and colleague and my fleeting acquaintance, any problems with your personal relationships with your teacher, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche.
As to my relationships with the Sakyong, the Regent, and the Vidyadhara, I’m obviously a “loose cannon” (though bolted down with diamond bolts, if you could ring up the Vidyadhara or the Regent right now and ask them, when it comes to the heart of the matter.) I would have liked to repay my debt to them by doing the Scorpion Seal Retreat fully (I’ve always been curious about the reference to “black space” in the 1974 Vajrayana transcripts, and suspect the “dark retreat” has something to do with that, maybe even the notion of “pre Cosmic Mirror?—but that’s just an educated guess.) And I know some people who frequent RFS find that the “dividing line”—Scorpion Seal Retreat or not. As I mentioned to Acharya Adam Lobel when I bumped into him at a recent program in Boulder, there are zealots on the both sides of the “divide.”
Since I’ve returned to Boulder, I’ve felt like that “Man on a Wire,” with the goal—the “other side”—Scorpion Seal Retreat. But it has also been the case of that, of four of my best friends from the “old days,” two of them feel the Sakyong can do no wrong; the other two feel the Sakyong can do no right. My head has been some kind of “Grand Central” trying to negotiate that collision of opposites. And after some wild careening, but keeping my balance, due to the situations I described here in Boulder and Denver, it seems I am now in “free fall.”
But as you may, or may not have noticed, my sword cuts both ways, and I’ve been sometimes as critical of the Vidyadhara (always, and only, within the “temporal” sphere, of politics and economics, never in the “spiritual” sphere, though that sounds like I’m separating the two—which I don’t regard as “two.”) He has the greatest theory of all time on the “spiritual” and “temporal” being identical, “not-two.”
But in practice: regarding the Vietnam War as “mismanaged,” and not a total lie like the Iraq War? Between those two situations alone—if you include in the earlier Gulf War where Saddam Hussein got cleverly lured into crossing the border into Kuwait by the U.S. ambassador, Avril Glaspie, and coached how to do it by that snake, James Baker (with Israel pushing for it from behind), a good 5,000,000 Southeast Asians and Iraqis—people who never did a thing to us—have unnecessarily died, been reduced to moldering cat food (and I trust there are no more idiots out there who still believe Iraq was behind 9/11, though maybe Denver Rusung Leslie Fiack still believes it?). Then, there was general support for Western-style development in the early days (ask Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai Buddhist, winner of the Right Livelihood Award, the real “Nobel Peace Prize,” what it’s like to be on the receiving end of “Western-style development” (which is really a gigantic samsaric mandala, or interlocking series of samsaric mandalas: think, “Dow Jones Samsaric Mandala Averages”). Then there was support for the 1973 Chilean coup, which ushered in the virulent neoliberal form of capitalism trying to dominate the world today, but which DIED—like when the Soviet Union imploded and the Berlin Wall came down, in 2008 (you know, the phenomena referred to as “ECONOMIC TURNDOWN,” like it was a blip in the “business cycle,” the best EUPHEMISM, so far, to be placed over the portal to the entrance of the 21st Century, maybe OUR last, if not the Earth’s. It’s a corpse, and none of our slobbery “mouth-to-mouth” resuscitation and infusions of “pretend blood” (or Obama-isms) is going to bring it back to life: like Medieval Alchemy, it’s DONE, caput, dead, done, over, toast, finished. But of course—because WE haven’t intervened in the discussion of the so-called “global political economic system,” and the so-called “turndown,” and pointed out, in relation to Greenspan’s famous “mea culpa” on the subject—concerning the “paradigmatic structure” that had heretofore informed him about “how the world worked” [for “paradigmatic structure” that determines “how the world world works,” read and substitute the Vidyadhara’s MAGNIFICENT “Development of Ego” chapter of CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITIAL MATERIALISM—that’s ALL you’ll ever need to know about so-called “political economy”: that’s one of the main points I’ve been trying to trumpet in the discussions here, at RFS, and I wish Trungpa Rinpoche devotees could hear it [I’m not sure some are CAPABLE of hearing it]: there’s a slight “limit” to the Vidyadhara’s Vision, probably conditioned by Tibet’s experience at the hands of the Chinese Communists: to imagine Jamgon Kongtrul of Sechen rifle-butted in the chops by some jackass dogmatic overnight Marxist-Leninist twerp would make Gandhi want to strangle the bastard, on the spot] that we can, actually, transcend—if we van SEE IT, first. Then there was the support of the 1973 Chilean coup, an expression of the U.S.’s [well, ruling elite’s] love of capitalism and HATRED for democracy. That historical moment ushered in the most virulent form of capitalism, NEOLIBERALISM. Our friend, Michael Chender, tutored the Vidyadhara on the subject, continued to support the coup at least up until 19994, so please, Michael, if you’re listening, correct me if I’m wrong, let me know if the Vidyadhara DIDN’T “buy that reference point,” or if you have a more nuanced representation of his view on the subject. Then there was the Vidyadhara’s support for the Granada invasion. On that subject, maybe I’ll close with a little poemlet of mine: maybe the weenified elite American mind got got a 1.4 inch out of this one:
POST-VIETNAM SYNDROME: STARTING SMALL
After our success in Grenada
it’s no telling how long
our penis can grow
Isn’t THAT what U.S. Foreign Policy is REALLY all about, in a way, when you peel it all back to the “nub”?
In terms of redress, Craig, thanks for your concern about that: I tried. Now I’m not trying anymore. With people so abjectly cowardly, who think of themselves as “Shambhala Warriors,” it doesn’t appear genuine communication with these people is possible: it doesn’t look good, does it? At some point in that many months-long process, it dawned on. Like a bolt of lightning out of the blue (pancake): this was precisely the predicament of Mr. K in Kafka’s THE TRIAL! Remember, Mr. K had been accused of a crime, but “the authorities” would not tell him what it was, but everyone “behind the scenes” knew. And what was the ultimate result of Mr. K being enmeshed in the gears of that kind of machinic environment? That’s right, he “died like a dog in the street.”
So, whether I “die like a dog in the street,” or I don’t, doesn’t much matter, does it? Just another “boo-hoo,” another “shrimp on the barbie.”
So, to conclude, please relay along a greeting to Faith from me, if you would. Last time at SMC, I passed her jogging on the road, heading toward Red Feather, as I came in. Later, she recognized me from the Chapman Program, stopped, turned, “down town,” and we chatted for a couple minutes around those tables. (She mentioned you were at the Pot Belly, “Poker Night,” and I love poker: clearly I’m not a chess person. I wanted to, but I had to get back to Boulder, alas.) Not only is she like “20 Mule Team Borax” as worker (if you’re old enough to remember the Reagan commercial), when she was performing 5 jobs at once, with tremendous grace, during that major crunch earlier in the year—she was like a female Charley Chaplain in MODERN TIMES, not missing a beat (or if she did, it didn’t show). If more of the “insiders” were ¼ as kind as she is, this mountain of yak shit would not have accumulated. (I think there’s no question but some kind of Good Cop/bad cops routine is going on that is hard to decipher). In any case, Faith’s freckles would make a Japanese flower arrangement break out in a jealous panic: you’re a Lucky Duck.
So, next time you visit the site, and I trust you will, from time to time, remember there are so some very seasoned Vajrayana Buddhist and Shambhlian practioners who frequent the site—very Dzogcheny–so “drive carefully.” You never know if you might bump into some gnarly old “prajna lion” with at least one incisor and a couple of claws still operative, and a “vajra anger” barrel around his neck, a rare mix of Tibetan Snow Lion and St. Bernard: they’re dangerous. They will bite, if provoked.
Best wishes to you, Faith, the horseman, and the Sakyong—and feel free to relay to the Sakyong anything I have said here: I’d love to talk to him, face-to-face, about any of it,
Jim
To John Tischer,
John, let me guess: are those “white shaman” spiritualos who have signed on with that “shaman” in your neck of the woods former NAROPA students, and maybe now Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche students? I hope there is a distinction, “ideologically” speaking, between the two, but fear there isn’t.
Likewise, I wonder if those barky, snippy, nippy (and not overly bright), chihuahuas scampering about the site, nipping at “cynical” heels–and emitting those perfumed ready-made spiritualistic poots–are also former NAROPA students, turned Sakyong students?
Hope you’re well.
Best,
Jim
Further consolidation of the Sakyong’s power just announced.
That’s the headline. Here is the text:
http://shambhala.org/community/files/PDF/Central_Governance.pdf
I still pay dues to my local centre, so I get posts from Shambhala News Service. I am posting this as a public service because I believe that some of you reading RFS do not receive these e-mails.
The big news here is that the Sakyong has abolished the Sakyong’s Council, the only governance body in the mandala that still bore any resemblance to a democratic process. Now that they are gone, the Sakyong has further increased his hold on power, though it is debatable whether the Sakyong’s Council had any real power.
The Shambhala monarchy bears no resemblance to the constitutional monarchies still in existence, for example, in the UK, the Netherlands, Thailand, etc. This is absolute monarchy and needs to be understood as such.
Jim H.:
Well, the wife of the shaman did get a psychology degree from Naropa, but I
consider that a coincidence. The main person here is Lourdes Alvarez, who was the Regent’s doctor for a time. Most of the followers are Mexicans.
Jim Said:
“But you should be more careful with language…precision with language is key,”
Then he said:
“Likewise, I wonder if those barky, snippy, nippy (and not overly bright), chihuahuas scampering about the site, nipping at “cynical” heels–and emitting those perfumed ready-made spiritualistic poots–are also former NAROPA students, turned Sakyong students?”
Nice.
score one for tiny four legged creatures everywhere
I think people at RFS have to choose if they’re really comfortable to open this private discussion up to the public at all. If yes, try to be a little hospitable. If no, that’s fine too of course.
Dear Barbara
Thanks for the lowdown on the new governance system.
Seems to be a concoction of all the usual suspects.
Just a thought what does Mitchell Levy know about international relations –has he been studying politics? Or is this office like the vice-presidents office in the states basically a show position?
The Well-being Department is that whats it called? Not sure about that does one have to brush ones teeth in the ‘right’ way?!
And what is it the decorum department – well perhaps you need that for the Australians!? I am sure the English know how to use their soup spoons (please do tip up bowl at the end to get the dregs of the soup decorously and please also do not put the whole spoon in your mouth-very uncouth!?)
Yes well some of the ‘loonie’ outsiders are thinking of devising a new constitution for shambhala with Mr Perks, I, James Elliot and perhaps Damcho as he has also mentioned ‘the document’ –do you think anyone would be into it in Halifax and Boulder? If so perhaps ‘we’ should start thinking about what we want in such a constitution and forget all the announcements coming from SB-land HQ.
Yes I think ‘we’ could do somewhat better than SBers in separating church and state.
In conclusion yes unfortunately I am still her Majesties subject and not a citizen as you Users but at least our Queen E-Twoer definitely still does know how to use her benign influence over a quarter of humanity in the commonwealth and for the betterment of ‘all’ her subjects.
Well best,
Rita Ashworth
Dear John Tischer:.
You must realize, do you not? – that you are still trying to communicate with people, who are totally immersed in a group delusion –call it a cult- who still believe that the sakyong is a trained and realized being, a lama.
It may be true that there are people staying, out of some twisted loyalty to Chogyam Trungpa. Nevertheless, you are trying to communicate with people who cannot hear you, who do not care what you are saying, they are in a cult, still want to remain, in some way, in this cult, while trying to still dictate terms to a delusional monarch and his minions.
Is this not sad, and pitiful to you?
Sincerely,
Robert
Hi Jim H. and Craig…a hat tip to you both.
What bothers me about what’s happening here with the “Shambhala Buddhists” is not only that they are following a charlatan, and that that’s being ignored by headquarters, but also the double standard of saying that students who want to do SS can only have SMR as a teacher and then allowing this situation to occur….and the shaman’s not even a Buddhist! He’s not even a real shaman!
Why is this being ignored? May be several reasons: 1. Not enough students to bother with here. 2. He doesn’t really understand the situation
(not likely) and…probably the most likely…he wants to avoid controversy,
which seems to be a hallmark of his rule, although he hasn’t been very
successful
sweethearts,it is us’ we the people’ have to step up to the plate,the Kingdom is top heavy ,in order for it to work each person must be a Sakyong in his or her own right, we have to take responsibility for that,subject of shambhala does not mean slave to the monarchy,its a co-emergent condition ,otherwise unless you like S&;M why do it?
Yes, Robert, Thank you.
More or less….what one sees can be rather
subjective sometimes, don’t you think?
I’m trying to write about what’s happening…
the events. Everyone is entitled to their opinion
as to what it means
Hi Joe–I didn’t write from the perspective of any particular Buddhist level of practice. This was intentional. The topics really have nothing to do with Buddhism as such. At least they shouldn’t, since they affect everyone equally within SI–the vajrayana buddhists, the mahayana buddhists, and those who are at one or another Shambhala level and don’t yet (and may never) think of themselves as buddhist at all. All of these–thank (basic) goodness–should be equal and first-class citizens within Shambhala. I was writing from that general point of view. So I suppose “town meeting” isn’t an inappropriate phrase.
These are Shambhala topics however. So when Mark asked me to write a few words about myself I included my Shambhala training info, which seems relevant.
Of course you’re right that historically speaking “monarchy is mostly peasants”. But we know that the vision of Shambhala aims at something far greater than this. So I’m not sure I follow when you say: “There’s something very absurd about the whole idea of discussing the merits of monarchy… putting it to a vote… deciding how much money the king should make.” Were you just pointing out a certain irony to the whole thing, historically speaking?
Surely all political questions, all questions relating to the running of SI as an organization and to the behaviour of officials and teachers and so on, should be very much out in the open–even for those who happen to have taken samaya with the Sakyong. Not only should no one ever have to fear any kind of sanction–these questions should be positively encouraged!
This might not be the place to bring up the topic, but reviewing the Our Future Fund (Shambhala Times, their web site and the links), I’m STILL not quite clear about where the money goes, and for what. It’s fuzzy. The link that goes to the budget of the fund reqiures that you need to be on the shambhala.org list, and you need the password. You don’t know how many times I have had to write to Mark S. or John Gorman for a new password, because usually it worked once, then afterwards, it would be rejected. I finally just threw in the towe, and gave up.
Also I’m not a dues paying member of our local center, mostly now because I’m broke. I do still get the Shambhala News Service though..
If somebody could do us a favor, could he / she who is a subscriber to shambhala.org please copy and paste the Our Future budget on Radio Free Shambhala?
Also, is the Our Future Fund a non for profit? Non for profit organizations can pretty loose, and spend the money how ever they please, which is why I find the Our Future Fund so fuzzy. If you want to send the money to me, I’ll gladly do what I can to bring peace and harmony to our planet to the best of my ability, as long as I’m not held accountable about where my money is going, outside of my having six full time staff members around me.
I’m trying to be humorous here, but you have to admit, the description of what the Fund is for is pretty vague.
Is this how monarchies work?
Rob
Dear Rob
Re monarchies in the UK they get their money from the presiding government.
Of course there were and are historical anomalies for example the Queen at one point did not pay tax. Also all her heirs can still not marry Roman Catholics and ascend the throne though this could be changed by Act of Parliament hopefully in the near future.
Also due to public pressure recently the transport costs of the Monarchy have been cut down – no royal yacht for example and in addition the Queen now travels on public transport to save money.
But she is still a great landowner in the UK as is Prince Charles who holds large tracts of land in Cornwall which he farms.
Of course too there is the ‘legislative’ part of the monarchy the Courts, the Army, the Public Services are all at Her Majesties Pleasure but of course she only signs the Acts and does not have any power in what they do from day to day.
FYI recently Channel 4 did a ream of programmes on the Queen and her reign where various actresses played her in different decades –it was very informative on how a ‘modern’ monarchy and I use that word in moderation is run –so even many lefties thought it was a good series. You can catch it for free on Channel 4 download.
From watching the episode on the Heath era when he was Prime Minister the Queen was portrayed as a person who tried to stand outside political process and just offer advice that is she wanted a peaceful, somewhat ordered society. The relationship with the Labour PM Harold Wilson was favourably portrayed as he seemed to support the monarchy in an era of social change when many people thought it should go.
I would say today that most people in the UK support the monarchy due to good press relations-so yes it’s a soap opera somewhat but a very comfortable soap opera which does offer some tepid ideas on unity.
However as for the monarchy going on forever even in the UK we will have to see – everything is changing –there is a slim possibility that it also might go due to the rise of the concept of citizenship from Europe so though I am legally one of her Majesties subjects still whether the people in the UK will want to be subjects in the future is debateable.
Probably written above may be because people abroad not aware of the ‘powers and responsibilities’ of monarchy in the UK and they may be a bit relevant, ‘only a touch’, in formulating a Shambhalian Constitution. Here in the UK we do not have a written constitution though there has been much debate about having one – however due to increasing legislation and referral to cases to Europe for solution we may at a certain point in the future develop one in consultation with Europe. But that is indeed a great debate and has torn the Tory Party apart as the UK still reserves a lot of hostility due to history to European manoeuvres about political and social union. Indeed the Vidyadhara did recognise this when he sent an Ambassador over to Europe and ‘the UK’ in the 1980s.
So yes invariably Europe is open to too much radical change in English eyes sometimes where political debates go here at a slower pace. Hence I think the European general acceptance of the changes in SI without much further debate.
So yes getting back to a Shambhalian constitution or ‘the document’ as Damcho states it would have to be a mix of ideas perhaps portrayed in the American Constitution where it discussed inalienable rights added with concepts of kingship and queenship through the ages –which you could gain from the established monarchies still in the world. I dont know too much about written constitutions outside of the American one but perhaps others could step in here.
Yes UK very much a historical nutcase of a place politically –we have only just got rid of most of the hereditary Lords in the House of Lords and there was a big hoohah about that!
So yes at this stage in the proceedings yes I do think you do need to be discussing practical shambhalian politics and not let SI seize the initiative re its concepts of enlightened society. People on the edges of SI and out of SI need to be coming up with ideas about what they think enlightened society should be like with an established political framework based on the meditative disciplines done by secular and religious people.
Well best
Rita Ashworth
I heard Her Majesty The Queen wants a raise, and Prince Charles is not popular with the commoners because of how he treated Princess Di.
As far as a Shambhala Constitution goes, we don’t even have a real Kingdom yet. For now, it’s somewhat of a fantasy, unless you fake it til you make it. Even if we did, it would remind me of the Tea Party here in the States, which seems to be attracting a lot of right wing loonies.
Hearing Shambhala International has offered their Governance to Nova Scotia made we wince. We seem to have quite a way to go yet in governing ourselves, particularly when it comes to running on a deficit. .
Dear Rob
Thanks for your feedback re a shambhalian constitution.
Decided to discuss it because it had been floated by Mr Perks, James Elliot, somewhat Damcho and myself.
Maybe it is being floated in an effort to discuss the political/social framework of an enlightened society in an abstract sense –so yes I think it is reasonable to discuss it in these terms much as vajra politics was discussed in the 70s and 80s
If you look at the governance letter that Barbara put up from SI they are thinking somewhat in embryonic terms of a government with talks about various Departments governing Well-being and Decorum so I think it is a little more than the departments in an organisation but rather in terms of a community that is greater in some areas than others.
Of course the stories about NS made me wince too. When I was there myself though the province was a bed of corruption and intrigue made worse by a system of endemic patronage so I think any group with some liberal ideas on how to go forward would have been made welcome by some people there, particularly people on the left who I thought would be SI’s main allies there.
But I dont know in the 1990’s people were just getting their bag together in NS and they were not thinking about politics too much plus of course it was (and maybe still is?) a very middle-class Buddhist community not taken to do too much in the political sense. Also maybe there was an aversion to politics aswell because of the emphasis on change coming from practice which myself I think is only true to a degree.
So yes I think that previous political thinking has changed somewhat mainly because of 9/11, the various environmental crises and the failure of the banking system. So yes even your ordinary bod in the street is discussing politics/religion particularly also in the UK with our diverse multicultural society.
So discussing a constitution as a philosophical/political ideal might prove interesting in what it might throw up from readers and posters on rfs. Surely one can see from Joe P’s post that people are thinking much more about the structures of an enlightened society even though we can not totally grasp the concept of it with a complete meditative aspect.
As to the discussion of the monarchy –yes I thought I would put it up just from my basic knowledge of the GB system as somewhat a piece of ‘factual’ information. I am not putting it there as a structure to emulate or even think favouritively of but as the monarchy motif is coming to the forth in discussions of monarchy and socialism in Marks post and James, Ashs and I’s discussion of the Triad(Monarchy,Democracy,Communism) I think people should read up about it.
So yes I do believe at some point a shambhalian constitution could be discussed much as in a cafe table type atmosphere to throw up ideas, otherwise all the stuff will be coming one way from SI and ‘we’ will be reacting to it much as the ‘ordinary’ peasant did in pre-industrial societies. Thats why I thought Mr Perks suggestion re a shambhalian constitution had some merit to it as did James E.
Well best from this side of the pond.
Rita Ashworth
BTW, there is no Health and Well Being Department. On paper, there is, but in reality, it’s a facade. I learned the hard way back in 2002 – 2003 when I was very physically ill. There was nobody. Nothing. Nada.
It doesn’t exist.
I had to rely on the blessings of a very good doctor, a few friends, and my Dzogchen Root Guru, Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche (who I was calling up on a weekly basis at times when the interferon treatments were making me real depressed and sick).
Even Thrangu Rinpoche did a puja for me.
The health and well being I did get on a virtual level were emails of support from the Buddhist sangha around the world. One stranger even sent me a poster of the Medicine Buddha.
I wish Richard Reoch would tone down his announcements about all the good Shambhala International has done for the world.
Maybe in the future it will happen, but in reality, Shambhala International hasn’t made a dent yet in changing the world. That is why I was questioning the Our Future Fund.
Before we are to change the world, as Santideva said in The Bodhichara Avatara, the biggest and hardest change to make before we do anything else, is to change our minds.
“Historic BPB Left to Rot: will be Razed”:
Bhumi Pali Bhavan, the little house of Trungpa Rinpoche, outside of Karme Choling, will be torn down. It’s foundation has finally rotted away with mold.
Taggie Mukpo lived in that house from 1991 through 2010. He is now in the care of another state worker, in the St. J. area. I hear he is fine. His medications have helped a lot. He is living with another nice, state worker, of course, because the state has total control of his program. Perhaps now the pretense of the 8 person support staff , the “Taggie Team” at Karme Choling “administering” some imaginary program, i.e. the 10,000 dollar extra respite for the state worker ,can finally be debunked. The state worker administers all the monies and the program since he has been in state care for the last 5 years..
This was an historic house build in the 1770’s before Thomas Jefferson was President, that the Sakyong allowed to literally “rot” around his brother, while he built himself million dollar homes. It is so filled with mold that they have to tear it down.
Another historic piece of Trungpa Rinpoche’s world…… soon to be gone.
When will the million dollar fund-raiser for the Sakyong’s new home at this site begin?
Dear Rob
Yes I tend to agree with you re the departments of SI some of them are almost figments of the imagination as is perhaps the Kapala centre in Halifax as I have heard somewhat over the grapevine. Its just Steve Baker doing his blogs and taking pictures and talking.
But I still do believe that rfsers should be talking about politics in the most broadest sense and how we envisage things going forward. You can do that too aswell as relating to your mind in meditation.
I dont and never did want to get hooked into what was it called the pool of samatha and be a Shambhaloid freako spaced out on the newest tempting practice.
I have always been interested in politics and I dont think I will stop doing so merely because I am following a meditative discipline.
In fact I mentioned Steve Baker because I used to hassle him about politics in the late 8os even sending him stuff from the old Vajradhatu Sun where a sociology professor discussed politics and the dharma.
And also at my seminary I was attracted to Karl Springers lectures on vajra politics and his explanation of politics in regard to three-fold logic.
My interest in politics is also a cultural thing as well as Manchester is known as the foundation of many political movements because of the past and its being the worlds first industrial city. So many in this town are very socialistic in their attitudes towards life in general.
As to health and well being in this town hospitals were set up by religious people in the industrial revolution because they had to do things for themselves. Indeed the Quaker movement provided alot of assistance to these social reforms in that time.
So yes I have always seen politics as means to improve the lot of the general population and in the north west that ideal has always been allied to many religious reformers and secular benefactors such as John Owens who provided the funds for Manchester University.
Myself at the moment trying to set up stuff in relation to well-being and the arts in the sense of sponsoring events in town – things are taking off to a degree.
Yeh though I agree some times you get involved with orgs and they do nothing just talk- this happened also at London Dharmadhatu in the late 80s when there was talk about having a Naropa style institute there and I was involved in those initial discussions but it did indeed fizzle out. When I went to NS –it was just stasis mid-nineties so I tended to help people out in the arts and environmental groups in Nova Scotia. My feeling still is about NS that you have to make allies with people in very diverse backgrounds to get anything off the ground and that especially in NS you can not remain isolated from your community or they will think that you are stuck-up(which many of the sangha was back then!) Thats also the northern UK attitude to people aswell you just have to help people out –thats the communalism of the place.
So yeh hope I have explained my position a bit more to you but yeh too I broadly agree with where you are coming from with your comments about SI who may be need to come
down to earth more re discussions about social/political issues.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Hello friends on the Monarchy and Power within Shambhala table,
Rita, thanks for your very interesting, as usual, comments on the monarchy. By the way, did you know that George Washington was offered to create a monarchy here in the US after the revolution…he declined.
Trungpa Rinpoche said he felt that was a big mistake.
I don’t know if it’s possible, but perhaps we could get a new cafe table to talk about the constitution and code of ethics for the Kingdom of Shambhala. I rather liked the title, for the constitution, to be” the Declaration of Interdependency,” as a working title. But others may have other suggestions.
Before we move ahead with this, because of my background in working with the Dorje Dradul of Mukpo on “The Court Vision and Practice” I think it might be good, if we have a form of address for each other… like “Mr Graffis” or “Ms Ashworth” or “Mrs so-and-so” I think you get my drift- so there that there is some respect shown for a person’s ideas even though they might seem somewhat strange. And perhaps at the ending of our statements, we could end with “Thank you for reading” or “I remain yours in the vision of the Great Eastern Sun” somethjing like that to bring some form into our presentations, which is creative, rather like flower arranging.
Before we get into this, I would like to say something about the Shambhala Monarchy. In the days following the death of the Dorje Dradul, and then the death of the Vajra Regent, as you can imagine, there was tremendous sadness and chaos. And if it had not been for the steadfastness of the Sakyong Wangmo and Lady Dianna Mukpo and a handful of ministers, there would be no Shambhala today, even as we know it. Later, SMR was able to take his seat as Sakyong, and to continue the vision of the establishment of a lineage of Sakyongs. So, you could say, that the Shambhala Kingdom is based upon the rock of the monarchy. NOW comes the relationship to the subjects. and this is what has to be explored, worked out and agreed upon. This is very serious work. And NO ONE from the monarchy to the “ordinary” Shambhala subject or the outcast can be dismissed in this process. I rather like the comment made by someone during the American Revolution, sorry for not remembering who, but the comment was “If we dont hang together, we’ll certainly all hang separately.” The pain and trauma of past enmities can be worked with and worked through. Perhaps that’s a job for the Dept of Health and Well Being. But, I say, the monarchy can no longer afford to create these departments without due process and consent of the subjects.
I would like to ask Mr Szpakowski if we could start a new table labeled “The Constitution of Shambhala” Can we do this?
Thank you for reading this, which is just one Shambhala subjects ideas.
Cheers,
John Perks.
PPS I just read Chris’s post concerning the tearing down of Trungpa Rinpoche’s house near Karme Choling. I think this is just another example of decisions made independently by a few, without consulting the many. There will be no enlightened society while this type of action continues. So we’re either going to get serious about this, or it’ll just be a fantasy dream world and we can go ahead and create alot of mess.
JP
The dark side is this so many people are afraid to speak out,because they would lose their positions in SIC and it is their rice bowl so to speak,I ask you what type of enlightened society is that,we have seen it all before,so many times ,even people close to SMR are critical of him in private and many holding jobs in SI do the same thing What kind of loyalty is that,what is needed is not yes people but people who will speak their minds regardless fearlessly real Shambhalaians perhaps worst are thoes who just say the whole system is fucked up I will not have any thing to do with it,this vision is of Shambhala is a gift from CTR…let us be brave enough to move forward …here is a story one evening I came into Rinpoche’s sitting room he had his head in his hands,Sir I asked “is there something the matter?” he answered “I cannot do this all by myself”..fast forward after his death..the Regent said the same thing in the same manner..If we want Shambhala Kingdom then let us Fight for that
Hey, John, don’t forget Prajna burned to the ground in the proximity of April Fool’s Day one year not long ago.
I think we’re all, still, in some kind of training….post most…everything….
training.
Certainly landmarks dissolving in front of our eyes leaves a certain impression.
Maybe now some of Naropa’s visions?
Where is the bit of meat on the wall?
….or you could say, where’s the bliss in all this?
John
Are you saying Prajna at SMC burned down?
Please clarify this.
Maybe you were making a joke. I didn’t hear about this.
Rob
What? Rob, you didn’t hear? It was on the Shambhala as well as Chronicle’s websites
To Mr. Harz re:
“I see the division in the sangha that way, but with the “two camps” (if we can call them that, with many “nuanced” shades of gray, overlapping, of course) inside that globe—that sphere—: sort of Siamese Twins joined at the buttocks, trying to get outside what is essentially a “spiritual” sphere, and enter the raw and rugged “temporal” sphere—of politics and economics (though “economics,” of course, is never mentioned in this string, much less the word “capitalism”—Rigden forbid!)—“out there,” that vexed world of intensified conflict (though that conflict is clearly being replicated, in subtler, sugarcoated fashion, the banner of “kindness” flapping loudly up above, within the rubbery “Geopoliticus” sphere itself—as Barbara Blouin’s investigative reports on sangha finances makes clear).”
As someone similarly afflicted with a propensity to parsing (almost) unbearably long sentences littered with liberal over-indulgencies involving far too many parentheses (though lacking your somewhat discomfiting genius for alternating between shocking pith and shocking banality) (perhaps), let me suggest (along with thanking you for your contributions), that you try, soberly, with relaxation and pleasure, not to mention devotion and joy, to put this theme together into a good, solid paper.
I lack your background – not to mention intelligence – with such things, but feel strongly that our collective inability to articulate matters pertaining to mundane ‘political dynamics’ in the context of the so-called ‘Shambhala Community’ is a significant shortcoming, and hard to tell whether it is symptom or disease.
Your Geopoliticus-Dali image strikes me as an extremely pithy expression of how, despite all the angels of our better natures and intentions, as a community we have somehow developed a self-contained, and containing, bubble. This relates to both the samaya (church) and monarchy (state) issues in this thread. But in any case, I think both you and we would benefit from a clearly thought through piece on this, since it is clearly part of a general view, and pattern of insight, you have developed over many decades.
All best.
A couple of responses… There’s a very short text (literally 1 page) written by Trungpa Rinpoche, called “Political Consciousness”, that essentially describes how to approach the contemplation of politics. It’s in Volume 8 of The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa, page 419.
That page is viewable through Google Books.
There’s a related and similar “Political Treatise” that was part of the required readings for Seminary “Vajra Politics” courses. Sherab Chödzin was present at the composition of “Political Consciousness” (on retreat in 1972), and gave a presentation on it in Boulder a few years ago: there is a DVD of that available. In spite of some quirkinesses he does manage to convey in a powerful way the atmosphere and energy of this approach.
Regarding writing up a constitution for Shambhala (kingdom/state), that’s a great and necessary idea. I’d suggest doing it in the spirit of “Political Consciousness”. I would also expect that such an undertaking take into account world history and best practices, including the very high standard of collaboration, debate, and insight set by the framers of the United States constitution and amendments. I touched on some aspects of this in my article Shambhala From 21st Century here on RFS, including the suggestion that the balance of sacred/secular and state/church(es) needs to be advanced beyond where the US constitution set it. Ie, the sacred needs to enter the very guts of our economics, finances, business – all the forces ravaging our planet and us.
John Perks asked if a “Shambhala Constitution” table could be set up – yes, will do.
- Mark
I think working on a Constitution could be a valuable exercise, Mr. Perks.
My personal hesitation is simply that I am not sure I feel diligent enough to study other constitutions which I feel should be done.
Along those lines, assuming a Cafe Table can be set up here by our (ruthlessly) kind host Mr. Spakowski, it might be good to begin the exercise with a little bit of communal study, whereby people find links to pertinent examples such as the US Constitution, the new Bhutanese constitution, examples of Democratic countries of long-standing such as Switzerland (as well as how such an exemplary democracy hosts the brain behind the Vampire Squid now threatening to take down the entire Western World) and so forth.
In other words, first we need to examine a few templates (including Magna Carta, some basics of Common Law, any readable Confucian or Imperial Japanese type thingies) just to get up to speed.
Then we might be ready to take a stab at something that might well prove quite helpful.
I think this is an extremely worthy suggestion.
PS I just found the Celtic stories book I mentioned a few months ago and will be sending it to you soon.
From the talk Mark linked to–a good reminder at this point in time I think:
“Well, I think even if you had a most enlightened president, things still wouldn’t be different, because he too inherits the political setup and economic traditions of the country. So he also is trapped in a particular chain reaction. You can’t have an ideal situation. I suppose the best approach is a long-term approach; taking it in stages, like hinayana, mahayana, and vajrayana: a slow approach. It is similar to trying to shift gears into some kind of element of sanity that exists in your particular realm, your particular congressman or president, and trying to follow it up. It is not so much what we should be doing this year alone but that we should follow it up all the time, trying to develop some trend of continuity in a different direction, rather than purely believing that there is going to be tremendous good news if the right president is elected. Somehow, that is not going to work. It takes the work of centuries. But I think it is possible; it is up to people to change, to take part and pay attention, if they can do so.”
John T
I knew nothing about the Prajna House burning down. I did see that there was a lightning strike a few years ago that caused a small fire.
Can someone double confirm this thing? Did Prajna really burn down?
Their sewage system problem, I guess I’m being a trouble maker again.
In 1993, the Shambhala Trust put $300,000 into Prajna, as opposed to fixing their sewage system.
Being a semi journalist, I like triple checking my facts before I go on a rant.
No joy in being a whistle blower, and Jon Barbieri will probably be mad at me. He was and is my my MI since 1978 (he is our present SMC Director)..
Nothing wrong for being human.
I didn’t know about Prajna burning down. i REALLY HATE INTERNET, AN AVOID IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THOUGH, i WAS PRETTY WELL TRAINED IN AND ON iNTERNET. (I thought I had turned off the high caps).
pLEASE GIVE ME THE DETAILS. (sorry about the high caps again)..
i Rob
Damchö -
I’m sorry that I wasn’t more clear in my post. There are so many different issues and views involved — it’s hard to address them without a lot of preparatory explanation.
[ The topics really have nothing to do with Buddhism as such... All of these–thank (basic) goodness–should be equal and first-class citizens within Shambhala... I was writing from that general point of view...So I suppose “town meeting” isn’t an inappropriate phrase. ]
Your “general” view assumes a lot of things: That democracy rules in the final analysis. That the main point is to improve the world. [devote our lives... to the creation of greater... awakeness in the world] You seem to be
saying that you support Shambhala vision as an effort to improve the world, and you support some idea of monarchy in connection with that, but that some people are getting carried away with the cause and getting
carried away with elevating the Sakyong. And you seem to assume that the whole thing is open to discussion. I think if you’re going to critique the whole thing it has to be from some sort of defined practice point of view.
Otherwise it’s from some worldly point of view, which is entirely irrelevant.
[“monarchy is mostly peasants”. But we know that the vision of Shambhala aims at something far greater than this.]
Monarchy is monarchy. If you don’t see the absurdity of wealthy, privileged, free people choosing to be ruled by a king then I don’t know what I could do to explain that further. Do you think that Shambhala monarchy is somehow different? It’s monarchy but it isn’t? There is a great deal of vagueness with terms and contexts here. “Monarchy” is a practice metaphor in the sense of “ruling one’s world”. But there is also a very real governmental monarchy involved. The Sakyong is king/emperor. It’s a real structure with real ramifications, not just symbolism for upliftedness. (CTR once wrote, “Democracy is good. Monarchy is better.”) One definition given for a Universal Monarch is someone who’s “raw and open”! And then of course there’s the idealized image of the enlightened monarch, benign ruler. All of those different references to monarchy get conflated, so that “monarchy” begins to mean anything and nothing, allowing people to take the untenable position of favoring “glorious enlightened monarchy in moderation”, without centralization of political
power. You seem to be supporting the ideal of an enlightened monarch, but you want veto power if you don’t like the way he rules.
I’m struck that you’re concerned about corruption in SI but seem to want to view the Sakyong as separate from that — the victim of crazed king-makers elevating him to “vajra guru king”. Where does the idea of guru fit in there? What is Shambhala if not the Sakyong’s mandala? Many people are concerned about money being spent for palaces, about the hiding of finances, about changes in the teachings… Do you really think that stuff can happen independent of the Sakyong, instigated by some sort of corrupt junta? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the doubts voiced. I find the whole SI thing a bit hard to take these days myself. But it’s the Sakyong’s show. He’s the teacher.
The relationship with the teacher is another issue that gets confused and blurred, as I addressed somewhat in my first post. People are encouraged to see the teacher as guru, but many have questioned how they can be a disciple if they never actually have contact. At the same time people are encouraged to take part in the academy model, with the same cookie-cutter path for everyone and no personal guidance. With Shambhala vision people can now also be part of a movement. It all gets rather confusing — another set of conflated ideas. So it’s perhaps not unusual that you’d like to choose to pursue Shambhala vision while leaving the guru stuff aside, but I’m not sure that’s really one of the options on offer.
That’s an interesting issue in relation to the migration of early pilgrims to the Promised Land of Nova Scotia. Were they following their guru CTR, or Shambhala vision, or both? When the Sakyong took over, what did that
mean for people serving CTR? Do some people perhaps think that the Sakyong is just supposed to be the current CEO of Shambhala Kingdom, bound to keep things the way his father started them? There are mixed messages and pre-verbal expectations happening there. But people have to decide for themselves what they’re doing. What if the Sakyong decides to move to Miami? If that would upend your practice then what exactly is it that you’re practicing? There was a time when Boulder was the destination for anyone “serious about the path”. A lot of people were quite taken aback when CTR decided to move to …Halifax?!
Ash,
Of course a review of other constitutions is in order, but I don’t think that is an excuse not to start. That can happen in process, and anyway, I’m confident some already have some knowledge about such things. The assumption that all people must know all the same things, and that we have to develop the same mindset or view before proceeding, is simply a way to short circuit any process.
It is an unattainable requirement that will never be the case, even among people who went through the same schooling.
Were it the case, if we did achieve some kind of common status quo, mindset or view, it would hardly presage an open and productive discussion. We would already know the same things and a dialogue completely loaded with hidden assumptions and agendas could proceed without proper scrutiny. That’s called group think and has been studied well enough to know it is something to be strenuously avoided.
I say dive in and forget elitist assumptions about the stupidity of the masses.
And Ash, samaya is demonstrably and by any definition NOT the church. This kind of statement is precisely how members have been lead to believe that their involvement with serving the logistics of the church is somehow an expression of samaya (or that others who do not serve the institution in the same way are breaking their samaya.). Nonsense. It is not a separation of samaya and the sate that has been discussed as a problem. Samaya, if it is genuine, has not a thing to do with politics.
The only place samaya has meaning is within an individual’s practice. The church/state problem is not about a corruption of an individual’s practice, although that may be the effect. It is about a corruption of the institutions and how power is used, therefore, in detrimental ways. Samaya is NOT an administrative tool.
We should please, please, leave samaya out of open discussions. It is a term totally irrelevant to anyone who has not entered that relationship. And once one has, it is nobody’s business other than that particular student and his vajra master, and in some cases their vajra bothers and sisters within the same practices. It has absolutely nothing to do with group dynamics or politics. Please leave it where it belongs, with people who really know how to work with it.
I’m not at all clear what Mark refers to when he says “the sacred needs to enter the very guts of our economics, finances, business”. It sounds good, but I’m not seeing how the institutions do that. I don’t understand how that is the vision of Shambhala, or how that might be achieved on an institutional level without corrupting either the church or the political process. I’m not saying it can’t (at least not adamantly), I’m saying I don’t understand it. It’s a vague statement that doesn’t include anything about how that can happen.
In the inspiration that ‘political consciousness’ “…is not like the equanimity that results from the power of samadhi and meditation.” (from “The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa” from the link provided by Mark above
Rob,
Prajna did indeed burn down. Last year if I remember correctly. We all went up there to pay respects last summer during the Scorpion Seal Assembly. Very sad. Contrary to any conspiracy theories that may crop up I remember them saying that the possibility of arson had been ruled out because the snow was so high and there were no tracks whatsoever. Read more here: http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/04/13/the-night-prajna-burned-down/
Hi Joe–Thanks for your excellent analysis. I’ll try and address some of your points.
You say: “Your ‘general’ view assumes a lot of things: That democracy rules in the final analysis. That the main point is to improve the world…. You seem to be saying that you support Shambhala vision as an effort to improve the world, and you support some idea of monarchy in connection with that…”
“That general point of view” in the paragraph you quoted simply means: from the standpoint of a person *qua* person within Shambhala. In other words: that which pertains to everyone, whether they have completed the Scorpion Seal retreat or have just finished Level 5 and don’t even consider themselves a buddhist. Very basic issues of relationship, of workability, of wholesomeness, that affect the whole mandala.
No matter what, we are looking at a Shambhala which will be composed of buddhists and non-buddhists of various kinds at any given moment. For this reason, my buddhist practice isn’t relevant. I feel like a Shambhalian Christian observing the sangha ought to have been able to write such an article.
Related to this, you later say: “I think if you’re going to critique the whole thing it has to be from some sort of defined practice point of view. Otherwise it’s from some worldly point of view, which is entirely irrelevant.” Well, I suppose I would say then that the point of view is broadly Shambhalian. That I have been looking at the sangha through the lens of certain core human values which Trungpa Rinpoche often discusses in the context of Shambhala: values such as treating others decently and generously, never rejecting or hiding from others, cultivating a tender heart, cutting through arrogance and spiritual materialism and so on. Of course the way I look at things has been shaped by my buddhist practice; still, I tried to write in a way that a newcomer to Shambhala could hopefully relate to.
I’m not sure I ever said that “the main point is to improve the world”. But we work on ourselves and the world at the same time of course. And Trungpa Rinpoche pleaded with us to do so: “A fantastically large number of people need help. *Please* try to help them, for goodness sake, for heaven and earth. Don’t just collect Oriental wisdoms one after the other. Don’t just sit on an empty zafu… But go out and try to help others, if you can. That is the main point. We have to do something. We’ve *got* to do something. As we read in the newspapers and see on television, the world is deteriorating, one thing after the other, every hour, every minute, and nobody is helping very much.” (from “The Kingdom, the Cocoon, and the Great Eastern Sun”)
(cont.)
As far as “democracy rules”: well, as mentioned in an earlier post, I think I only used the word once in the article, preferring to focus on specific ideas like transparency, balance of powers, making officials accountable for their actions, the reality of collective blind spots, and so on. Democracy, like “freedom,” can mean so many different things that it’s not always very helpful to use. I do think that a great deal of the governance going on within Shambhala should be decided democratically. Whether that necessarily makes for “Democracy” as such could be debated.
In truth I have no well-developed ideas about monarchy–only about the universality of the kleshas, and the fact that they get stronger the less they are checked or worked with, even stronger when hidden by collective purpose, and can become stronger still when there is a big, ambitious agenda in place.
You say: “‘Monarchy’ is a practice metaphor in the sense of ‘ruling one’s world’”. But there is also a very real governmental monarchy involved…. All of those different references to monarchy get conflated, so that ‘monarchy’ begins to mean anything and nothing, allowing people to take the untenable position of favoring ‘glorious enlightened monarchy in moderation,” without centralization of political power. You seem to be supporting the ideal of an enlightened monarch, but you want veto power if you don’t like the way he rules.”
I do think a lot is up for discussion, that’s true. For example, I don’t believe that “centralization of political power” *does* follow on from a monarchical situation–contemporary European monarchies are examples of this obviously. We could imagine an entire spectrum of powers in fact, couldn’t we? From absolute dictatorship through to pure democracy, all of which could accommodate a monarch in some form or other.
“…it’s perhaps not unusual that you’d like to choose to pursue Shambhala vision while leaving the guru stuff aside, but I’m not sure that’s really one of the options on offer.”
This is another key point I think. I fail to see how Shambhala could ever be an “elective monarchy” or “participatory monarchy” (I’m not sure of the precise phrase I heard) if this is *not* one of the options on offer. If everyone is expected ultimately to become samaya-bound to the Sakyong, then indeed there is one enormous bait-and-switch going on, as someone once suggested here. Only a few weeks ago I found myself at a cafe seated next to two people discussing Shambhala. As I was alone I couldn’t avoid hearing chunks of their conversation. One, clearly a long-time Shambhalian, was about to take the other, a Christian in fact, to the centre for the first time. Just before leaving the latter asked: so I’m never obligated to become a Buddhist? To which her friend immediately replied simply: no, that’s not what this is about.
This does still seem to be the position of SI, at least on paper.
Dear Mark S.
Many thanks for the references to politics they will be very useful in our discussion.
Re studying constitutions in the world and just letting fly with thoughts on politics we could do both.
I agree though that it would be useful to study the American constitution just to have some broad knowledge of it so I will look it up.
I do hope also that people could read the Sane Society by Erich Fromm because I think it is an essential text in Trungpa’s knowledge of western ideas on politics and psychology.
Re the guru principle within Shambhala there is not one in the strict Buddhist sense –there is just the idea of the master warrior-is the guru principle even mentioned in the Sacred Path of the Warrior perhaps Joe P. could point out the relevant passages to support his argument if he can find them.
As to the whole thing being the Sakyongs show – no I dont think thats true either as James, Ash and I have demonstrated on our cafe table the whole thing is based on Monarchy, Democracy and Communism which is a Triad so all the elements have to be in place for the thing to work.
And then of course we have the further concept of an enlightened society which we can debate endlessly but to me essentially it has to have universal application for all people whatever religion or secular paths they follow. You just can not limit the ideal of an enlightened society to SB its not logical and can not be inferred from it. So that concept is up for a great deal of debate as is also where the idea of monarchy fits into it.
So yes Trungpa might have indeed said Democracy is good Monarchy is better but what he meant by that is also up for debate aswell because there are many forms of Monarchy as there are many forms of democracy-if you just see these concepts through the present SB frame I think people are doing a disservice to the level of the debate that is going on on rfs –so we have to unpack
all these terms in as precise a way as possible.
Myself though I would say that the ‘monarchy/centre’ principle in meditation persay is a universal concept as far as I have studied it –its in Christianity and possibly in Islam in the sense of fringe and centre, so if centre is a better word to work with than monarchy we could use that as somewhat of a less heated term. So yes meditationally I agree there is a centre to ones highest spiritual experiences that seems to be the way the mind works –why it does that I am not sure. Here you would have to get the input of psychologists on that.
So yes I am still into people somewhat outside of SI and on the edges having some form of relationship with SI in terms of being members of a National Assembly and following certain ethical standards so that people can get access to CTR’s teachings but I still dont see SMR as my main teacher nor do I view his conception of SB as the only means for reaching the shambhala kingdom. That indeed I know can be done by other means but of course it will be hard to codify everything into set practices if we are disallowed access to CTRs teachings. But I think we still should go forward with our discussions – yes we might indeed be forced to do what Dharmaocean has done with their new ngondro and devise ‘new’ ways to go forward with shambhala vision for our various communities.
Well best from this side of the pond and I look foward to the new table being set up re the discussion on a shambhalian constitution.
Rita Ashworth
I
Damcho -
I appreciate your flexibility in discussing all this with people. That’s an interesting point about requirements:
“Just before leaving the latter asked: so I’m never obligated to become a Buddhist? To which her friend immediately replied simply: no, that’s not what this is about.
… This does still seem to be the position of SI, at least on paper.”
I’ve seen those statements come from various teachers. I’ve seen the same come from Zen teachers. I think it’s obviously false. Practice is a deeply radical undertaking. It changes the whole center of gravity of one’s life. And View is a part of that. View itself is deeply radical. It implies that one believes things deliberately, as a tool. That’s heresy to virtually anyone else — whether they be Christians, self-development pop psychologists,
or even compulsively open-minded Unitarians.
I don’t mean to say that I think these teachers are lying. Maybe a reasonable analogy would be an engaged man who wants it made clear that he doesn’t have to give up bowling night after his marriage. Technically he doesn’t have to. But with a job, mortgage and three kids, once the marriage is underway that question will seem to have been asked by another person. It wouldn’t make much sense to discuss it with the pre-marriage man. So all of his married friends just say, “No, of course not. It’ll be great!”.
Then the question becomes, which view of the married man is the “general” point of view — before or after?
Dear All,
Proceeding right along on what the Kingdom of Shambhala might look like-
The Sakyong might have a lineage of his own, called Shambhala Buddhism, where people take samaya vows directly with him.
Of course there would be other Buddhist lineages, Christian lineages, Sufi lineages, and whatever. So this would bring into play, the idea that Shambhala as a state spirituality be related to something like Shinto-ism. with its own practices and priests.
For the original lineage of Trungpa Rinpoche of the Karma Kagyu and Nyingma could be represented by a western teacher, who was recognized by these 2 lineages.
In this fantastic scenerio, Christians, Jews, or Sufis would have no problem embracing a nature based spirituality like Shinto-ism. Certainly this would bring all denominations together, and as the Dalia Lama is found of saying “Harmony in Diversity.” This would have a great affect on the culinary arts in NS and there might be some really interesting alternatives to Solomon Gundy cod tongues and cheeks and fish and chips. Although I’m sure these epicurean delights will always remain.
WOW! I see Mark has set up the new table!! Who will be first to put their heads on the block????
Lots of love,
Seonaidh
PS I vote for Rita!!!
Joe–I like your analogy, but I think that at a certain point it’s not quite exact. It holds open the possibility that the guy might still after all find a way to get out once a week and bowl, for sanity’s sake! It’s not a mutually exclusive situation. His friends are just letting him down gently. But if someone decides to commit themselves to a Vajrayana Buddhist path in particular I would say it’s no longer possible for them to remain a Christian in anything like the usual sense of that term. If his friends are aware that his interests are taking him in that direction, they need to tell him upfront, so that as a Christian–or confirmed secularist–he knows what he might be in for.
Since Shambhala has now been merged into Tibetan Buddhism it does seem to me that newcomers should be made very aware that they would be beginning a path whose culmination is Vajrayana. Instead, I wonder if SI is to some extent trying to have it both ways.
After all, Trungpa Rinpoche *could’ve* brought everyone together one evening in the 70s and said something like: I am here to proclaim a new lineage and school of Tibetan Buddhism. From now on students will have to request Kagyu and Nyingma teachings and I will give them rarely. Instead there will be a new sadhana practice which I alone in the world will be able to transmit. The Karmapa and Khyentse Rinpoche will come down off the shrine in recognition of this new situation. From now on I alone will be represented there along with my son and eventually a grandchild, because the new school and also monarchy will be passed hereditarily down through my family. All will be encouraged, at their own pace, to eventually take the current Sakyong as their Guru, and he will be their full-fledged King as well, having ultimate political control over their lives.
But in the first chapter of “Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior”, I read this: “I have been presenting a series of ‘Shambhala teachings’ that use the image of the Shambhala kingdom to represent the ideal of secular enlightenment, that is, the possibility of uplifting our personal existence and that of others without the help of any religious outlook. For although the Shambhala tradition is founded on the sanity and gentleness of the Buddhist tradition, at the same time, it has its own independent basis, which is directly cultivating who and what we are as human beings. With the great problems now facing human society, it seems increasingly important to find simple and nonsectarian ways to work with ourselves and to share our understanding with others.”
Joe P, it seems to me you are in cognitive squirming about the Sakyong’s requiring people to take buddhist refuge vows as a pre-requisite for fully following the Shambhala path. When asked what it means to take refuge (in buddha, dharma, sangha), CTR said that it means that when you go to a hospital and you’re asked what your religion is, you say buddhist. It’s not at all like the bowling analogy.
Questions:
Do you have to be buddhist to follow the Shambhala path fully?
Do you have to be buddhist to be a first-class citizen or subject of Shambhala?
Do you have to be buddhist to hold office in Shambhala?
Do you have to be buddhist to be Sakyong of Shambhala?
I would suggest that answering “yes” to any of these questions shows some lack of confidence in the basic goodness of others, in “directly cultivating who and what we are as human beings” and in finding “simple and nonsectarian ways to work with ourselves and to share our understanding with others.”
If you answer no to all of them, then if you’re a buddhist your challenge is to deepen your buddhist practice so you realize buddhadharma without credentials, and your shambhala practice so you realize shambhala-vision without credentials, with the inseparability of those being the seat from which enlightened activity for others arises.
Whether you’re a buddhist practitioner or a practitioner of another spiritual path, in either case that practice and shambhala could, and should, be inseparable, like the two wings of a bird.
“Shambhala vision applies to people of any faith, not just people who believe in Buddhism… the Shambhala vision does not distinguish a Buddhist from a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu. That’s why we call it the Shambhala _kingdom_. A kingdom should have lots of spiritual disciplines in it. That’s why we are here.” (Great Eastern Sun, the Wisdom of Shambhala, p 133)
Thank you so much, Damcho and Mark, for the quotes from “Shambhala: the Sacred Path of the Warrior. ” They hit the nail on the head in terms of everything I was connected to in those teachings. I taught people from that curriculum for years, and dammit–it worked. It functioned, it helped people, people were able to transform themeselves into their own enlightened aspects. I saw it. And yet it is fading away, year by year, into this strange charicature of itself. I wish it were possible to take quotes like those and charge the current occupants of false advertising. Either take that book off the market or at least try to live up to it.
And let us not forget one of our Kagyu forefathers Naropa, who was one of the gate keepers of Nalanda University.
To enter as a student of Nalanda University in India it was not based on your religion, but how well (smart) you were with your particular discipline.
Damcho
Your last contribution was excellent. No ass kissing here.
Buddhism has spread organically from indigenous cultures to cultures around Asia by adapting to the society. It took centuries some times. As John (Major) Perks noted, Buddhism and Shintoism somewhat merged. If you marry, you have a Shinto priest. When you die, you have a Buddhist priest.
If you visit India, you may see Buddhist stutes that are incredibly Western looking. That was because of Alexander The Great conquered India at some point, and Greek art was introduced to India.
If you look at Japanese statues of the Buddha, he looked amazingly like a Japanese person (slant eyes and everything).
Indonesia used to have Vajrayana Buddhism. Now it’s mostly Islamic.
Impermanence is my guess.
Damchö, Mark -
I don’t know what cognitive squirming means. And I think you may have misunderstood the bowling analogy. But I’m beginning to see, in any case, that I’m trying to have the wrong conversation here. I see from both of your posts, and from Rita’s, that you all view it as reasonable to be a Shambhalian without necessary having a teacher. And that you view Shambhala vision as a potential container for contemplative paths. I actually had no idea that there were Shambhalians who saw things that way. As a Buddhist who has never connected very well with Shambhala style, I’m afraid I’m out of touch with things. Given your views, I see that it makes sense for you to be questioning the direction of SI in the way that you are. I also see that you and I share no basis for discussion. So I think that I should withdraw from this thread. Thank you for your hospitality.
One parting note: I don’t know whether this will be of interest, but Robin Kornman has said quite a bit about the roots of Shambhala and its purpose in the West, in his “Creating Enlightened Society” program and his piece in “Recalling Chogyam Trungpa”. Very interesting stuff. (The CES program is 5 talks. The first is available on this site as text. The videos of all talks are available via Google. The .mp4 downloads can be converted to DVD ISOs with the free, open source “DVD Flick”, recorded to DVD, then played on any TV.)
Dear Joe P.”as a Buddhist who never connected very well with Shambhala style” now thats interesting,if you have time would you explain what is Shambhala style? these things are important to know about,
it’s not a trick question,as a Shambhala person I am interested in other concepts of Shambhala,other than the one I have if indeed I do have one,I always seem on the edge of exploration into What is Shambhala?,perhaps one could ask what is not Shambhala,
What do you think?
Thank you ,
John Perks
John,
This could get into a big can of worms, but I’ll bite….
[what is Shambhala style?]
…
[perhaps one could ask what is not Shambhala]
You seem to be a 4th person viewing Shambhala as a container for spiritual paths. For me spiritual path is about the very nature of experience. By definition it informs everything else and nothing could be more fundamental. What I’m hearing here is people who are angry at being herded into a path — people who apparently thought they were doing something more fundamental than a path, without the standard Tibetan Buddhist requirements like needing to have a teacher. That seems like a misunderstanding to me, but my assessment is based on my understanding of Buddhist View. If you hold a View (Shambhala vision?) that you regard as superseding Buddhist View, then we don’t seem to have any common ground to discuss from.
As for my connection with Shambhala style: I always viewed Shambhala as a version of Buddhist practice, formulated for wider appeal and current times. Kornman describes it as householder Dzogchen, modeled after the culture of Eastern Tibet. That’s an interesting characterization that makes sense to me. I never saw Shambhala as an inclusive vision. I saw it as optional practice. But I’m intellectual/analytical by nature and the Shambhala teachings simply don’t have a handle for that type of mind, while the Buddhist teachings do. So after doing 3 levels of ST and finding it difficult to connect with, I left it aside.
It’s interesting that this site is attracting two distinct groups: Buddhists who see their heritage being dumped in favor of SB, and Shambhalians who see their heritage being co-opted by Buddhism. Personally I reached a point many years ago where I felt I couldn’t continue to be fully involved in the sangha. My reason then was similar. I saw a strictly defined path of Buddhism/Shambhala, with interlocking prerequisites. There was just a single progression of practices that could be done. That’s the academy model I was referring to. I found that I was getting interested in the approaches of stressing formless practice — Mahamudra/Ati/Dzogchen — but that just simply wasn’t an option. No way forward. I could go to programs with Sogyal Rinpoche or take teachings from visiting lamas at Namkhai Norbhu’s center, but I usually didn’t qualify to attend the same teachings in my own sangha.
Hey, Joe. Greetings. In between waiting for various coats of stucco to set on my newly made brick oven (for bread baking in rural Cape Breton), I find contemplating this sort of thing a welcome sort of lighter load, so I’ll take a crack at answering.
Re: “For me spiritual path is about the very nature of experience. By definition it informs everything else and nothing could be more fundamental……
I always viewed Shambhala as a version of Buddhist practice, formulated for wider appeal and current times. Kornman describes it as householder Dzogchen, modeled after the culture of Eastern Tibet. That’s an interesting characterization that makes sense to me. I never saw Shambhala as an inclusive vision. I saw it as optional practice.”
First, we could backtrack a little. Spiritual path is about ‘the very nature of experience.’ Fine. There are many different ones, all of which could be of equal quality and depth, so to speak. But they might not have the same goals. For example: the path of Amerindian shamans which has an old lineage but not the same goal as the Buddhadharma. Similarly, the principal goal of the Buddhadharma is to transcend samsaric rebirth, in both gross and subtle sense. Is this the goal of the Shambhala Path? I don’t think so.
What is that goal? Just being simple about it on a blog, seems to me it involves tapping into the fundamental nature of experience to completely engage with all energies therein such that a basically good, and therefore primordially sacred, ‘warrior’ or ‘noble’ manifestation emerges within human society, which is the over-riding context of this path.
That came out a bit pompous and clunky. But the point is that it is not a path of individual liberation, nor a path away from samsara per se (even though both might well emerge experientially), rather a path of engagement in human society from a base of bedrock, primordial discipline and sanity. It’s a ‘this world at this time and this place’ path, in other words.
If one eliminates place via overly centralised – or as you explain Academy-like spiritual hierarchies and progressions – you have a religion not a culture or country. Something like that.
Also, although individual development is a key aspect (witness the new dark retreats for example), generally speaking it is as much a group as an individual path. Or rather than group, which can imply a small sub-culture, we could say society. It is a societal path rather than an individual spiritual journey alone.
Excerpt from The “Day of Mandala Offering“ a now annual event, in SI, a fundraiser that is not a fundraiser:
“As the Sakyong pointed out, heartfelt offerings can help accumulate the tremendous merit needed to attain enlightenment. Generosity, he said, opens our hearts and minds—making the entire path possible. Beyond that, if we want to build more centers and raise money to sponsor projects, we need to give and give delightfully. Only then are we open to receive blessings“.
Fortunately, at the recent 2009 Conference for Translators , Dzongsar Rinpoche, that maverick amongst lamas, once again is tirelessly trying to help us Westerners understand the difference between a culture or container, and the true dharma. (See link)
As he has so boldly written in East West talk five years ago:
“For years, Tibetan lamas have won the hearts and minds of many in the west, mainly because of the sophisticated wisdom of the Buddha that they embody, but also because many of them appear gentle and easily amused. The fact that they are an endangered species helps too, and there is always a handful of genuine masters that can always be put up as window dressing. But the initial infatuation is coming to an end; moreover, some westerners are beginning to realize that there is a big difference between Buddhism and Tibetan culture.
As societal attitudes change, aided by modern media, the scrutiny of public figures and scepticism towards so-called spiritual paths has intensified. For the first time, Tibetans in general and lamas in particular have been forced to savour the bittersweet taste of free society. For some, it’s becoming a painful realization that popularity and success come at a price. Also, reluctantly, Tibetans are accepting that attempts to impose what they see as a superior way of living are not working. But like many in the East, Tibetans still clutch firmly to all of their culture as the ultimate answer to everything, including some of it that they could beneficially do without. As if that were not enough, many have insisted that their western followers adopt the whole cultural package along with Buddhism. It is this hotchpotch of Tibetan culture and Buddhism that many are having a hard time digesting”
cont….
Upon hearing that the Ponlop Rinpoche wanted to translate the Kagyur (sutrayana texts ) into English, he gave this address to audience: here is an excerpt from that address:
“As very few Tibetans read or study the Kangyur these days, there are those who wonder if it’s really worth the effort—especially taking into consideration the enormous amount of resources such a translation project would involve. Amongst Tibetans, as you know, the Kangyur is widely used as a merit-making object: monasteries will certainly buy a copy, but will then simply shelve it. If offerings are made the text will be read out loud, but little effort will be invested in understanding the meaning of each word”. ….
“As Buddhadharma is taught more widely in the modern world, where attention to detail and authenticity are so valued, people are going to want to know what Buddha, himself, actually said. The trend today is for teachers, priests, scholars, politicians and fanatics to obscure the original meaning of important texts by interpreting them in a way that supports their own personal agendas—it’s happening in all religions, and sadly, Buddhism is no exception. When problems created by such interpretations arise in the future, our beacon of truth can only be the Words of the Buddha.
If you were to ask someone naïve, like myself, what I think should be translated? If I were given the chance to set our priorities, what would be the top of my list? Without doubt I would have to say that the teachings of the Buddha—the Sutras—should take precedence over the Shastras. Then, as the Shastras written by Indian authors are more authoritative and carry more weight, I would say that they should be translated before those of the Tibetan authors.
The Tibetans have developed the habit of preserving and propagating the work of Tibetan lamas, and seem to have forgotten about the Sutras and Shastras. Painful as it is for me to admit, Tibetans often promote the teachings of their own teachers far more than those of the Buddha—and I have no trouble understanding why Tibetan Buddhism is sometimes described as “Lamaism”. Today, as a result, our vision is quite narrow, and instead of dedicating our limited resources to translating the Words of the Buddha, we pour it into translating the teachings of individual lineage gurus, biographies, their long-life prayers, and prayers for the propagation of the teachings of individual schools“.
Going back to the original texts of the Sutrayana , and “what the Buddha really said” (not what lamas interpret what he said to preserve their own agendas such as using “merit” and “future lives” and the meaning of “dana” to preserving their own “langdrangs)” will help Westerners appreciate what the paramitas are really about.
A lot is happening “outside” the narrow world of Shambhala Inc., to bring the authentic dharma to the West to truly help seekers of truth and wisdom.
Thanks, Chris, for all this. It’s great that these teachers, and others of their generation in their prime, really seem to be coming to some understanding
of how Buddha’s teachings can be transmitted to the West in a way that they
can be most closely assimilated.
Well, there may be many ways….but, in my book, you can’t beat authenticity.
Chris’s quoting Dzonsar Rinpoche on Tibetan Buddhism, as well as the tibean culture was interesting, if true.
When I was 18, I had read “Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism three times..
I also read a book called SPIRITUAL SUPERMARKET” probably published in 1975. The author of the book analized everybody who was on the New Age Teaching trip, including Ram Das, and I think Yogi Bagjan (sic).
There was a quote in the book from one of Chogyam Trungpa’s Rinpoche students saying he was a man who lost a Kingdom in Tibet, and is in search of a new Kingdom.
It was cynical, but that didn’t stop me from moving to Boulder to be his student.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche has said that a Westerner trying to transplant Asian cultures an dressing up like one would be like inviting madness (eg the Hari Krishna movement, which ironically, Allen Ginsberg help to start…please remind about that. Allen told me a funny story about that). I do want to tell about it later.
I hope RFS does not encourage people to get angry. Angry is good up to a point. Otherwise, it becomes self destructive. I should know. It has an had eating me alive. That doesn’t mean to be passive. It’s tricky.
Maybe we should all re read The 37 Precepts Of A Bodhisattva.
Some one showed his copy to me today.
He’s not even a Buddhist.
Standing myself correct, I should have said VCTR said trying to transplant a different culture into another culture could be an expression of insanity.
Maybe somebody out there has read the same thing, and quote it verbatim.
When I read sometime back in Bill Karelise’s article the current Sakyong wanted a 6 – 7 million dollar palace built at SMC for future Sakyongs, I couldn’t help (along with others) wondering if he had a “let them eat cake” mentality.
There was good reasons why both the French and Russian Revolution happened. People were poor why they were living it up.
I was watching the original version of Les Miserable last week on the Turner Classic Movie Chanel. They played all three parts of the movie back to back with no commercials.
To watch all three parts took abot 480 minutes, It was made in 1934 I think, and all in French (with sub titles) Excellent acting. .
I wonder if the the Sakyong and the Sakyang Wngmo are aware that he has Subjects that want to be loyal to him, but feel like they have been brushed off.
What if the Sakyong’s child is a girl. What if the future Sakyongs have no children?
It is true that Gearge Washington was offered a new monarchy. I read this in the Smithsonian in the 80s. He refused it, but definetly wanted to keep certain aspects of the Presidency kept in a Monarchical way.
Ash,
Thank you for your explanation. It’s fairly clear and seems to be in accord with what I gathered people were thinking. It’s interesting to explore this “meta-context” that I don’t often think about. Some of your terms are undefined…
basically good, and therefore primordially sacred, ‘warrior’ or ‘noble’
…But I pretty much get your point. It makes me realize that I’m assuming something: At about 16 y.o. I read Joseph Campbell’s “Hero with a Thousand Faces”. The basic premise is that something like a “wisdom path” pervades human culture. Many forms but one path, because there are many cultures but one basic human experience. I’m not sure I’d subscribe to something as neatly rendered as Ken Wilbur’s pyramidic model of spiritual paths. (“They all agree more as they go higher.”) But I do have a sense of what I mean by path. I see only one, essentially. To my mind a societal path can never be anything more than a wish for company. A society cannot really do, or choose to do, anything together.
Re: “To my mind a societal path can never be anything more than a wish for company. A society cannot really do, or choose to do, anything together.”
Provocative comment.
Flip: simply put, is it easier to lead a good life in a good society and harder in a bad society? I suspect so. Society is the cultural and infrastructural atmosphere within which any individual or communal spiritual path exists and surely has an important effect.
Not only that, but I suspect that just as mass hysteria can easily be engendered in large crowds, so also does group practice enhance individual practice. The daoists have special terms for this type of chi (I think it’s called dzong chi, or ’societal chi’ or ‘cultural chi’ ). Such energies and influences are observable even if not easily quantifiable.
My take on Shambhala is that its main emphasis as a path is that it is one which works as much with paying attention to societal/group/self-other chi/energy as it does on internal spiritual development per se, although of course that comes along with the entire endeavor.
For example, the notion of fearless one, or warrior, or noble etc. is one that makes sense only in the context of self-and-other relationship. It is, in fact, a societal term fundamentally.
Also in very simple, literal terms, Shambhala as a term is associated with ‘enlightened society’, ‘enlightened kingdom’, warriorship (in society), development of the four dignities (also societal in application and context) and so forth.
So the path of Shambhala has to do with working on the cultural/societal container (the feminine lineage) whereas the spiritual paths in daoism, Buddhadharma, Tantra and so forth are more concerned with transcending individual fixations within an overall outer and inner samsaric mandala.
Chris: Thanks for the Dzongsar Khyentse quotation and link. I love his fearlessness.
Rob: Thanks for the movie recommendation–I looked it up on imdb and the reviews are fairly ecstatic. And please do tell the AG story sometime.
Ash: Beautifully put.
I could tell you several funny Allen Gingsberg stories, but I’ll start with this one. He flew in the founder of the Hai Krishna movement, who’s name was Phrabapad (I think). Phrabhapad would go to Central Park daily, play his harmonium, and chant “krishna, krishna, Hari Krishna…”. That is where he started his Hari Krishna his following .
Gingsberg told me that when Phrabapad (if I spelled his name wrong, please correct me) knew when he was going to die, he asked Ginsberg to be his succesor of the Hari Krishna movement.
Gingsberg told me in effect, Prababhapad was not aware that he was a dope smoking Buddhist wine drinking homosexual, and was somewhat taken aback at his being so naive. Could you have imagined Allen Ginsberg being the leader of the Hari Krishnas?
The other Gingsberg story was concerning a private benefit party he was doing to raise money for HH 16th Karmapa’s visit to Chicago in 1976.
Please remind me to tell it. .
After the, new “Annual Mandala Offering”, a fundraiser that was “not a fundraiser”, we now have the SIT-A-THON. (See below)
I am ashamed to have been part of any of this since CTR died, I am ashamed to be part of a group of CTR students that allowed this mandala to DEVOLVE to this “SHIT-THON bullshit, another scheme to make money for HIM, where people are getting “purple and yellow headbands” and wear numbers on their backs, while sitting in the shrineroom. I am ashamed to have any associations , even in the past, with the Sakyong whose ,students come up with this idiocy for suffering students , in the name of the dharma , and upon the shoulders of our lama Chogyam Trungpa, to raise money for “HIS ROYAL NONSENSE”(if you donate now, your money can go to OUR FUTURE and the Sakyong’s DEEP RETREAT, even though he is not on retreat anymore) MEANING HIS LADRANG And you are on here discussing some lame, imaginary Constitution, “moving on” as you say, admonishing others not complain, instead of storming the gates and protesting, publicly, this monkey show , that is operating on the back of CTR and us, yes US, who gave up our adults lives, our careers, worked as volunteers for YEARS, to propagate and build what these sophomoric , distracted tyros have torn down. I am also ashamed that I participated and supported rampant Lamaism that also has enabled this kind of MONKEY SHOW to continue, because theySAY nothing publicly ( but say plenty behind the scenes) so they could also get a piece of the pie.
The whole thing deserves only mockery and ridicule.
Yours in the GREAT Eastern Sun that has Set
Robert Chandler.
link to Shambhala Sit-a-thon. http://www.shambhala.org/community/sns/index.php?id=554
Ash -
[
Re: “To my mind a societal path can never be anything more than a wish for company. A society cannot really do, or choose to do, anything together.”
Provocative comment.
So the path of Shambhala has to do with working on the cultural/societal container (the feminine lineage) whereas the spiritual paths in daoism, Buddhadharma, Tantra and so forth are more concerned with transcending individual fixations within an overall outer and inner samsaric mandala.
]
Provocative comment, indeed. You’re defining Taoism, Buddhism… all non-Shambhala paths… as navel gazing. “transcending individual fixations within an overall outer and inner samsaric mandala” actually sounds rather Freudian: Trying to do a bit of housekeeping in a psyche doomed to neurosis, within a solid world characterized by depravity. You’re directly refuting Buddhist View in regarding improvement of the human condition as more important — more real — than practicing the path to enlightenment. The Buddhist View regards the human condition as an expression of confused mind. Plato’s shadows on the cave wall. You repeatedly insert disclaimers, saying that contemplative practices are part of Shambhala, Shambhala can make the world more accomodating to contemplative practices, etc. But that’s essentially just diplomacy. Distilled down to your basic points, you’re articulating the position of a New Age Millenialist of the scientific materialist persuasion — someone who ascribes the most fundamental reality to the apparent world, but who also posits the possibility, and value, of qualitatively improving that world by ushering in an epic Golden Age. (Associating that view with “feminine lineage” — fundamental space? — is a false valorization with no context.)
Frankly this all makes me see the Sakyong’s actions in a more sensible light. I don’t want to trivialize the idea of improving people’s lives in a worldly context, but with Shambhalians –who are following a system derived from Tibetan Buddhism — refuting the most basic premises of Buddhist View, the new requirement to take Refuge might be seen as remedial treatment.
Great post Joe!
What is the difference between your :
“The Buddhist View regards the human condition as an expression of confused mind. ”
and my:
“transcending individual fixations within an overall outer and inner samsaric mandala” ?
In terms of Buddhist view, an advanced Mahayanist will still be working on transforming societal confusions and fixations which exist principally on the individual inner level – in terms of where they can best be (mutually) perceived – even if he or she is ‘working’ with the inner mandalas of others. Ultimately, though, it is about working with confusion, so I am not sure where you think there is such difference in the two views. I reject the use of the perjorative propaganda term ‘navel gazing’. It is irrelevant here and also not what I meant at all in terms of the value of developing two-fold egolessness for example.
The point about the feminine lineage, which seems to have got your goat and gander!, is that the main thrust of the Shambhala path is to provide a societal container for virtue-engendering life styles. This is not in conflict with Buddhist View, but it is a slightly different thrust, or path. And also one which can be practiced by non-Buddhists.
I viscerally recoil from being labelled as someone “articulating the position of a New Age Millenialist of the scientific materialist persuasion” but am going to think hard as to whether or not you are correct. If so, will do some deeper thinking because I agree with you that would be a terrible thing!
Sorry, but I simply don’t understand your last paragraph and hope you can clarify, both in terms of the Sakyong, and also the general remarks which followed, namely:
“Frankly this all makes me see the Sakyong’s actions in a more sensible light. I don’t want to trivialize the idea of improving people’s lives in a worldly context, but with Shambhalians –who are following a system derived from Tibetan Buddhism — refuting the most basic premises of Buddhist View, the new requirement to take Refuge might be seen as remedial treatment.”
I agree with the last sentence in terms of our current sangha; but then also feel that this implies we are shifting the thrust of the Shambhala teachings into a mainly buddhist sangha generating vehicle in which case its underlying premise is being changed significantly and this is worthy of consideration and debate.
Ash -
[
What is the difference between your :
“The Buddhist View regards the human condition as an expression of confused mind. ”
and my:
“transcending individual fixations within an overall outer and inner samsaric mandala” ?
]
I think I explained that in the next sentence. To put it another way, Plato talks about being involved with shadows dancing on the cave wall. The Buddhist path is about getting out of the cave and into the light. You’re redefining it. In your version Buddhist path is about getting oneself a better seat to watch shadows. From there you posit Shambhala path as superior because, in your version, Shambhala is about getting better seats in the cave for all of us.
[Sorry, but I simply don’t understand your last paragraph and hope you can clarify, both in terms of the Sakyong, and also the general remarks which followed ]
Mark had talked about a new requirement for Shambhalians to take Refuge. He and Damchö characterized that as a betrayal because people have been told they don’t need to become Buddhists. What I was saying is that Shambhala teachings are derived from Buddhist teachings. The Sakyong has said, “Buddhism is about getting enlightened. Shambhala is about creating enlightened society.” Yet I hear people on this thread dismissing Buddhist view and elevating Shambhala as merely a worldly endeavor. In light of that I can see where the Sakyong may have had a reason to insist on Refuge — in order to assert Buddhist view in the Shambhala sangha.
Joe. Last paragraph clear.
I disagree with you characterization of my position unless it is properly explained why you feel I am arguing for a better seat.
Furthermore, your : ““The Buddhist View regards the human condition as an expression of confused mind. ” contains only the samsaric aspect and little else. Which is also what mine did which is why I don’t see any substantive difference whatsoever.
In any case, I for one never deliberately demean the Buddhist view of path nor do I think have ever done so here. Certainly it’s not how I look at it despite any clumsiness of expression. Now maybe you have some deep insight about my view which I am missing. Would be interesting since I stopped any Shambhala type practice years ago and now only (occasionally unfortunately) dip into Buddhist practices, pretty much only sitting. I don’t even like shrines any more.
Excuse me both Joe an Ash
Many, if not most people on RFS are full fledged Buddhist. So am I.
I hate to repeat this, but the Vidyadhara told me at a public Naropa talk during a Q and A session that Shambhala comes from Bonpo.
I’m sure its in the archives.
Maybe it was the Summer of 1979 or 1990.
Oh Carolyne Gimian, where are you?
Help me with this one.
Rob ,yes I think you are correct in this one,so it would be helpful for more information…Ash..well you have been busy again,Great ,will have to study,but now must leave to play cricket with the Saxton’sRiver team the River Rats.
Thank You
JP
Rob -
I’m not clear about what you’re trying to say.
[ the Vidyadhara told me at a public Naropa talk during a Q and A session that Shambhala comes from Bonpo. ]
I already noted that. Robin Kornman says it’s Dzogchen. He says the Gesar epic is the “back text” of Dzogchen as the 100,000 Songs of Milarepa is the back text for Mahamudra. (I explained how to get his talks in an earlier post.) Dzogchen is closely connected to Ati. There is different symbolism in Shambhala. Different terms. The Buddha families are expressed as the traditional Tibetan prayer flag animals. Etc. The origins could be argued all day. Shambhala talks about “enlightened society”. Where does the definition of “enlightened” come from if not from Buddhism? It seems reasonable to me to presume that Shambhala and Buddhism are different expressions of the same basic paradigms and practices. GES is rigpa. Basic goodness is Buddha nature. Etc. If they’re not essentially the same then we have no definition for path, sacredness, enlightenment, etc.
I was trying to clarify the view of people here who apparently identify primarily as Shambhalians. Their view seems to be in conflict with what I just described above. I suggested that many here view Shambhala as a “master container” for spiritual paths and therefore, by implication, define spiritual path(s) as no more than improving the shadows on Plato’s cave wall, so to speak. Further, I understand people to say that while the Sakyong is the monarch, they reserve the right to define monarchy, and that they have/had no intention of allowing a political monarchy but only approve a king/emperor conditionally, to serve as an inspirational figurehead. Perhaps I’m mistaken in my interpretations, but so far no one has spoken up to disagree with my interpretation of Damcho’s essay and the later comments by others.
“I suggested that many here view Shambhala as a “master container” for spiritual paths and therefore, by implication, define spiritual path(s) as no more than improving the shadows on Plato’s cave wall, so to speak.”
Ok, I understand you finally. Fair point.
I don’t think that two yanas ultimately having the same origins ( = nature of Reality) necessarily mean they are the same. This is similar to saying the Carpentry and Pottery are the same. They are in most fundamental aspects, but in terms of skillful means or application, there they differ.
I do think Shambhala was offered as a separate, and self-standing yana, and also that it is more geared towards a societal type dynamic than the other yanas, all of which of course also have clear societal parts to play without question. But their thrust is different.
Mahayana aspires to effect the enlightenment of all sentient beings, which perhaps implies getting everyone out of the cave altogether, or even revealing that the cave is no more than a non-existing, ‘empty’ figment of concept. Certainly it involves engendering virtue amongst all people (as do Hinayana and Vajrayana of course).
Also, no less certainly, there is no inherent conflict between the Shambhala and Buddhadharma yanas and indeed the former uses much from the latter as was stated explicitly by the Founder, CTR, and now further elaborated by SMR in similar, albeit now further evolved, fashion.
But you seem to be arguing that they are essentially the same, and in a very reasonable way. But if so, why have two different vocabularies and systems, or yanas? Can you explain that please from your perspective?
Bonpo is not a Buddhist system. It is older (going back at least 18,000 years supposedly, but in any case it existed prior to the introduction of Buddhadharma to Tibet). So saying that because it is Bonpo it is also Dzogchen sounds a little muddled to me, at least without further clarification, because clearly Bonpo existed historically separate from Buddhadharma and therefore it seems illogical to say that it is the same. It may or may not ultimately differ from or substantively disagree with Buddhadharma or more specifically Dzogchen perhaps, but surely it is not the same?
To give an example: once there is an established Maha Ati tradition in the West, one might well find various Zen Maha Ati Masters, and Navaho Maha Ati Masters, or Christian Maha Ati Masters because of the formless, or para-yanic aspects of Maha Ati, i.e. there can more easily be non-Buddhist Maha Ati than non-Buddhist Hinayana, which rests solidly on specifically Buddhist dharma teachings from Lord Buddha himself. Similarly one could expect many Shinto Maha Ati Masters in Japan. But Shinto would still be Shinto, and the Navaho Way would still exist as such alongside Maha Ati. You could have Maha Ati shamans. I suspect it’s the same with Bonpo and Dzogchen/Maha Ati in Tibet.
Finally, the animals exist in very similar format in Chinese culture so one could just as well argue that the 5 Buddha Families come from this approach. I believe they come from a Hindu 3-family system originally (Buddha, Vajra, Padma) but again, I suspect it is way over-simplistic to regard the one as a transliteration of the other. The commentary teachings on Perky, for example, although very pandit-like, do not exist as such – as far as I know – in any Buddhist yana (even though again they are not in conflict necessarily in any way.)
Re: Robin Kornman’s “take” on Shambhala as Dzogchen….. Dzogchen (in sanskrit maha ati) can be looked at in two ways – as the 9th yana in the Nyingma system or as it’s own free-standing yana based on it’s method: Hinayana method = renunciation, Vajrayana method = transformation, Dzogchen method = self-liberation. Robin and I often talked about CTR’s skilfull means in light of his “hiding Dzogchen in plain sight” via the Shambhala teachings.
I gave Robin Chogyal Namkhai Norbu’s book “Drung Deu and Bon” in the mid – nineties and it was very useful for him in working with the symbolism in the Gesar epic as well as in “unpacking” the Shambhala teachings. While rather scholarly, it has a LOT of interesting material on the influence of Bon in the way Buddhism manifested in Tibet.
for those without that interesting-sounding book, could you provide a summation of the inter-relationships of Maha Ati and Bon, and also where Shambhala intersects with, and also maybe departs from (or at least is a unique new formulation of) Maha Ati.
SMR’s answer to me years ago certainly implied, nay defined, the link between Shambhala and Ati as basically coming from the same mind as Padmasambhava. That makes sense. And yet there are many different skillful means which can come from the same mind, so appreciating both similarities and differences is always helpful. Again, if two approaches are the same, why present two different approaches? There must be differences, either in view, method, or participant styles. Presumably.
Ash,re Dzogchen and Bon, Wonders of the Natural Mind by Tenzin Wangyal Rinp. might answer many queries.
Thanks, but I don’t have such things. It’s not that hard to summarize in a few paragraphs – or shouldn’t be. But just saying they are the same or different without qualifying in any way is not saying very much. It’s sort of like an introduction to an idea without the idea.
Re whether the Shambhala Vision of Chögyam Trungpa derives from Buddhism, it certainly has Buddhist and Bön influences (and note, by the way, CTR was very interested in Bön before it got mingled with Buddhism (Tendzin Wangyal represents such an admixture, which does not denigrate what he does – I have the greatest respect for him); cf the article in Complete Works on pre-Buddhist Bön), but fundamentally it derives directly from the nature of things and most specifically from inherent basic goodness. Of course a Dzogchenpa could see Samantabhadra when he/she hears “basic goodness”, and a Buddhist could hear “bodhicitta”, but Hindus and Christians and Native American church practitioners could hear their own helpfully illuminating related concepts as well. But it doesn’t depend on or require those.
It would be hard to improve on CTR’s own words, talking about the Werma Sadhana:
In the foreword to The Superhuman Life of Gesar of Ling he says, “Although it has been somewhat influenced by Buddhism, as has virtually all of Tibetan culture, basically the principle of warriorship stands on its own.” Elsewhere he says “this greater vision came to be purely through American friends…”.
Shambhala Vision is not a re-marketed presentation of Buddhism: it is a back-to-the-roots of human be-ing presentation of how to be “diamond-world citizens and brilliant and profound and potentially inscrutable boys and girls”, and of how to join individual and personal practice (of sanity, of enlightenment, of warriorship – and there are many religious or sacred traditions for practicing those) with societal practice and realization of those (there are very few here). And I think this is what the world needs and is trying to come up with. It’s a matter of view.
Mark, I was just thinking today along the lines above that perhaps one could describe Shambhala as a ‘generic’ path that is accessible to all in the sense that it offers a Way that can enhance most other disciplines, especially those usually called ‘religious’, assuming that one is speaking in the context of a national, or cultural at least context.
It’s not that it provides things that Christianity or Buddhadharma might not, it’s that it provides a context for societal awakening that can accommodate any such approaches whilst addressing general societal-cultural conduct and awareness in a way which they might not approach, since usually they take the existence of a cultural container as a given. Shambhala is a path designed to help fashion, or frame, a cultural container, aka society or nation.
Also, it is perhaps worth remarking that the material offered is breathtakingly condensed. By that I mean the transition from the five outer or initial levels into the realm of the root texts, and the immediate Dzogchen-like depth of both the material therein and the sort of atmospheres generated by gatherings including such materials along with group formless meditation practice and the various forms that go along with that, including some sort of lineage atmosphere, gets very profound very quickly. It is almost as if several centuries of accumulated technique and experience have been condensed into material that is only a few hundred pages long, if that, and can be accessed in a couple of short years. Perhaps its very efficacy this way sometimes distorts our ability to see the large scope, societally speaking, I believe it is designed to encompass.
Put another way: its profundity is so accessible and potent, that the potential for vastness is overlooked.
Also worth pointing out that the societal container, i.e. the forms and format in which such path is introduced and practiced, are a key component. Shambhala could not be studied from a book alone to any degree approaching what happens in the group (societal) container. So the societal element is there from the get-go, but then again often just taken for granted as some sort of necessary logistical adjunct, rather than perhaps the key component which the other materials in some sense serve.
So when we see it viewed as just another spiritual path akin to any other religion, no matter how worthy, there is a sense of the underlying point having been missed, even though there may well not be any particular doctrinal problem or, even if there is, that niggle itself somehow misses the point.
I wasn’t being mean to Ash, but he / she wrote 12 articles one forth way up from the bottom of this site alone when I wrote that last note. That is partial why I made the rude remark if Ash was on amphetamines. I’m not famous for my good manners concerning my own netiquette, so I will slap my hand thre times for my rudness. People who know me know I’m a good person. My apologies (but I hope I never lose my sense of humor)..
As far as Bonpo and Shambhala, Rinpoche did say that. It was connected. It is on audio, and maybe video tape. This was in response to an early conversation I had with Dr. Reggie Ray concerning Confucianism and Shambhala being similar
Perhaps we are talking about respecting our indigenous wisdom here.
Ha! You don’t remember who I am do you. We studied together at Naropa! I think Joe P was also in that class, if he is the Joe P____o I have been assuming.
Now I think of it, I know another Joseph P, but he ain’t usually Joe…
Ash, re your “Put another way: its profundity is so accessible and potent, that the potential for vastness is overlooked”, what I have found inspiring is to find this profundity already being connected with, in simplicity and immediacy, by people outside of my immediate context – ie, out in the world, beyond my puddle, in the vastness. These teachings are short, direct, and immediate, and people seem to be ready to take them that way (maybe they never heard otherwise!)
One way I look at Shambhala Society is that it seeks new ratios, new bindings, of sacred, secular, church, and state, and that in particular it brings the sacred much closer to the everyday workings of the secular and of the state. The necessity for this is driven by the ever more overwhelming evidence that we are degrading both ourselves and our living matrix through divorcing our increasingly globally efficient actions from detailed living awareness/care – the sacred.
To shift to greater continuity of care and awareness, every aspect of daily life, business, and society needs to be encountered in the light and space and time of the sacred. This is where drala in everyday life comes in. Perhaps this could be recognized in a “Universal Declaration of Drala Rights” that both states and religions are committed to. In that sense Shambhala could be described as a “generic path”, not so much that it has elements common to all religions, but that it is foundational in a frame that is bigger than “church”, that also includes “state”.
Re the monarchy theme, perhaps “head of state” also needs such drala-izing, and re-imaging as “joining heaven and earth”? The head of state has bigger responsibilities than just to her state.
The constitution drafters have quite a challenge!
Mark, you have a really great way of expressing pith.
About the constitution and bigger responsibilities. I agree, but also suspect that if we try to get into the lha type stuff before having some sort of structural exercise, then we could get lost going nowhere. And in any case, there are luminaries who have left much material expressing this sort of things impeccably. I also suspect that such lha can (initially at least) be well contained in simple terms like enlightened society or sacred outlook. Definitely there needs to be something of that in a Preamble. Perhaps ou would like to offer a preamble in that thread?
But structures not so much on this level, although some hints. You could argue, though, that this is logistical cart before essential dralic horse and therefore bass ackwards. It well might be.
I was chatting with CTR one day about moving out here; we were in prajna in ‘86 and I was about to leave for NS in the next couple of days. As a parting gift I gave him a chrystal port glass. We were just chatting after the flags had been raised and he had justified my putting the Sawang’s flag in the wrong place relative to his because ‘he will surpass me one day’, and then later that night I blurted out: this business with the flags and banners and moving to a new country and so on: the way you did it in America was that along with skill and charm, also you made a lot of visual symbols, those silk screen banners. Similarly you start with passports, medals, uniforms, forms of address. Seems to me your approach is to change or trump the nirmanakaya with essentially sambhogakaya infiltrations.”
He didn’t affirm or deny, but I could tell he rather liked the thought structure because it came up a few times after that. In between bouts of being very, very ill.
Rob, thanks. The image of AG as head of the Hare Krishnas is very funny! Please tell the other story when you get a chance. I envy you and all the others who got to know him. I think of him as a great example of the Shambhalian–deeply fearless, outrageous in the best sense of the term, but also disciplined, kind, and by all accounts very generous too. He inspired a ton of people to take their lives and Paths more seriously.
Later on the same day I made final arrangements for my first dathun, a friend phoned from Boulder to tell me that he was dying, and that people were staying up praying for him. So I never got to even meet him through the sangha, or anywhere else.
Mark–your post on the sacred is really spot on.
Sacredness
‘The Sacred’. A hot topic with the sociologists, euro marxists specifically. I think this happened with the lefties because it finally became evident due to contemporary circumstances that their bottom line aspirations were coming from somewhere, they started to wake up to the fact that the vision of modern communism/socialism was largely a piece of secularised Christianity and so began to take their Christianness seriously. Main examples: Slavoz Zizek, Tony Negri, Michael Hardt, Terry Eagleton, the left posties. Btw, Zizek is especially interested in warding off the threat of ‘Buddhism’ which he believes is infecting the thinking of his left contemporaries; he wants to recover a sense of ‘divine violence’ suitable to Leninist revolutionary aims. Interesting, sort of.
Sacredness. This term aptly reflects our contemporary vagueness and confusion. I don’t mean this as a put down but think it says something about our contemporary position, in the sense of ‘where we’re at’. In that regard it seems to me that we have been stuck in the same place for centuries, we remain sandwiched between what I would regard as the great ‘bookends of Enlightenment’, if you will. These are crudely, China on the right and the traditions of the native Americans on the left. Permit me to say something. We believe that the teachings of Shambhala are new and were introduced by our teacher and guru. Of course. But really, we’ve actually been getting the teachings since the Enlightenment when we first began to make contact with other civilizations in Asia and other traditions in the Americas. I want especially to say that the idea of natural goodness that came through during the decades of the 18th century Enlightenment was the real thing, however distorted in transmission and reception. But the impulse was there and so was a certain receptivity. Something happened back then. They called it ‘illumination’ (after the infamous Illuminatti). Something was lighting up our world and a great many experienced this.
the term ’sacredness’ expresses our contemporary confusion. We remain stuck in our search for what was once called a ‘natural religion’. This was stimulated on the one hand by the Chinese example of so called ‘ancestor worship’ and on the other by the traditions of native Americans, most especially the Iroquois, who taught us Thanksgiving (yes). The experience of these non-European peoples affected us in ways that we are still trying to come to grips with, stimulating great changes in the inner recesses of the cultural mind. Outwardly it takes the form of New Ageism these days. This is a recurrence of what they called deism back in the days of Voltaire, Hume, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin and Co. We are still searching. Hence the intensified interest in shamans, Taoism, the principles of energy, chi and a great deal more from so many sources. We search for the sacred path even now, indeed, now more than ever. But point: this search has been going on for a long time. It’s a recurrent feature of our civilization and the matter could hardly be otherwise.
But back to ‘our position’. We regard ourselves, well, it’s already been said; there is such a thing as ‘we’. What can be said about this? We regard ourselves as distinct in the sense of our civilization. Our civilization is much more than the ancestral peoples and languages but we put an especial importance on the inheritances of the ancients, that is the Greeks and Romans on the one hand and the long history of Christianity on the other. In short form, ‘Athens and Jerusalem’. Firstly Athens. Our civilization is marked by our standing as citizens in this world. We live under the rule of law, as citizens, who participate in processes of what we call ’self government’. We recognize that this tradition comes down to us from the Greeks (and Romans). We differentiate ourselves from non Westerners on this basis. We regard ourselves as standing on a higher plateau of human development because we left behind the nexus of kinship relations which characterize all other peoples and our own remote ancestors as well. We have basically retained the distinction first established by the Greeks between civilization and barbarism. Civilized people live under the rule of law whereas the barbarians live in a similar manner to the ancestors of the Greeks themselves (or our own), that is, within the forms of their tribes, nations, and principalities. But what characterizes all barbarians is the basic form of kinship relations. Of barbarians there were two kinds, small and large. To the north of Greece lived the Celtic peoples who lived mainly in small tribes and were viewed by the Greeks as living close to a ’state of nature’. But to the east in Asia the landscape was littered by larger monarchies and empires ruled by kings and emperors. So then, the two types of barbarians, primitive and sophisticated. The Greeks viewed themselves as superior by virtue of their political constitution which established a plateau of citizenship and thus a sort of individuality unknown to their neighbours. So this is the meaning of development even in the modern sense, a transit from kinship based communities to political societies like ours. We still distinguish ourselves from all others in this way. We are quite uppity in our way and I’ve noticed that the new fangled Buddhism hasn’t made much difference. I’d say Robert Thurman and Ken Wilbur are most comfortable with this developmental logic (which I detest).
But we have a position; this is the point. Again, ’sacredness’ expresses a certain confusion on our part. Many of us, or at least some of us, such as myself, are drawn to the long standing Chinese culture of ancestral rituals and see in this a genuinely fulfilled form of just this ‘natural religion’ that inspired some of our ancestors and incited them to think it possible that we too could find a sacred path in the sunlight illuminating our own country, and that of our ancestors. Let us note here that this path is the path of patriarchy. Having said that much we discern problems arising. How on earth are we to make ritual offerings to people who hated the very idea of anything that even remotely smacked of paganism? But let us continue. This inspiration is sinocentric. But there is another and this is connected with the other ‘barbarian’ peoples and I would say most notably the Six Nations of the Iroquois, or Haudenosaunee as they refer to themselves. Here we encounter the other bookend of Enlightenment as I’ve referred to it. Instead of a monarchy, indeed, an imperial monarchy, which is patriarchal we instead encounter a view of a confederation of tribes who retain matriarchal traditions and also a great deal of culture.
I like to take the view that our Shambhala will be like this and this is why I’m a bit reluctant to script up a general constitution. I rather believe that these bookends of Enlightenment furnish us with two quite contrasting forms of how genuine warriorship is possible in this world and I should like to see both forms revived and flourish in centuries to come. As to our own position, our ongoing confusion, this is the great question.
At this point I have to back up a bit to say something about Christianity. Thus far the discussion of how we understand ourselves as civilized and developed traced the line from Athens but there is also a line from Jerusalem and according to Hegel (who I believe is reliable on at least this point) that achieved a synthesis during the Reformation era, which is to say our Modern era. So the agency that has prevailed during this time could be described as sort of ‘Christian Democrat’ (as in Germany) or ‘God fearing Republicans’, lets say. Republican on the outside, Christian on the inside, sort of. What is noteworthy about both traditions in question here is their transcendental form. The Greek citizen transcended the nexus of tribal communities and likewise the Christian transcended the pagan forms of their ancestors (and this is the original meaning of ‘modernity’ as, say, with Augustine). In any case our history recalls this coincidence of the Christian individual with the fairly recent political citizen. We regard ourselves as developed individuals. I think this is where the plot thickens and everything becomes quite dense.
The elders of the Hopi people have told us that we lost our teachings. Indeed. But when? What were they? Here I think I am on the edge of what historical and cultural reasoning can understand and I am not sure how to go forwards. I’ve long believed that we Westerners are really in a bad way and could use a good deal of help from our neighbours but we have pre-empted this prospect in the most arrogant ways, all the worse for them and for us even more. I presently believe that we will destroy ourselves. Toynbee (Toynbee btw is the great thinker of ‘the postmodern’) took the view that the cause of the demise of most civilizations was suicide.
I believe our republic is destined for destruction because we never could find the sacred path. It’s worth mentioning here that the foundations of our American constitution were actually informed by discussions which transpired between some of the framers and the leaders of the Iroquois confederacy. These leaders actually advised the founding fathers to break away from the mother country and establish a confederacy along the lines of their own. Benjamin Franklin in particular. They also said that because they were on friendly terms with both mother and son that they would maintain neutrality during the coming conflict but urged them to go ahead anyway, which they did. However when they discovered at length that the constitution which resulted from the Congress did not address the sacredness of all life they were disappointed and predicted that this would ultimately lead to downfall, which we witness in our own time. The people to read on this are the late John Mohawk and Oren Lyon of the Iroquois. Both have had positions at the SUNY up in Albany and have done much research into these matters. Worth looing at.
If there is a sacred path for republicans then this is it though it is very late in the day. But to try to return to the initial point it seems to me very much worth the effort to clarify the sacred paths and try to distinguish these from the path of Dharma. For us Anglos that is difficult. But I believe it is our main problem.
As I understand it both Dharma and Shambhala acknowledge something called heaven. Heaven might be the realm of the gods and bodhisattvas and pure lands or it might be understood as the abode of the ancestors. Difficult to make a distinction here. Where the distinction becomes a matter of urgency is Earth. It makes an enormous difference whether we regard earth as the space of the lower realms or our common mother. Along with this goes two distinct and different notions of ‘being in time’. In Dharma practice our sense of individuality is contextualised by past and future lives, karma and rebirth. But with the path of warriorship ‘being in time’ is a procession of the generations. The past was the time of our ancestors and the future will belong to our grandchildren. Both of these paths are sacred and noble and venerable. But they are different and should be kept separated. That to me is the first issue of any principled thinking about constitutions. I have come to believe that our present condition of modernity which threatens everything is ultimately due to our mixing up of these things and therefore it becomes important to separate out what has been mixed together. Hence my dissapointment with Shambhala Buddhism. But that’s a major discussion regarding the lords of materialism and how they have come to hold sway in our world. This post is already too long, so again I must thank my readers patience for wading through all this stuff. Best wishes to all, Kevin Frost.
ps. Ash, so many questions. I’m working on it, and will try to get some answers to at least some of your most welcomed questions soon. KJF.
Dear Kevin,Wonderful post,thank you,could you say more about “confederation of tribes” and Perhaps Shambhala confederation? I think this is what is happening right now .most of the so called old timers are now creating their own Shambhala tribes,small groups of people getting Shambhala teachings and Buddhist teachings from people who had contact with CTR,there is a network of passing on now restricted CTR teachings from group to group..also there are what I call traveling teachers who go from center to center presenting teachings all of this is outside SI.
Again thank you for your posts,by the way how many goats,and do you make cheese?
Love JP
I understand your reservations about drafting Constitution better now, and indeed was thinking this morning that the project might benefit from a pause for research, though whether that could work in a blog-type situation with a thread going ‘dead’ for a while, I am not sure.
You bring up great issues. In response to one, namely the sacred: the Hopis are right, we lost our teachings. But there are echoes. Literal echoes that one hears walking down the aisle of Salisbury Cathedral, or no end of other churches in Europe, including tiny shrine churches in remote woods in rural Germany, France, Italy, England. Sacredness, along with venerable dust, wafts in along the slanting beams of sunlight illuminating the interior. Such sacredness lacks human expression, but is there as an echo of sacred awareness in days long past. The aroma remains long after the feast is over.
I also think you have mischaracterized some of the old Celtic cultures. When Caesar invaded England, part of the reason they had a hard time of it was because of the Celtic road system and their chariot technology. The Romans were outmaneuvered again and again. Furthermore, after being conquered, many of the tribal leaders got on very well with Romans of the leadership class. I am sure some tribes were rather wretched affairs, but I suspect most were more sophisticated than we like, or the Roman propagandists of the time, liked to admit. ( It is only recently that they discovered that the Celtic roads pre-dated the Roman, which are in fact built on top of them. The Roman versions last longer, but the Celtic versions made of wood were much better for fast chariot travel.) Like that 10,000 year old man they found in the ice in the Alps. He had very sophisticated gear, extremely well made.
But also I suspect the Druids held lineages with great sacredness. Also Stonehenge. A computer yes, but surely also a sacred gathering place.
More importantly, though, we have our own notion of sacredness based on contemporary experience. I agree that Shambhala is very old, but the formulation and presentation were and are very fresh. There is method/practice, core texts, and the communal ability to get together in groups and access very simple, but primordial, states of mind which are ’sacred’. The entire basis of vajrayana practice, which I believe is what distinguishes it from the other yanas, is that it is rooted in sacred perception. This is a very living tradition and yet it does not depend upon vague historical antecedents, or complex ritual. With Shambhala Training, for example, I have often witnessed that even at the end of a Level I, by Sunday afternoon something very sacred starts to go down. This is seemingly just from the combination of sitting practice and a willing, participatory group, but many have remarked that there also seems to be some sort of magic, no doubt from a lineage influence somewhere.
So Shambhala has a present lineage of experienced sacredness to offer in a way that does not depend upon the rigorous, somewhat complex disciplines of the Buddhist or other such tantric/sacred lines, although one can argue that without such lines, Shambhala leadership could not have manifested at this time, a fair point. But still, it is there, it is real, it is applicable, it is communicable. So we have something new to offer to these troubled times, and during the Fall of the Republic we are now witnessing.
The Heaven in the daoist system and the Heaven of the God realms should not be equated in any sense, I don’t think. The reason this might seem reasonable is because of Western notions of Heaven which is often populated by Gods. But such gods in the post pagan Christian sense, and even possibly in the pagan western sense, are not the same as the gods in the god realm in the Hindu system, I don’t think. Such gods are just samsaric shcmucks like ourselves, albeit in fancier costume for a while.
And this is possibly interesting: the Buddhist teachings don’t seem to have a parallel for the Heaven in Heaven Earth Man, which is really a combination of abstract philosophy explaining the natural world, as well as the subjective, experienced world. It is also somewhat of a societal construct since its emphasis is on describing a mandala or realm. You could say that the Yang of Heaven parallels the Center, and Yin of Earth parallels the fringe, but that makes both constructs meaningless because they are saying very different things.
Also, in terms of literal Earth sacredness, Heaven in the confucian/Shambhala approach is also Earth in that it is part of the natural order, the natural world, what is truly real. That is Earth, not just the physical substance beneath our feet. In other words, clouds, sunlight, fresh air, rain, all are part of ‘Earth’.
But Heaven Earth Man is a threefold description, or formulation, of how any Realm is, essentially, and also functions dynamically in terms of ongoing processes, variables, interconnectedness and so on. Heaven is all pervasive but invisible, yet with clear influence and different tones, atmospheres. Stormy Heaven, Calm Heaven, Corrupted Heaven even. Earth is in relation to Heaven and vice versa.
And something does come ‘down’ from Heaven, akin to gods, and perhaps this is what was meant by gods in earlier times. That magic that ‘comes down’ at the end of a good Level I.
I note that in the first line of the BC they mention the blessings of lineage. That is Heaven. That is the real ‘ancestor’ in so-called ‘ancestor worship’. There are links and echoes in the universe mirroring everything that has happened before and will happen in the future. There are lineages of goodness and evil within the construct of all matter and space.
They have recently discovered, for example, that water has memory. You can filter the impurities out and have clean water again, but it retains memory of its abuse somehow and can only return to be truly fresh water after being properly processed in the ground, and flowing in certain ways which now we have learned to imitate artificially to create ’structured water’ that is far more beneficial and ‘fresh’.
Ash -
[ Ha! You don’t remember who I am do you. We studied together at Naropa! I think Joe P was also in that class, if he is the Joe P____o I have been assuming. ]
P r i e s t l e y. I’ve never been to Naropa. I don’t mean to travel in disguise — just trying not to help Goo gle in their quest to convert everyone into a neatly packaged marketing dossier.
[ But you seem to be arguing that they are essentially the same, and in a very reasonable way. But if so, why have two different vocabularies and systems, or yanas? Can you explain that please from your perspective? ]
I think I’ll leave that to you. I was only trying to clarify and question the surprising (to me) assertions that I was hearing: that a teacher isn’t necessary, that the definition of monarchy is flexible, that Shambhala is not *essentially* Buddhist Dharma, and that improving the human realm is more basic than spiritual path. I think I’ve said my piece, for what it’s worth, and I’m afraid this thread is tending to be a bit glib. I don’t want to wander off into a discussion of “How many New Age name droppings can dance (or splat) on the cover of a Sutra?”
Joe, fair enough. I thought you might be Joe Pul e() o. Ash.
FWIW: I don’t argue that a teacher isn’t necessary on the Shambhala Path. But I would argue that it doesn’t have to be a Buddhist one. Nor would a Sakyong have to be a Buddhist in theory, but in practice given our actual lineage, this is de rigeur and personally I am glad of it.
Also, I have no idea what the New Age stuff is and never liked it anyway. I am more of a conservative Royalist type who thinks democracy is a bit of a sucker’s game in the first place, but that also, like communism, it’s never been all that seriously tried.
On July 27 Nova Scotia’s only daily newspaper, the Chronicle Herald, ran this article in the news section. I’m sorry that this format doesn’t allow me to include the picture of the Sa
Shambhala royals expecting child
IWK Health Centre working closely with high-profile couple so that birth remains ‘very quiet’
By SHERRI BORDEN COLLEY Staff Reporter
Tue, Jul 27 – 4:53 AM
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, the spiritual leader of the Shambhala Buddhist movement, and wife Tseyang Palmo are expecting their first child in August. (PETER PARSONS / Staff)
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche and the Sakyong Wangmo Khandro Tseyang, the king and queen of Shambhala, are expecting their first child in August in Halifax.
Rinpoche is the eldest son of Trungpa Rinpoche, the founder of Shambhala Buddhism. His marriage to his Tibetan princess in 2006 represented a significant linkage of lineages for Buddhists around the world.
An IWK Health Centre spokeswoman confirmed Monday the hospital is working closely with the couple to beef up security during their hospital stay.
“And we would do that with any high-profile individual that needed that extra support,” said Kathryn London-Penny, the hospital’s executive director of public relations. “They have a security team that works with them, so we’ll be certainly looking at that. But other than that, it will just be really nice to work with that community and learn more about them.”
Besides heavier security, the couple will not be given preferential treatment.
“This is, of course, like any other birth is, an important event for the family and we look forward to providing them the same excellent level of service that we do every other family,” London-Penny said.
The royal couple has asked hospital officials to ensure their privacy and confidentiality during their stay.
After careful consideration, the couple decided to have the birth in their adopted home of Halifax. The city also has a thriving Buddhist community.
“The health centre’s outstanding reputation for excellence in quality of care and patient safety makes them feel this is the best environment for this happy event,” said Dr. Mitchell Levy, the royal couple’s personal physician, in a news release issued by the office of the president of Shambhala on Monday.
Levy is professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, R.I.
In 2006, almost 1,500 people gathered at the Cunard Centre on the Halifax waterfront to witness the couple’s marriage.
But there will be no formal festivities inside the hospital after the baby is born, said Molly De Shong, spokeswoman for the president’s office, in an interview Monday.
“In fact, (the couple) would like to keep it very quiet,” De Shong said. “Our organization, Shambhala, wanted to let the press know that there will be a birth.
“The press won’t be coming in to take pictures. They will welcome the publicity of the birth. It’s just that they did not want the cameras coming onto the IWK (property) for it.”
The couple was not available for interviews Monday because the king is travelling
A Shambhalian Leo on the way? Well and good. The Sun King of France was born under this sign. There’s an old tradition that the generations differ from each other and that there is often to be found a resemblence between the grandchildren and their grandparents. I trust there are a few grandparents out there, or old enough to be one, who must welcome this birth as much as I do. Hopefully the photographers will be decent about all this and we might hope as well that the security people will reciprocate. I respect the desire that this should be a quiet occassion but suspect it will not be observed. Personally I have no intention of any such complisance and urge all royal communists to stock up on sake and delicious food right away for the coming insurrection of noisy good cheer.
Personally I’m not much given to drink unless the occassion arises. Here is one. I think the sweetest wine is wine won on a wager about some issue of significance with someone dear to me. Boy or girl? My first thought was girl, but it was something of a cloudy thought and I remained confused. So then I resorted to the fail safe test, toss a coin. I say we will have our Sun King and a bottle of sake rides on it. Any takers?
Dear All
Re Chris’s posts fyi http://www.kalontripa.org for elections of Tibetan government in exile
Also on wiki kalon tripa explained plus Tibetan constitution which sites UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Not total separation of church and state as Dalai Lama has more power than constitutional monarch but worth investigating re aspects of our declaration and future constitution.
Best
Rita Ashworth
sorry wrong thread will post to other rita
Kevin,you are on me lad,We say Girl,a Sakyong Queen,like Elizabeth I,for the golden age,or for us kelts Boudicca of the Iceni…but whatever it is we also welcome it with good cheer..so one bottle of sake is pledged to the lady…Cheers Seonaidh
Gotta be honest, I quite reading about 2/3 pf the way down. But all in all Damcho (still didn’t respond to if that is just an internet name or if its a ‘real’ name you have) there is clearly things you as a middling practitioner aren’t privy to. because of this your practice level is completely relevant to the discussion, if you haven’t read texts such as “kalapa Assemblies” or “Vajra Assemblies” or the myriad other ‘restricted texts’ you actually can’t really have the conversation you’re attempting.
What is “freedom” really? why isn’t ‘Greek Democracy’ Democracy? Many of your comments just simply don’t have context in relative or absolute reality. You like Democracy but not how it actually is, you like Shambhala (or the little you grok about it) but don’t like the way it actually is.
It basically seems to me that you like many/all of us have your doubts about the community the mission the vision the whole nine, but you have chosen this forum (the we don’t like the current manifestation of the Kingdom HQ) to air your confusions, well I must say do whatever you want but the only thing you are likely to find here is more confusion.
PS. before anyone starts saying I’m a Dharma Brat or don’t want to share my Identity, well, I am not going to share my identity it’s the internet thats the point
but I will assure you that I am not a Dharma brat, but a self-made Dharma Bum with a bit of practice under my belt. Suprisingly know quite a few people who are posting here, so hi everyone 
Hashshashin–middling practitioner? I’m a baby. I’ve received vajrayana practices, but big deal–I can’t really do them. I can’t do much of anything practice-wise. As for Shambhala level, I agree: that will be relevant to some people–that’s why I mentioned how far I got. However, I consider Shambhala to be made up of everyone who has participated in the programs to one degree or another and feels deeply connected to the vision of VCTR, SMR, or both. This seems to include me.
“What is “freedom” really?”
You tell me! But I know what it’s not: it’s not unquestioning acceptance of something that doesn’t feel wholesome. It’s definitely not about denying the “principal witness”.
“Why isn’t ‘Greek Democracy’ Democracy?”
You should feel free to call it what you like, obviously. It was a democracy of sorts when compared to other systems. At the same time, over *half* of all adults couldn’t participate. Since “democracy” means “rule by the people,” and since men are no more “people” than women, this would seem to make a mockery of the term. But again–just my view.
“You like Democracy but not how it actually is, you like Shambhala (or the little you grok about it) but don’t like the way it actually is.”
Yes, I do like Shambhala (the little I grok about it) but don’t like the way it actually is right now. You’re correct. As far as democracy: no, the article really isn’t about this.
“Many of your comments just simply don’t have context in relative or absolute reality.”
I have no idea what this means. Can you give an example of one? I’d be happy to clarify anything you’re confused about, if I’m able. (Though I will have very intermittent internet access for the next 2 weeks.)
So, the confusion here is not seeing the “vision” correctly?
Well. Gang, I guess we’re truly lost!
Dunno John I am lost AND confused and still having greater visions for Shambhala with the conversation on rfs.
M’lord who knows what visions will crystallise out there in Damchos mind and others if we open up the teachings to everyone as was intended by CTR.
Its karma the time is ripe and SI quibbles in its non-inclusive never ending meetings.
So yeh perhaps in another twenty years the membership will have doubled to 16,000! Nuff to run a small town perhaps – and thats the apex!
You know Alistair Campbell Blairs Press Secretary said we dont do God and shambhala is doing universal monarchs……..zzzzzz –how very quaint people will probably say in any modern democracy and then shut the door. Well how do we turn that around?
Well best
Rita Ashworth
Yeah. It’s tough facing up to your practice level. Ya know John, far as I can see it’s all downhill from here. Big mistake gettiing mixed up with this here website.
K, beginning to feel the same. Suspect your Armageddon scenario will prove on the money – or maybe I should say ‘on the chip’. In which case, arguing niceties of S or S&B or B&S is all BS.
hashashin (what an awfully clever name.)
If one’s permission to discuss matters of governance or policy is given based on level of practice, then we have an example of exactly why there is a need for separation of church and state. Such permissions and comparisons shouldn’t even enter discussions about how governments are organized. It exhibits a misunderstanding about intelligence, politics and the aims of practice altogether.
I know some very stupid people who graduated from college with good grades. I know enough insightful and highly intelligent people who never attended. The same can be said about people who have attained higher levels of practice as compared to some who have not yet had contact with our wisdom lineage. It is not a credential that implies automatically intelligence or insight, compassion or wisdom.
This relates directly to Trungpa Rinpoche’s seminal teachings on spiritual materialism, on Buddhadharma without credentials, and on perhaps any of his pith instructions about higher states. Before bragging (or denouncing others) about whether one has level enough to discuss Shambhala affairs, it would be helpful if people had just a rudimentary grasp of those basic and universal principles around which Trungpa Rinpoche built this community and which must surely be a cornerstone of anything that can be considered relevant to a vision of Shambhala society.
John,
I agree with your concern about view. The idea of everyone needing to have the same ‘view’ to be fully part of the organization is also one of the ways I think we have made a mistake somewhere along the way, perhaps in joining church and state. Church here being religion, practices and skillful means aimed at overcoming ego and understanding the nature of reality, and state here being all the mechanisms we intentionally design and need to regulate social interaction in complex groups.
Obviously, they are sooo not the same thing. But also there are talks given by Trungpa Rinpoche, very clearly stating that this is not the aim of spiritual practices, that we are NOT all working towards seeing the world in the same way. (Many studies on ‘group-think’ to refer to.)
If we are using practices aimed at overcoming ego etc., for the political purpose of creating group identity, then the practices lose much if not all of their power, focusing energies on something other than overcoming ego etc..
If we aim to create group identity based on esoteric practices and the view(s) we adopt within the context of those practices, then the political realm will be incoherent to anyone who has not entered those practices.
For a school of Buddhism where people are encouraged by hook or by crook to go to the next level, maybe an acceptable evil, like the A-train before abisheka. But as a model for organizing society, it instills a competitive edge and an exclusivity which will inevitably foment internal conflict.
In the inspiration of carrying water and cutting wood.
hi Ash. BS. I love it. I was tongue in cheek, chiming in with the dry sarcasm of Mr. Tisher, who I felt struck exactly the right note. Cheered me right up. All in the line of defending Damcho after that no name no content dismissal, bristling with credentials, from someone with the cheek to call himself a Dharma Bum. A clear challenge to Mr. Tisher. So I just got on to chime in because you can’t answer when there’s no content. All you can do is go along mimicking the sillyness of the whole thing.
But more interestingly, I got onto the Atzmon site and read a few things. A hero, pretty much with him every step of the way, including his criticisms of Chomsky even. With one reservation, quick cause I’m off topic. He’s right about the universalistic arrogance of left moral judgements, good, but he erases the critique of capitaliism the way Chomsky erases Jewish nationalism. Mistaken, methinks. Comes down to a single issue: race. But there’s three: sex, class, race, the three ‘parts’ of Aristotle’s political association. So maybe not off track. But if you want to talk about Atzmon my email is kevinjfrost at pacific dot net dot au.
Dear Kevin
Thanks for the reference to Atzmon and he is in the UK!hmmmmmm……
As for race interesting that you mentioned it as have been watching prog. on this very topic on utube where Prof Niall Ferguson has done a series called War of the World on Channel 4 which details the issues of race in contributing to political crises in the twentieth century.
Re me perhaps coming over as a rationalist that is definitely not the case but I do think study in a mundane sense can create little door openings to the spiritual for want of a better word.
As ever re James writing I am just stunned by how succinctly he can rubbish H’s post. Yes in a complex society everyones voice needs to be heard to make society work.
Like Ashs quip re BS – is he on the wee drams as they might say on the old, old TV British prog. Dr Finlays Casebook. Dr Finlay a true mahasiddhi!
Best
Rita Ashworth
K, I suspected yours was tongue in cheek. Mine sort of wasn’t. But at 8.26 am, Rita, no wee drams at play, though always hopefully a little touch of drama. I was raised in a theatre family after all…..
Ash,
In the last play I was ever in, “Bus Stop”, by Inge, I had the last line:
“Well, that happens to some people.”
James: “For a school of Buddhism where people are encouraged by hook or by crook to go to the next level, maybe an acceptable evil, like the A-train before abisheka. But as a model for organizing society, it instills a competitive edge and an exclusivity which will inevitably foment internal conflict.”
Great statement.
John: ‘I guess it does.’ Driving back my first commercial load of flour for upcoming bakery opening, car conked out (busted rad). Finally back home and unloading it, newly purchased bins all had faulty lid-closing-latches (par for the course with just about any purchase these days).
Hopefully the flour is not too recently harvested and not too filled with Corexit! Meanwhile Canada has announced that all food and drug guidelines within the country are subject to being over-ridden at any point by ‘international agreements’, some of which, if Europe is any guide, will include making simple, natural supplements (which I never take myself but I know many do) illegal.
And so it goes.
On a more philosophical bent, the thought has been arising many times lately in relation to the RFS milieu that one of the elephants in the room has nothing to do with S.I. per se, but rather the overall thrust of the world political situation wherein old arguments about left and right have been left far behind by the breathlessly unstoppable onslaught of in-your-face ‘corporate fascism’. In this context (for those who see it which is by no means everybody of course), the top-down spiritual authority setup of Shambhala is too close to the corporate fascist one for comfort, even though quite probably many of the parallels that can easily be drawn are unfair and quite possibly misleading. But the fact of the matter is (for those concerned about such things), the seeming mirror quality of the two structures is in itself cause for alarm and increasing skepticism.
Or to echo something Kevin posted in the well and truly floundered Constitution thread, perhaps most of the debate about all these things is moot because in short order people will be dealing with far more urgent survival / nitty gritty issues to be concerned with the niceties or nastyties of S.I. governance and suchlike.
This has come up for me glaringly on this forum in the seeming enthusiasm for things like the UN. Some of us regard it as anathema to all our ancestors fought for, whilst some regard it as the vanguard of the way forward for human society. We don’t have the tradition, in our sangha, of discussing such things at all, but I suspect this general lack of conventional political discourse amongst ourselves is in itself a symptom of how increasingly irrelevant our internal structurings (or not) are becoming. Because if they exist on a plane seemingly disconnected from such concerns, then in what way are they connected to the ordinary dharmas of the general population in which the Dharma, Shambhala or BuddhaDharma, is hopefully spreading?
I must say my inclination at this point is to return to where I was before stumbling onto this site around S Day this year: just let it all go and work with the immediate local situation, which in my case features no formal dharma, no formal sangha, no formal path, no overt aspiration in that direction, and yet irreversibly connected somehow to the lineage and beating heart of the guru with whom we studied with such tender and fierce devotion many years ago.
He is always with me. And yet of late I find myself doing things like dismantling shrines, removing photographs. The sky is better. Trees are better. Ordinary neighbours are better. Broken radiators are better. Anything else encourages separation between here and now, self and other. If Shambhala is counter-culture here in Cape Breton, then my Shambhalian inclination is to favor the immediate trees and greenery and people, and let go of anything extraneous.
Whether this is perverse, progressive or simply muddled, I cannot say. But it does seem to be choiceless, and it’s also fun.
That was a cute reference/response….Ash…
Why is it always the same people on these posts?
Mental masturbation?
I have ner really read any of these Shambhala teachings. But I want to emphatically state this . Buddha was not into authoritarianism , monarchy , or anything of the sort . His SAngha was run completely on consensus democracy, not even on majority voting. This can be found out about in the Vinaya books. All these things you talk about are cultural things from different societies adding things on to the Dharma.
Lama Tsewang
Dear Lama Tsewang,
I quite agree,Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche envisioned the Shambhala teachings to be cultural like Shinto or Bon,for an enlightened society with many religions.There seems to be some confusion about this by calling it Buddhist Dharma,which it was not meant to be.
Nice to hear you on this site.
Thank You,
Seonaidh Perks
Lama Tsewang. Looked it up in google, quite a few. Warsaw? Just curious, not pushin’.
Yes, yes, yes. I did do all the Shambhala trainings and classes and Kalapa Assembly, read all the books and I never heard it was about how to create hierarchical government or any government. It was always about overcoming ego and discovering the nature of things. After that, theoretically one could go back to whatever, being an artist, baker, school teacher, driver, printer, or politician.
But there is something unique about Shambhala, whether that’s a good thing or not.
First, the Buddha was not totally egalitarian. There were extensive rules and vows, hundreds I heard, one had to follow and take to join his sangha. I don’t see how those rules could have been derived from consensus. They were rules, one could say, to preserve the continuity of discipline (and what it aims at) without chaffing against the current zeitgeist (particularly relationships/differences between men and women). Whatever the intent, People who had no realization, beginners, would have had no way to determine the value of any such rules. Hierarchy is inevitable.
Most religious groups these days understand they are a subculture, and avoid any idea they need to relate to government whatsoever, other than tax breaks, a couple of bylaws, a few people responsible for coordinating events and funds, and they’re set. Everything else is already provided by the host culture, so-to-speak.
But Trungpa Rinpoche’s vision was not one of subcultural-ism. He thought (if that’s the right term for such a one) there was more that could be done. So in some sense, Trungpa Rinpoche gave us all an already lid-less can of worms to work with. This kerfuffle with how to rule, what it means to society and all the rest, is not merely an inability to discriminate between religion and politics, as much as that inability makes things more difficult. It is part and parcel of what Trungpa Rinpoche set in motion. That from one point of view is how to create a society in which any genuine path towards realization is not simply a private hobby we shouldn’t bother others with, but something that is celebrated or recognized by society at large, as one of the highest callings.
This thread opened with what some of us believe to be a problem with the current state of things. The governance and rules and all the administrative logistics have become so entwined with understandings about what practice is and does, that it is probably causing rifts in the community.
I think this became institutionalized when Buddhism and Shambhala were joined, and the mission statement became ‘creating enlightened society’. I haven’t ever seen ‘enlightened society’ defined in a way that makes sense in terms of how cultures develop, the kinds of influence leadership has (and doesn’t have), or anything out of history of politics, theocracies etc.. It all seems to require, at this point, some kind of devotional belief, which shouldn’t ever really short circuit common sense, but seems to be in some ways.
But that doesn’t let us off the hook.
Dear James
What an apt post yet again
I was thinking about replying to Lama Tsewang in much the same way because of course the vinaya is related to the monastic setting and to certain degree has elements of consensus in it.
The lamas post got me thinking about Gampo Abbey where they do indeed have such a body of people that gets together there with the chief administrator and decides things together. So it is somewhat a mini-country in operation but of course too they are indeed governed by ‘rules’ but these ‘rules’ are I think meant for people to become more aware in their basic lives. Me I think G.Abbey is in the envious position of still doing the teachings of CTR wholeheartedly although notions of Shambhala teachings in the SI sense are creeping in. I think I would still support G.Abbey if I was in SI still because you do need monastics to hold the teachings if anything disastrous happened People say that cant happen but just look at Cambodia in this sense.
But I do agree also that the shambhala teachings some how have to be put to the foreground because they are interwoven with the enlightened society concept. Jeez and once that phrase has been uttered I think in the west one can not just not conjecture about how it would play out because of course we have been thinking about these things from a long time through metaphor, stories, history and culture. I think this is why so many academics/psychologists are hovering around the shambhala teachings and discussing them.
Heres some tentative ways about how I think the shambhala teachings could enter the culture –well through Art of course and all the environments that that calls for. With story and song just think how much the west is fascinated by this arena and I do indeed think through governance.
But yes governance would be harder one to crack! However I have worked in the past thirteen years for I think every conceivable government department in my many temporary nutty jobs and I do indeed know that politics particularly in the UK is going in some very strange directions indeed. Consider for example the election of Green MPs, unheard of in the UK for aeons, and now the coalition -so the electorate is in a very volatile place –old class allegiances are turning up slightly at the edges and even in this recession people still do have aspirations about things. But also there are is a kind of disbelief that now that politicians in all their separate countries can bring about fundamental change –this was not the case I believe up until 9/11 which was indeed a waterpoint for the world.
So yes I do believe on a mundane way that GB politicians have been caught off guard by the social changes that have happened in society and they are indeed in catch-up mode with the electorate. So I dont know I know I am theorising aswell but re rfs’s ideal of to think bigger I do indeed think we need to elaborate on shambhala governance as we have been doing in discussing a declaration and a constitution which could serve as an inspiration to many. You know the actual concept of shambhala has somewhat over the last few years just got out of SI orbit and there are many festivals abroad and in the UK discussing their connection to this ideal of an enlightened society in a sort of old hippyish sense –so yes the idea of shambhala is out there.
So yes though I agree that you do the teachings and then you go back to your life but now it is with a different mindset. I think to some degree if you look in western history it is somewhat comparable to a religious revival or maybe in secular thought a new way of looking at reality so these viewpoints have in the west tended then to get involved in the political aspect of running societies consider the Methodists and the French revolutionaries in this respect (two odd factions to put together, I know) but they indeed both had an aim of exploring society both religious and secular in terms of ‘social’ engagement. And I do think here also that CTR did step into these waters when he urged people in the shambhala book to get involved in furthering the shambhala teachings because of the woeful state of the world –so how people say that these teachings can not enter the ‘political’ sphere in its widest sense I do not know.
Well hope the discussion can go further.
Do welcome the lamas thoughts on shambhala –perhaps he could read the Warrior book and then comment how he found it that would be really interesting.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Stockport UK
http://forums.phayul.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18935-tibetan-princess-drukmo-yeshe-sarasvati-ziji-mukpo-born-on-first-day-of-the-tibetan-new-moon/
A discussion forum on the “Royals” from the Tibetan Phayul website.
Chris,
While there is enough to question about what’s going on within Shambhala, and you know I am not defending what’s going on, this site:
http://forums.phayul.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18935-tibetan-princess-drukmo-yeshe-sarasvati-ziji-mukpo-born-on-first-day-of-the-tibetan-new-moon/
was sooo vitriolic, Chris, I couldn’t take it seriously or empathize in any meaningful way.
Especially Juju who seems to rule the site, insulting anyone who has the temerity to say things are maybe not all so dark. He seems limited to a very narrow hinayana (not even mahayana) concept of Buddhism, which he clearly isn’t practicing, and from which even, according to him, someone with as much influence as Trungpa Rinpoche even still within the Buddhist world, was a complete fraud.
(He claims Mother Teresa was a fraud too. How so, and what has that to do with this?)
I don’t feel insulted or put off by such remarks, not defending any status quo, and I understand all too well the criticism and even perhaps damage Trungpa Rinpoche’s lifestyle may have encouraged others to indulge in, and the Regent debacle… don’t get me started; it’s just that if one understood vajrayana, had read his or any other author’s books on the subject, never mind whether Juju has ever met such a one, it would be glaringly clear that those sorts of narrow definitions in no way describe the full gammut or pith of what Buddhism is about.
Even within the long tradition of Buddhism, there are Buddhist saints who did not fit social norms of decency and purity. The 64 Mahasiddhas are one high profile example, important, the Regent once pointed out, not because of the siddhis they attained, but because they were ordinary people: a rebellious teenager, a pimp, a drunk, lazy people, householders and more, who attained realization.
Hinayana purity of external behavior is neither the goal nor the measure of realization. And if it causes the kind of nausea Juju is suffering from, well, I don’t think we’re witnessing renunciation.
I don’t see any perspective from Juju other than if it ain’t ascetic celibate non-intoxicant hinayana with no rich people allowed, then it’s total nauseating bullshit.
Not really a mirror for our current situation.
Dear James:
The Phayul site is a site designed by a Tibetan in exile. It has as many or more visits than the Shambhala website. Three years or so ago, it had covered the Royal wedding. Much more solicitously, although there was considerable disgust expressed at the expense and materialism of the wedding by Tibetans on the site then.. In a little over three years it is more outspoken like the rest of the world. There is something happening where the shadow side of things is being named. Look at what is happening to the Pope, or the King’s successor prince in Thailand. Even the highest Catholic monastic, and another Buddhist Theocratic King and family are being called to account. So times are very interesting and shifting.
Where we like what is being said, or not, (and certainly JuJu is speaking from ignorance, re: CTR) most on the site agreed with his view on SI’s direction. if you can get past the irritating need to cut and paste his original post in responding, over and over. I persevered and found five of the six people , just as stinging in their assessment in their posts. So I guess this could be Shambhala International’s “mock jury” on the success of
there “media blitz” and decision to “come out” regarding their royalty. I think it is probably seriously back-firing. Probably why Kalapa was suppose to be a secret. Maybe in this case “self-secret” isn’t going to work, and maybe CTR had a much, much bigger view ,no doubt. As someone said, Shambhala manifests, you can’t create it. So this is backfiring, particularly among Tibetans,from my reading, who despite their claim of being the Royals from the Himalyas , are not buying it.
So I find it interesting, and important to get as large a view as possible , outside of the “canned” PR of SI. I also think the fear of slurs against CTR in retaliation for anything said against things, causes people to not speak up when they know things aren’t right. This fear is still one of our obstacles against speaking up, I belieive.
Also, James, regarding the Regent, I think we have too quickly condemned his teachings along with his actions.
I recently read a post by Patrick Sweeney, who describes the Regents devotion. He also presents the view of Trungpa transmitted via the Regent’s teaching on “ground , path and fruition”. Ground is maitri, path is non-duality, and fruition is sentient beings.
I forgot how brilliant the Regent was as a teacher. Think about this: maitri as the ground, ’ in other words kindness to oneself first, deep kindness, relaxing kindness , trusting ourselves that if we relax into total maitri, or things “as they are: not modified, then the path is non-duality, and the fruition is unobstructed compassion, or sentient beings.” Only with the ground of maitri, not dualistic, conceptual compassion, cranked up, out saving the world whether they want saving or not, but maitri, , deep maitri i.e. accepting ourselves completely, genuinely. This is totally Dzogchen, CTR was totally Dzogchen as well as a great Mahamudra teacher. And this is the Regent’s brilliant presentation on this. Who do we hear who teaches like this anymore? No one.
I believe that we have buried his brilliance as a teacher because of his actions. I think that was a mistake for us, I really do. By sweeping his brilliant teachings away with his fuck-ups we are depriving ourselves of much genuine dharma there.
I think you mean 84 Maha Siddhas. If you read Lion’s Roar on the Kaygyu Mahasiddhas, one thing that stuck out was their resumes in the beginning of the book.
They did come from all different backgrounds, but they were also all Chakrasamvara students, meaning they have taken samaya. It wasn’t like they walked out of the woods and became enlightened.
They all had teachers they made commitments to.
Everybody. Look it up yourself.
As far as where monarchy stands here, I’m not sure, but there have been good and bad monarchies.
An aside question for John Perks. I took a picture of you back at 1981 Seminary of you wearing a Scottish Kilt. Assuming you’re Scottish of ancestery, is it true the Scottish were such a terror back in the Roman Empire days, that the Romans more or less left the Scottish alone?
Also, being a Scandanavian fan my self, didn’t the Vickings give everybody a hard time (France, Germany, England?)? Did the Vikings have a Monarchy, or did they just raided and looted villages? You have to give the Vikings credit for actually making all the way to Iceland and Newfoundland.
/R
.
(Also accidentally posted in the Constitution page.)
Chris,
No question other perspectives can be helpful. But I don’t think Tibetans are intrinsically wiser, or particularly involved in this community. That site and its 8 contributors didn’t give me any insight into our situation, only that some Tibetans are bitter about royalty, but not even really why (Mother Teresa?). And… they’re not talking about Tibet. (?)
I don’t write the Regent off as completely as you suggest; some of my understanding of dharma (as shallow as it may be) comes from him. I know what a powerful teacher he could be. But something went terribly awry and to the extent that we ignore that or overlook it, to that extent we are giving tacit permission to a recurrence of exactly the same kind of abuse. This is a question of awareness and denial, not police action and punishment.
The thought police Mr. Perks mentioned. I’d bet real money some of the key players in that are people who helped the Regent conceal that he had AIDs. So it goes.
Another major problem with the Regent debacle, is that you will find it extremely difficult and I believe counterproductive to hold the Regent up as a lineage figure one could honor in the way lineage figures normally are. The wisdom a lineage holder transmits had better not be only in the words and books.
Occasionally I’ll recall something the Regent said and how insightful it was, and mention it to someone, the way we do. With the Regent sometimes I get an angry response that they would never have anything to do with a man who murdered someone by lying about his condition, so that he could get his rocks off.
Despite my respect for what a powerful teacher he sometimes was, there is no way I can say those people are wrong. Imagine if it were your child. I see clearly in those moments how very weird it is to hold up someone who did those things to people who were devoted to him, or to imply he is an example of anything we should emulate. I see no way around this dilemma.
If one holds him up as a lineage holder, one has to either deny or lie about what he did in his later life. If you are totally honest, it has to be fairly clear that in spite of his power and wisdom, the man made a major critical and for one or two people fatal error, and he encouraged other key figures to aid him in this error, against (we want to think) their better judgment. And He never properly related to in a way that cleaned that karma perhaps for himself, I don’t know, but certainly for his reputation and this community.
If that had been or were, if possible at this late date, related to properly contentions about the Regent’s value might dissolve. That’s how karma works, for us little people, and for the VIPs too. In that respect, the Regent shouldn’t be any more protected from his words and actions than Trungpa Rinpoche, SMR, you, me or anyone else.
Overcoming karma has nothing to do with looking the other way or focusing only on the good stuff. Any more than cleaning karma is about focusing only on the bad stuff.
Mr. Elliott writes:
a man who murdered someone by lying about his condition
For what it’s worth, not everyone believes that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease.
I’m not qualified enough (or foolhardy enough) to comment on that, but there is a scientist named Peter Duesberg who won the Nobel Prize for his work on retroviruses, who claims to have proven back in the 1980s, using very simple logic, that AIDS is not caused by a virus
But if the field of medicine is motivated by enlightened mind, then this guy must be wrong and nuts, because hardly anyone agrees with him.
It is interesting to note that the standard treatment for AIDS — drugs like AZT — will produce immune suppression in a normal, healthy person, and eventually kill the person, if enough is taken.
Forgive me for the tangential diversion. I hate tangential diversions.
Not so. I have one friend with HIV who I forced to see a doctor some 20 plus years back.
He has survived with AIDS now since because of the drugs.
His doctor told him then if he had not come within 2-3 weeks, he would have been dead from AIDS related pneumonia. The drugs have terrible side effects, but definitely saved his life..
Up till then, he was using Chinese medicine.
He didn’t want to go officially to a doctor with treating his AIDS because his parents were devout Catholics. Since then, his dad died. His mom is quite alive, still Catholic, and they both get along with each other quite well these days. .
I couldn’t quite understand why the Regent having AIDS was such a closed secret. Many people did not.
I’m sure people would have forgiven him if he was open about it when he found out.
Why Rinpoche told him to keep it secret, I’ll never know.
I would like to know.
Rob
Dear James:
(Accidently responded on Constitution Thread).
So the particularly tragic thing about the Regent was that he could have been held out as a model for the dharma being firmly planted in the West with a true Western lineage holder. That was CTR’s wish but it didn’t work out, and it caused 20 plus years now of Lamaism instead, which is not working here. Despite this, the Sakyong has embraced Lamaism in this weird fusion of Shambhala and Buddhism and Royalty to present to the West. When westerners figure this out by Level II or III, most our out the door. I think it is a revolving door, where ,despite counting everyone who comes in the door as a “member” they are always desperate financially because of membership attrition.. Interesting thread on Elephant magazine re: KTD’s controversy regarding the banning of Bardo Tulku; The themes are “disrespect for Westerners and western values; rigid adherence to a closed medieval model of androcentric theocracy,
No ability to receive or take feedback; older students leaving en masse, and withdrawing support putting them in financial distress.
It’s just amazing to me that the Sakyong, whatever he is, he is not stupid, so why would SI think that a return to this medieval model, with the same dysfunctionalism in terms of transparency and openness , would work in the long-run.
Maybe its really Namkai Drimed running the show now?
So if Tibetan lamaism in the West is toppling everywhere, than the decision to “put on the robes” together with the “Royal mantle” was the very very wrong decision. Unfortunately, it sounds like KTD as well as Shambhala Inc has sealed itself over and it will be both their deathknells.
I think the clear message of the Buddha rings again, “take the teachings , and put them into practice, don’t rely on others, be independent”. Lamaism will infantalize you forever, will not empower you as a Western practitioner, you will be always looking to “big daddys” and very few “big mommies” to take care of you and make all your decisions.
From the point of view of Western Culture, where we actually live and breathe, this is very dysfunctional behavior; No wonder all the older practitioners I know are in therapy or constant self-help groups.
Edward,
Beliefs. Jerry Falwell believed Katrina and 9/11 was brought on by pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and the ACLU,and that homosexuals are part of a vile satanic system that will be annihilated. Or as Patsy Cline sang, “Look what thoughts can do.” I’m not so interested in beliefs, not when there’s science involved. If that guy was using science rather than theoretical speculation, I think his views would be looked into thoroughly and then accepted.
Canada’s laws consider someone who sleeps with someone without letting their partner know they have AIDs as attempted murder. I don’t know what they say if the victim actually gets it and then dies, but I assumed murder. The Regent couldn’t go to Halifax, because Kier Craig’s mother, who I think had moved there, said that if he did, she would have him brought up on charges.
I’m fine with leaving the charges aside. But… Kier wasn’t my son.
The point was anyway, that the Regent’s denial stains his legacy, because he never came around to dealing with what he had done, whether we label it murder, manslaughter, or just sneaky lying hierarchical powerplay manipulation of what other people are allowed to think about.
And there are examples of other buddhist groups that have dealt honorably with corruption in ways that immunized their sangha, rather than maintaining their vulnerability.
“TACKY, Tacky, Tacky………
This group has changed lineage midstream………lifted another’s lineage, collecting more titles to outdo mother of all titles….Very SNEAKY……………”
message by Sogyal on Royal Family Thread on the phayul.com site.
The discussion continues about the Royal Family on http://www.phayul.com. One of their most discussed topics’ – These Tibetans seem to be able to see clearly, and immediately what has happened. It has taken us
20 years. We should be hearing this because they can see through it immediately, with all due respect to James, I think it is a big mistake not to listen to what they are saying.
Chris, the message is from a “sogyel”, not to be mistaken for Sogyal Rinpoche. There are a lot of reasonable voices on that thread too, but looong posts by Juju letting them know what putzes and weak minded simpletons they are for not agreeing with him.
Juju sure can follow a line of logic, but if you start out with a false premise, even the best logic will be somewhat dysfunctional.
Still think it curious that someone who has nothing to do with the community is so focused on it. He may have some points but it’s only the wagging finger I’m seein’.
Dear James:
I never said it was Sogyal Rinpoche, why would you think I was saying that? there must be 100,000 Tibetans named Sogyal! I think there is a pool of about 100 male names.
I guess you don’t encounter as many Tibetans as we do in Colorado. The point was, James, how quickly they “got” the situation happening in SI and how slowly it takes people who have been in the cult, to even look and “see” what is happening.
You didn’t say it Chris. I saw the name and thought „Sogyal? Have to check that out.” And saw it was just some guy who said:
“TACKY, Tacky, Tacky………
This group has changed lineage midstream………lifted another’s lineage, collecting more titles to outdo mother of all titles….Very SNEAKY……………”
Tacky. What does that mean? As far as form, the videos showed pretty much what we saw under Trungpa Rinpoche. Giving audience and presiding over events is not what disturbed me about the videos shown, and the group was not nearly as large as we would have seen around Trungpa Rinpoche. It was the sideways glances that showed uncertainty, or the hesitation about what to say, or the jocular irony about their new child. It didn’t feel settled, rooted, confident and present. But admittedly I wasn’t there.
Group, what group? Isn’t it eminently clear that all hands are not on board?
Midstream of what? Where is this shore, where is that one? Does he think we will all get enlightened at the same time, and we’re all only half way there? What lineage did we leave and which did we adopt? Is a lineage of one or even two actually a lineage? And again, which group?
“Lifted another’s lineage” Shambhala teachings were stolen now? Even within Trungpa Rinpoche’s will, Ösel Mukpo was responsible for the Shambhala teachings. The problem wasn’t that he stole that, but that he (or his advisors) apparently trusted no one else with the Trungpa Rinpoche’s Buddhist teachings, so he invented ‘Shambhala Buddhism’ and has marginalized Trungpa Rinpoche’s Buddhist teachings to such an extent, we can say there has been a break or at least a weakening of his lineage. But lifted? What whose which?
“Collecting more titles to outdo mother of all titles…” Well (shoulders slumping) here he may have a point, though Trungpa Rinpoche was no stranger to very long names either. But sogyel’s tone is one of a teenager who has finally irreversibly and undeniably caught someone in authority (usually a parent or a teacher) in a faux pas over which they can publicly humiliate them without fear of reprisal, regardless of the other stuff that person may have also done.
Chris, if we look for it, I bet we can find sites that talk about how Buddhism is an evil pagan religion that has renounced god.
If you have comments from peers of SMR, people at the same or similar or higher levels of responsibility giving him well founded critique, then it becomes interesting, but I’ve had it up to here (hand by my chin) with teenage dynamics of blame and ridicule; nothing to do with this site, I’ve become a bit shell shocked and burnt out by it due to (a glance over my shoulder) home life. It may be a necessary step for teenagers to work through in order to develop independent thought, but I don’t see its value for public discourse.
Dear James
I do not know what to make of the phayul site either briefly looked at it and its posting stuff on shambhala and many other issues aswell concerned I think more from a political angle. Dont know if there are any other sites out there which Chris could mention which are discussing shambhala maybe would be worth a brief look to get a snapshot of what people are thinking outside of SI and rfs about the Sakyongs teachings.
More interested in Chris’s posts about Akong R. –does this reflect a greater interest generally of Tibetans to get involved with the Chinese? That could have some reflection on the way things pan out in the future in the west aswell. I think Michael Chender has some stories about CTR meeting with Chinese representatives –think he told a story about this at one of my shambhala levels where he stated CTR was cool towards the Chinese. Hope I have got that right –it was a long time ago. Also as well if some people could post re the former department of external affairs(?) about relations with other countries that would be good – I suppose they could post anonymously-would love to hear what CTR thought about China and how it would progress and also possibly fall apart in the future(yes how do you keep together a country slowly engaging with the west, and such a diversity of interests –very hard thing to do for foreseeable long term).
SB-still decidedly not for it beginning to think radically that there may be other ways that CTRs vision for enlightened society could be manifested in this world outside of SI –maybe its a critical formation thingie perhaps we just have to have a hundred people with alternative viewpoints and ‘spiritual experiences’ hovering somewhat near the conceptions of the shambhala teachings for things to change. Yes I believe with Mark Szps. comment that we are in early days with the shambhala teachings.
Yes I have looked at the videos of the Sakyong Wangmo empowerment and there does not seem to be tons of people there like you get with the new rinpoches coming to the west. I dont know perhaps it is a perception thingie what was peoples experiences of this event. Seemed more social event than a really big switcheroo matter.
Hope we can get back to the declaration at some point –I am still thinking around the matter.
Best
Rita Ashworth
Dear James:
I was not endorsing any style, or suggesting that the Phayul thread was correct in all the details. I linked it to show simply that for Tibetans, whatever the PR that SI is putting out about this “Royal Couple being the King and Queen of Tibetans” is considered ridiculous
, they can see right through it.
This helps those of us brainwashed for decades to see through it as well.
What I also find, even on Elephant Journal threads about the Bardor Tulku fiasco at KTD, is a willingness to engage much less “intellectually” and call a spade a spade or call it how one sees it. I had not expected that from such traditionalists as dyed in the wool Kagyu students.
Why, even some who post here, feel far freer to express themselves on the Elephant Journal Thread, and more honestly, than here on RFS.
Why is that? What is going on here that makes it so difficult to be direct? I think it is because even if we have left , we have lingering trauma and confusion from literally decades of “enthrallment” in this situation, then years of abusive repression, and decades of talking all around the root problem, that actually keeps us from really seeing, and trusting our perceptions. This has resulted, (and you just have to read the two years of posts, here) in a continuous loop of intellectualizing. Intellectualizing about the situation is a common defense against pain, but it is not getting to the root. Facing the fact that we have been fooled, and we have fooled ourselves.
It is sad to me that CTR students cannot be direct, cannot confront things head on,
Cannot take any action against abuse, bullshit, thievery of our spiritual path, in fact refuse to even see it, even after years of evidence.
Again , the declaration would at least be some action, even though the time has past for us to have any affect.
And why I post these links is because I am encouraged that eventually, sooner, rather than later, this whole monkey show, will be brought down by outside forces, simultaneous to it collapsing from within. But it will have been no thanks to CTR students, who should have been the first line of confrontation, against such gross, disgusting spiritual materialism all around us. It is a terrible sadness, I feel, thats all.
Here is a model of how to discuss something honestly and directly, from our so called “traditionalist Kagyu bretheren:
This “thing” is imploding.
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/08/karma-triyana-dharmachakra-bans-bardor-tulku-rinpoche/