Open Dojo
December 4, 2011 by Mark Szpakowski 
Print This Post
by Mark Szpakowski
Practice room at Juniper Lodge, Windhorse Farm, Nova Scotia
An ongoing question for various types of Buddhists, especially those who have been in a relationship with someone they consider “enlightened”, is how to carry on in the absence of such an individual. This certainly affects the Vajrayana students of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, with whom they were in a student/master relationship, and whom they considered the authoritative center of an enlightened mandala.
Trungpa Rinpoche’s first teachings on mandala referred to it as society. It is not surprising, then, that the Shambhala [1] students of Trungpa’s secular manifestation as Shambhala King feel the same issue: if you had some glimpse, through his leadership, of what an enlightened society could be, how can you carry on and realize that vision in the absence of such a figure? Is enlightened society possible without an enlightened leader?
In both cases these are profound and edgy questions, and also deeply disturbing to those for whom democracy is the best answer yet to the question of how to govern.
One venue where this has been explored, whether willingly, wittingly, or not, has been at the Alia Institute. Alia – Authentic Leadership in Action – originally the Shambhala Institute for Authentic Leadership, was founded by a group of the Shambhala students of Chögyam Trungpa, who felt that the vision of a society that acknowledges and embodies both the secular and the sacred – beyond religious affiliations, including Buddhism – was worth realizing. The Institute welcomed those who, in technical Shambhala vocabulary, were warriors: those with a strong personal discipline of awareness, openness, and care, without aggression. Beyond welcoming, the Institute discovered such individuals already out there, who also welcomed the Institute back into their own spaces. Over the course of a decade, the Institute grew to not just include, but also to be coming from these individuals and their particular roots. Program after program, the participants built and held a container which felt open yet precise, not ignoring but kind, to the point yet playful. This was done as a cyclically recurring, and somewhat nomadic, community, with several programs a year, many in Nova Scotia, but also throughout the world.
The Open Dojo is one term that has emerged from this. It refers to a space of group practice that does not belong to anyone. It is no man’s land (to use a phrase Trungpa used in this context). It is a practice ground of listening, communicating, and acting. At the same time it is uncompromising, not swayed by wishful thinking and the sly fudging of ego. It is authentic – and its source and guardian is not one central figure, but a community of diverse practitioners. The Dojo is a container for practicing the way. The amazing thing is that it is possible for people, coming from various contemplative and leadership traditions, to recognize each other, and to recognize ground cultivated and allowed by them individually and collectively, held without ownership. This is a challenge – including and especially for those who feel they are holders of an authentic practice DNA that needs protection.
From this point of view, the Open Dojo is the heart of enlightened society. This is true for those who experienced that possibility through the presence of what seemed to be an enlightened being manifesting as leader. It is also true for those who never had such an experience, and may not believe it is possible or desirable, but who nevertheless have aspiration for and experience of Open Dojo.
Does that mean that the idea of a society ruled by a monarch – who, classically, joins heaven, earth, and man – is passé? Looking around us, we certainly see lots of anti-open-dojo patterns in a parade of dictators, kings, powerful individuals and their family dynasties, not to mention elected rulers. But that suggests something further.
How is it that so many smart, tough people in a two decade span late in the 20th century were willing to see Chögyam Trungpa as an enlightened leader? Sudden rememberance: because that person embodied the Open Dojo. He was embodiment of no man’s land: he lived the space where any trace of pretence and ego was obvious, and could not survive. If you thought you knew him, you quickly learned different. This is a scary, yet magnetic, place. Unblinking, yet nakedly genuine – and also attentive and kind.
It comes down to the same thing. At the heart of enlightened society is the Open Dojo, whether held by the group or embodied and held in a single individual. If the erstwhile ruler is not an Open Dojo, the people sense that, and ultimately he or she can neither command nor rule. The inner and personal space of the ruler must itself be no man’s land. To re-coin an old phrase, no man’s land and king are one.
It goes further, of course, because individuals must also hold themselves that way: otherwise, they cannot recognize the presence or absence of the Open Dojo. Before you can consider an external king, you must be king of yourself [2]. And to recognize open space that is genuine yet not owned by any one individual – a group Dojo – you have to a) recognize such spark in yourself, b) recognize it in others, and c) gradually realize that it is b) more than a) that is the path and the goal.
Something interesting opens up here: if the citizens or subjects are not themselves kings and queens of themselves, then even with the most enlightened leader the vision of an enlightened society will not be realized. We cannot get away from it – it is our ground that must be first cultivated and realized in its own open nature.
The Open Dojo is not mythical. It is not the extraordinary of long ago fable or Hollywood movie. It is the extraordinary of the ordinary, whether at an Alia Institute gathering, or at – can we dare – an Occupy the Future gathering, or your next get together. It is necessary for monarchy as well as socialism as well as democracy. It is more essential than any of those forms, because it is the heart of their success, if any.
A final note, in Buddhist language: In 1968 Chögyam Trungpa gave a talk in which he said that Maitreya, the buddha of the future, would not be an individual, but society. For both the religious buddhist, looking up to a “master”, and the secular enlightened society advocate, yearning for enlightened leadership, this is provocative. It says something about how we think, and hints how future society can shape itself.
[1] I am using the term “Shambhala” here in the way Chögyam Trungpa used it, pointing to the idea of an enlightened society that brings together both secular and sacred outlook, inclusive of but not dependent on any one religious tradition. This is not to be confused with “Shambhala Buddhism”, in which Shambhala teachings distinguish a particular form of Buddhism. For an excellent concise summary of Trungpa’s Shambhala vision, see the just published article Ocean of Dharma, Shambhala Sun (January, 2012]).
[2] Paraphrase from an attendee’s interchange with Trungpa at 1973 “Nine Yanas” seminar in San Francisco.
Interesting article. I love it when students of Chogyam Trungpa write about this kind of thing. Reminds me how wonderful it was to do some Shambhala Levels led by students of CTR.
But what exactly is the point of this article? Is it an invitation or a call to action of some kind? Or just a sharing of a beautiful experience, a kind of storytelling?
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
Are you saying that the religious Buddhist and the religious Secular Enlightened Society Advocate [SESA] are the same in that they are both based on irrational devotion?
And so then you’re contrasting that with hinted-at rational devotion of the ir-religious Buddhist and ir-religious SESA?
What would the rational devotion of the ir-religious SESA be like?
And what is beyond-rational devotion like for the ir-religious SESA? Thank you.
Thank you Mark -pithy clear and heartfelt.
Mark, your use of quotes around “enlightened” in the first sentence of your article and and “seemed to be an enlightened being” in the sixth paragraph seems either to indicate substantial doubt on your part about enlightenment being real — or else deference to the opinions of readers who have these doubts.
The wonderful thing about Buddhism, of course, is that enlightenment becomes more real and apparent the more it is immersed in and viewed from the perspective of ego and samasara. Enlightenment is given up in stages on the path — and perhaps from a view of the highest yanas you could let go of the idea. But that doesn’t mean that it is helpful or accurate to adopt a deconstructionist approach and say that all views and all doubts are equally valid.
I also get the sense from your musings on society and enlightened community that you are uncomfortable with the idea of a guru — now that CTR has been dead these 25 years. I recall that CTR spoke quite a lot about guru principal and the importance of there being an actual person to relate with. This is consistent with everything I have ever read about the Vajrayana.
I expect that your enlightened society / community idea with no guru necessarily excludes the Vajrayana. Not that that entirely invalidates the idea.
Thank you, Mark! In answer to Edward’s question, “what exactly is the point of this article?”, of course I can’t speak for Mark. But I would say that it speaks directly to some of the discussions about politics and monarchy, etc., that have been going on in the ‘Differing Views and Paths’ thread. Mark says, “if the citizens or subjects are not themselves kings and queens of themselves, then even with the most enlightened leader the vision of an enlightened society will not be realized. We cannot get away from it – it is our ground that must be first cultivated and realized in its own open nature.”
This is what the Vidyadhara tried so hard to get us to realize. Until that happens we’re just entertaining ourselves with speculation.
On the other hand, I find the insights in this article, born of Mark’s own observation and experience, to be very relevant for anyone who aspires to create an ‘open dojo’ in any situation – whether a ‘dharma study group’ for studying and practicing VCTR teachings, or a self-sufficient and sustainable, land-based community that intends to make it through the turbulence of this century. Or anything else.
I love what you’re saying ,Mark, and, I feel you took many words out of my mouth.
But I still don’t grok the “open dojo” concept. Maybe there’s a leap there I’m not getting.
help the simple minded like me.
I love what you’re saying ,Mark, and, I feel you took many words out of my mouth.
But I still don’t grok the “open dojo” concept. Maybe there’s a leap there I’m not getting.
help the simple minded like me.
Well, there’s certainly a variety of responses, evidently coming from different places that you who responded are at. Thank you! Perhaps that’s what “Open Dojo” is about. To respond in detail would be a huge discussion, but we could start and do our best.
Re John T, I see Open Dojo as a practice space, that is “held”, not just by one practice tradition, but by a number of these. Depth practitioners of different kinds, being able to create an authentic and deeply shared space together. I’m not talking just of peak moments, by the way: if it’s not mundane it’s not real. Edward, I’m sharing some of what I, and some others in a number of contexts, have been learning, and as Suzanne says, also the questions that have been arising around politics, society, monarchy, etc. Jim W, I don’t discount the doubts or questions others have about things like “enlightenment” – and that questioning is also a place where meeting is possible. Maybe you and i take a lot of concepts for granted. CTR didn’t first approach us with his enlightened or whatever credentials: the presence and the experience came first. After that those kinds of words had some real meaning. No less is required of you
and I 
John C, the rational vs irrational question is posed by you, and not something I’ve felt. I suppose it could be parsed out. I’m really just repeating what CTR said about the nature of things not being the intellectual properly of anyone or any religious ism, and that you can approach it directly through inherent human intelligence and sentience. It’s sentience – intelligence with care – more than rational/irrational. Secular sacred outlook, not “owned” by anybody, is the ground and the atmosphere of “Open Dojo”: that’s where we can meet about things that matter. That needs to be brought into the secular realm, of governance, economics, eco-systemic-care: it can no longer be abstracted away or relegated as the property of “religions” only. It can’t just be sunday school – it has to be part of financial and business bookkeeping. Literally
What Mark said about the nature of things not being the property of anyone, and that secular sacred outlook is not owned by anybody, reminded me of the conversations going on among ‘secular’ groups about “the commons,” an idea whose time has come AGAIN. Look it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons. But one of the ways to understand the opposite of the commons idea is suggested in this line: “the process by which commonly held property is transformed into private property is termed “enclosure”.” Well, we could do a whole other thread on that subject as it relates to what’s happened with the commons that the Vidyadhara left us!
The commons in England – or I suppose among some Native American tribes – had to do with the common endowment of Nature, the land, the forests, pastures, rivers, etc. Nobody ‘owned’ it because it was bigger and older than any humans or human generations and was the legacy that responsible humans left to future generations. (I’m trying to explain sane attitudes that preceded the mania for private property and “privatization” that we were born in the midst of. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the outcome of the privatizing mania is not turning out to be so healthy for the common good.)
Now what’s all that have to do with the Open Dojo? Mark said, “The Dojo is a container for practicing the way. The amazing thing is that it is possible for people, coming from various contemplative and leadership traditions, to recognize each other, and to recognize ground cultivated and allowed by them individually and collectively, held without ownership.” “For practicing The Way.” What is The Way? That’s something that is probably discussed at length in the Open Dojo.
I just got a book off my shelf titled “The Way: An Ecological World-View” by Edward Goldsmith (signed by him on Earth Day 1993). The Way is a secular sacred topic of conversation and practice among many different disciplines, spiritual traditions, and movements. It’s a term in Taoism for correct human behavior in accordance with the way of Nature, the cosmos. An equivalent term in Sanskrit is Dharma (a term not owned by Buddhism). The Way as an ecological worldview is the conversation and practice within the Deep Ecology movement, for example. (I taught it at Naropa for 12 years.)
How do you ‘practice The Way’? Long discussion!
Just a thought as a stab at trying to understand this “open dojo”
concept.
To my way of thinking, if the center is not an enlightened person,
(for however long a time span) then the Regent, or other appointed
holder of the tradition merely continues the (hard word to choose)
“program” of his predecessor. Dzigar Khontrul Ribpoche made a
statement saying that that was what he was doing to uphold his
teacher’s tradition. So, it seems that there is at least one way that the
“open dojo” could continue without an actual “enlightened “ leader,
although, the “Regent” has to have…some…”credential” ….that that
person is acknowledged as a valid “holder” of the tradition…
But they don’t go hog wild and change everything suddenly….
Oops! slip of the keyboard!
As a Buddhist, I’ve seen things that would make you crap a book on how to puke.
OK….so…is this the open dojo too?
Or am I simply making a fool of myself?
Could we say that open dojo refers to a practice atmosphere of non-ego, created by either a teacher or a group of practitioners? So you’re saying that any healthy society or practitioner needs such an atmosphere created? OK. But then you jump from there to define a pan-traditional social group, in which cleaving to a specific path/practice is suspect. (“This is a challenge…for those who feel they are holders of an authentic practice DNA that needs protection.”) That’s tantamount to saying that this healthy atmosphere of non-ego cannot happen without a sort of Unitarianism.
You see open dojo as “a shared practice space”. Practicing what? Warriorship? Non-ego? The [implied] inclusive meta-paradigm of the open dojoites must remain vague to remain inclusive. As Jim W. pointed out, even enlightenment is a questionable sectarian premise under such a scheme. Doesn’t it just end up being a way to avoid being stuck within the real parameters of an actual path? And why do people of different faiths really need to share, anyway? (Isn’t that sort of well intentioned sharing why the Shambhala Sun is such a milquetoast bore of a magazine, after all?)
Would the open dojoites share a tastefully non-sectarian Authenticity Room, as implied by the photo accompanying this piece? What would they do there once they’ve cleansed their spiritual palate of “bias”? How would it be different from past episodes of retail self-development psychology co-opting spirituality to sell vague ideas and trademarked terminology? From what I can gather at the Alia Institute website, it seems to be some sort of blend between Shambhala practice, pop psychology and business management psychology — charging some $500+/day to teach people “leadership”. Leadership is an odd term that you partner, inexplicably, with “contemplative” in your presentation. In business management circles “leadership” is a euphemism for “how to make more money and be more important through exploitation of your underlings at work”. The Alia website sets a more noble tone than that. They seem to mean well. But do you really think that this latest repackaging of pop psychology and spirituality is a step ahead of real spiritual path? People don’t pay $500/day for no-man’s land, and leadership is not a synonym for spiritual practice.
Dear Mark et al
I have been contemplating this ‘conception’ of an open dojo for about a week now…it reminded me of the Polly Wellenbech story on the Project where Rinpoche meets a Hare Krishna devotee on campus and states to him that he has Krishna in his heart….its an amazing story and kind of shows to me the depth of Rinpoches practice in that he can be that open to other faiths and people. Likewise it seems that Thomas Merton was that open too in that he contemplated having Tibetan rinpoches as his instructors in meditation –so yes these men are really ‘depth practitioners’ as you have pointed out.
However for the rest of us out there who are not so accomplished –how do we begin to connect with each other. Perhaps it would be useful if you could actually describe or fingerpaint the practices that you undertook at Alia and the discussions that went on.
Myself re some bottom line I am rather holding to the basic meditation practice that Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche gave us because I feel this is a genuine practice to work with. How would you in an open dojo group get that sense of genuineness re peoples many engagements with the meditation process. Indeed why many of us turned to the east was because there was a loss of such traditions in the west-so yes there even has to be a discussion about that quality of openness too.
In addition there are a growing number of New Age movements out there too –some of them more open than others – how would that fit into an open dojo –how could the participants discern what was mere fascination and gung-ho-ness with meditation and genuine connection and practice?
Of course those of us who did many of the levels in shambhala thought the open dojo would flourish there as a wholistic body of teachings and practice –so are you saying that now that the forms re shambhala have been established for some that we outside of that dimension have to somewhat re-establish a much broader connection to practice? If that is the case I too am considering ways that could be done in a western context at first.
Also for me democracy is very, very, very important …….so I am returning to the study of left-wing thinkers who seem to embody aspects of many secular practices of engagement with the world which includes Art and dialectic process which in some instances could be equated in a Buddhist sense with the openness of zen
I also feel the respect for democracy in the most widest sense that we have in the west may be why the more profound thinking about practice is happening here because we have somewhat experienced the limits of materialism and are now foundering on what to do next which will succeed here.
Well hope the discussion goes on apace because whatever we devise in the future re our own paths or perhaps even ‘new’ paths that await to be ‘discovered’ I think will have to embody the qualities of an open dojo that you are describing.
Best from the UK
Rita Ashworth
Jim – my use of quotes around “enlightened” is simply to indicate that the perceived meaning of that adjective varies termendously. People have different implicit understandings of it (even within the same tradition), and I’d like to acknowledge that and leave open a space within which those understandings are let be, and maybe even let go. If you have met people of practice traditions other than your own, who are as much true “warriors” (again, there’s a very special meaning I give to this term) as anyone you have met within your own tradition, then the space where you meet is completely open, and un-owned by you or them. That is both humbling and inspiring. I, and others, have had such experience, especially (for me) in the last decade or so.
I am not at all saying that all vews and doubts are equally valid. I can insist on those being genuine and as truly held as are mine. I have pretty high standards – I am a direct student of Chögyam Trungpa. He is a strong bullshit detector. But further, like him, I can acknowledge others in their most enlightened aspect – I am at least challenged to do so. And, to my delight, I have found, and do find, others I can relate with like that. This is 100% at the heart of where I’m (and you are?) coming from: you may recall that CTR put Little Joe’s picture on the Karma Dzong shrine. (Little Joe was a Native American Church leader). That’s quite a statement.
I think it is important to have a personal spiritual practice and discipline, so you can work and rest with the mirror of your own mind/heart. From that you can meet others, rest with them, and dialog, play, and work together. That is a further practice, and mirror. These other people have their own forms of practice. What matters is that they are “yogic” practitioners, actually working on themselves.
I am not at all uncomfortable with the idea of a guru: I have personal, daily practice and understanding of that. But you and I, within the same sangha, certainly have different personal practices of that, and probably somewhat different understandings. And those vary even more in the wide world. The forms of our personal practices are not our meeting points, not where we meet others. They are important for us, and essential to enable the authenticity and openness of that open space within which we do meet others. (continued… )
The forms of our personal practices are not our meeting points, not where we meet others. They are important for us, and essential to enable the authenticity and openness of that open space within which we do meet others. That is the open dojo, of and for a world which is teaming with people and their religions and practices, a tiny percentage of which are Buddhist. As CTR expressed it, “Shambhala vision applies to people of any faith, not just people who believe in Buddhism… A kingdom should have lots of different spiritual disciplines in it.” Creating the forms for and of such a secular society (not of a religion) seems to be an essential task of these times. I’m suggesting “open dojo” as a minimum form or pattern for governance, whether by an individual or by a parliament. That’s actually a very high standard.
“enlightened”
“the perceived meaning….varies tremendously…”
“People have different implicit understanding…”
“I’d like to…let go [of those understandings]…”
Then what is lamrim about?
And the bhumis?
And the 4 yogas of Mahamudra?
And the oxherding pictures?
And Buddhism?
They all describe enlightenment in great detail. Are they just so many colorful sophistries? (VROT once voiced an apropos, emphatic warning: [paraphrase] “Don’t mistake these teachings as theoretical. They are practical.”)
Don’t we need to differentiate between levels of View as opposed to just differences of opinion or “perceived meanings”? (I’m harping on the lack of definition in your meta-paradigm again.
My understanding is that you set up this website to discuss Buddhist and Shambhala practice, yet you repeatedly seem to define those as just two of a myriad of choices in something more important: a well adjusted society! If the cart of enlightened society gets a position in front of the horse of Dharma, how is that anything more than worldly politics, or worse, Utopianism? Is that Shambhala Vision?
“I can acknowledge others in their most enlightened aspect…”
?? So you do have a definition for “enlightened”?
“warriors”
“there’s a very special meaning I give to this term”
??
This seems to be to an attempt at a short description of what ‘enlightened society’ might feel like, the defining factor being open space rather than any particular structure as such. Good start, still much unclear.
All points of contention (and smarmy remarks) seems to orbit around a misapprehension Shambhala Buddhism seems to foster, that our spiritual path: student/guru relationship, devotion, surrender, overcoming ego, requisite beliefs and specific practices on the one hand, and on the other whatever form or system is adopted for organizing society or group activity, are the same thing. It’s not true even within a single school.
In the statement: “If the erstwhile ruler is not an Open Dojo, the people sense that, and ultimately he or she can neither command nor rule.” is easily enough understood, however, any thoughts on what to do if the ruler isn’t Open Dojo, how citizens might improve it, correct it, checks balances that sort of thing, or what effect that has on society are undefined. There’s a reason absolute power over society is no longer in vogue. That is where spiritual practice has little power and the logistics of governing become critical.
The next paragraph puts the onus on the governed to be developed enough to recognize that in oneself and so in others; that in fact that is the path and the goal, brings us back to the unfortunate concept that spiritual path and forms of government are the same. I think it is crystal clear that government and its role in education, creation of group identity, laws, legislation, justice and finance is in a clearly more responsible position. Or leadership is a principle only lauded when things are going well, and individual responsibility the buzz word when leadership fails.
One ought not judge a spiritual school by the level of inspiration students have alone. There has to be something else more substantive going on. In the same way it would be a poor measure to determine the ‘enlightenment’ of a society by the level of emotional commitment or its vision.
In the inspiration that if you want to determine whether a society is ‘enlightened’ or not, don’t settle on inspirational chatter, instead discover how they approach and solve problems. That’s the level at which society will manifest any enlightenment it may have, because that’s what government’s about.
Speaking as an old fashioned Buddhist person I feel like I am supported in my dharma study and practice by internally affirming a clear lineage connection. So (at the risk of boring readers!) the basic dharma, as taught by Buddha, advises us that developing shila, samadhi and prajna will help clarify and tame our minds. Then, with a calmer mind and maitri towards ourselves, we can expand our vision to take the bodhisattva vow and to practice with the view that the welfare of others is more important than our own welfare. This is because we have the compassionate attitude. Finally, we have the skilfull means of vajrayana by which enlightenment can be reached in one lifetime.
As we know, the effectiveness of the three yana approach has, as its foundation, the connection to an authentic master and his lineage. So in this may, we can work with what is genuine and further our dharma path.
In Halifax, as an example, we have a number of small, but commited and stable dharma groups that practice and study together within this traditional framework and in the context of having explicit relationships to well known Tibetan lineage holders. I, myself, have for the last half year enjoyed participating in two of these groups, (In the midst of a very busy work schedule).
Maybe these remarks are a little bit helpful.
Dennis Rivers, cyberfriend of mine, has created a website that seems to embody the Open Dojo concept and vision for both living on the Earth and living with one another. The site says:
The Earth is an island in the vast ocean of interstellar space.
How will we care for our beautiful island? How will we care for one another?
Earthlandia is a virtual country in the ocean of cyberspace devoted to exploring more sustainable and compassionate ways of both living on the Earth and living with one another. Our vision is to create a sheltering space where people can explore how to become better citizens of the Web of Life. Earthlandia is a creative exercise in both thinking and feeling outside the box of the current person-as-consumer-only thinking that is ascendant in the world today, is making us miserable, and is killing the planet.
Every actual country consists not only of its physical territory, but also the agreements people share about how to live, how to care for one another, and how to care for the land on which they are guests. These agreements are not physical objects, they are shared understandings that exist in some sort of “mental space” not so different from cyberspace. Every actual country is partly mental. Earthlandia! is a country in heart-and-mind-space, in which people can clarify what kind of world they actually want to nurture, and what kind of people they want to become.
See Earthlandia! a place to explore the kind of world we want to make together http://earthlandia.net/
Is this not an invitation to an Open Dojo that is as vast as is needed at this time in human/Earth history???
“There are no games without holes in them.” Keith Dowman
Dear Suzanne, James
Many thanks for the earthlandia website – I will explore it. It looks really good re the articles that he has supplied.
I have myself have been checking out the Zapatista movement because of Holloways involvement with them–they seem to embody for me aspects of democracy that dovetail with the enlightened society ‘concept’ very well in that people are acutely involved in the ‘political’ process in a communal manner. Of course they might not practice formal meditation as we do but because they are primarily of Mayan descent in Chiapas I expect they are following some form of ‘religious’ ceremonies both Catholic and of Mayan origin.
In addition they are actually governing areas of the Chiapas region which is amazing aswell in a country so much embroiled in being exploited by the US. Also their notion of ‘obedient authority’ is an interesting one to contemplate in that it unites both the people and the ‘officials’ who are temporarily employed to help run the areas.
Here is a post from utube about the Zapatistas which highlights the work they are doing …..
http://youtu.be/fCmQWFOw3Xo very interesting….. also maybe John (T) might be able to comment on them as I believe he is living in Mexico.
James –good post -yes I am for the separation of state and ‘religion’ but I still feel the political class in both the west and the east have to go beyond the idea of just being managerial types devoid of the values of seeing people and the world in a wholistic fashion. So then we are again into a difficult area in denoting the qualities a public civil servant should have in regard to their interactions with people – if they indeed had that old-fashioned virtue of dignity which could be equated with basic goodness the political process would go better I believe.
Well just some thoughts re ‘politics’ and enlightened society because I believe the ‘open dojo’ must also be about the flow of power back and forth.
Best from the UK
Rita
I don’t know much about the Zapatistas per se, but in general, there are many areas in Mexico which run semi autonomously from the Federal government.
I read an article comparing Thailand to Mexico, saying there is more freedom because the central governments are weak, so experiments, like the Zapatista movement here, can flourish.
Thanks, Rita, for the mention of and the link to the Zapatistas. Subcomandante Marcos, ‘spokesman for the Zapatistas,’ is my favorite revolutionary hero – far more appealing than the slobbering Zizek. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcomandante_Marcos.
My favorite quote by Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos:
“I’d rathe die on my feet than live on my knees.”
That quote has been attributed to everyone from Euripides to Ronald Reagan to the Tea Party. It is nothing more than a very versatile pretext for aggression.
I prefer the Tibetan aphorisms — “One should live in the circle of dogs” or “Humbleness is the dwelling place of the forefathers”. No one is lower — no pride — no ambition. Then there is the possibility of peace.
Jim Wilton, actually, I think it was Zapata – the Mexican revolutionary after whom the Zapatistas are named – who was famous for that quote. To die on one’s feet rather than live on one’s knees does not have to be interpreted as aggression, unless one is so cowardly that the idea of standing up for what one believes, and being willing to be shot down for one’s confidence, seems like aggression. I guess that is the point of view of those who think living on one’s knees as a slave is more virtuous. In any case, it’s silly to compare aphorisms in this instance, as if quoting a Mexican revolutionary disqualifies one from also being fond of, for instance, “Humbleness is the dwelling place of the forefathers.” Don’t you remember how the Vidyadhara deplored cowardice????
I was surprized too, Suzanne.
Macho statements struggling against the shackles of the enemy and injustices… one has to intentionally ignore how such statements have been used historically to believe it is not meant in that way.
Weren’t all the men in that video wearing masks?
I mean what’s that about?
One might be able to justify it if you hold your head just so… but the long and short of it is people with power who do not want their identities known, even small children know that’s not right and won’t end well.
The Zapatista movement looks to be a revolutionary or reactive form of government, defined primarily by its defiance or autonomy from a corrupt and probably inept central government (or weak as Jon pointed out). That’s all well and good, a revolution may be the only way to break a corrupt established power, (I support the #ows movement as such) but… let’s call the Zapatistas what they are: an attempt to create an infrastructure within which people can survive in spite of bad weak government, not because of good government. I’d need a lot more convincing before I accepted that it might be anything like enlightened government or something expressing ‘open dojo’ principle Mark described.
In the inspiration that the path helps us to stop the struggling against our projections
James, I’m not an expert on the Zapatistas, but my limited understanding is that Zapatista men, women and children were wearing masks to hide their identities from paramilitary assassins, and to symbolize that they are all in it together – in solidarity. Subcomandante Marcos wore a mask because he was a target for assassination, and the people joined him in wearing a mask – as if to say, “Are you going to shoot us all?” Where did you get “People with power who do not want their identities known?” How about people without power whose identities are submerged in their solidarity?
If you know anything about indigenous struggles against imperialistic domination, you might recognize that “Dying on our feet” is a statement of defiance against an oppressor – a statement that echoes the Native American saying, “It’s a good day to die.” When under attack, the Samurai had a similar attitude on the field of battle. Defiance is not the same as aggression. Even the United Nations recognizes that.
Yes, the Zapatistas are attempting to “create an infrastructure within which people can survive in spite of bad weak [cruelly indifferent, corrupt] government.” But given how little they had, their attempt to create a viable democratic alternative – in which power is shared, the children are educated, the land is protected, and justice is sought – seems an admirable alternative to defeat, despair and substance abuse, which is often the state in which oppressed people find themselves.
I see the ‘open dojo’ principle operating in the Zapatiistas’ attempt to bring their basic goodness to bear in governing themselves with mutual respect. I’m not claiming it is “enlightened government.” However, instead of looking down our Shambhalian noses at such an attempt, thinking we’re above all that because we are so ‘civilized,’ we might be wiser to realize there are lessons we can learn from such people, and that those lessons might be useful if and as conditions in the world deteriorate (further). Are you paying attention to conditions in the world?
My nose is Shambhalian? You haven’t been paying attention, Suzanne. Or is it a compliment…
I’m not at all sure.
My point isn’t that whatever the Zapas are doing is wrong or bad, defiance against oppressors is necessary, you won’t get any argument with me there. Again, Viva la #OWS movement in all its guises.
However, if a system of organization, a government, is defined by its resistance to a larger central government, then struggle will be the defining dynamic. (In Shambhala it has been said we are trying to change all social paradigms, which I find just as aggressive and disrespectful towards vernacular culture and wisdom, but that’s for another thread…)
You can talk about the necessity of hiding their identities, no doubt there’s some truth to it, but it’s a slippery and steep slope to something else when everyone’s wearing masks to hide who they are. Open dojo it is not.
I think we’re on, once again that cusp of spiritual practice versus political process. On one hand, there is something to accomplish within the spiritual path. One does attain something we call realization or perhaps just wisdom. There’s something to figure out, and when one has done that, one is considered accomplished.
On the other hand, the poitical process is swimming in impermanence and will never be ‘accomplished’ as such, it is not the same as a human being who can be. Politics is about responding to an external and changing world appropriately. But in political systems we should see the seeds of futures past.
Just saw an interview with Chris Hitchens, who was as a young man an idealist who moved to Cuba to join the revolution. Upon his arrival they gave him his first frozen daquiri (which he greatly appreciated), and then they took his passport away saying “We’ll give it back when you leave.” That’s when he started to feel creepy about what was going on there.
In the inspiration of seeing the seeds of karma before they become kudzu infestations.
Hi everybody, glad to be checking back in here. I think I have some sense of the open dojo concept. I think I saw it in action in so many of the OWS videos. I felt it in a small way here in Halifax. It was amazing to me how fluid peaceful and unified the crowds were able to function and in a sense govern themselves. Also I saw, to my amazement, the best examples of spontaneous insight – gone wild ! Truly, this made me happy.
Dear Suzanne, James, Mark
Many thanks for your comments on the Zapatistas…..yes the main reason I mentioned them was in connection to John Holloways theories about capitalism being ‘cracked’ open by the various world crises in the environment and social affairs….so yes it was that sense of things, life as we know it, being less defined by what we consider as ‘normal’. Holloway is intriguing ….he strikes me as being very open to the general disquiet that people have about our present ‘political’ structures, much as Fromm was in the past-so hes quite a deep thinker.
Zapatistas and the masks I had not considered the ramifications of them-you can I believe associate the wearing of them with the exercise of power as they do in theatre-so thats also something that passed through my mind.
Anyhow I did see some of the connections that Holloway was making about ‘social’ affairs in terms of the general sense of waking up to life and being on open ground in that at present much of our lives are embedded in the capitalistic dimension and the consequent alienation of that state.
So yes how would that tie up with the ‘open dojo’ concept-well for me it would be a process of removing a kind of habitual pattern we seem to slip into in the west of viewing our relationships with the world and people with a very acquisitive and protective eye. So here Holloway is clearing away those kind of materialistic motives in a dialectical sense. So yes maybe in an intellectual sense thats good to do aswell in conjunction with formal meditation.
I think there is also a sense of vulnerability to his thinking, lectures and writings which kind of jives with the way I myself experienced my own brief meetings with Trungpa in the 1980s and at seminary…..yes for me the quality that Trungpa most embodied was his kind of wide open vulnerability to people and events even as to the risk of his life.
So yes reflecting back to the ‘open dojo’ –if there was a practitioner in there and maybe he/she was practicing martial arts you would have to be very vulnerable and open to win over your opponent. And taking that idea of a samurai with it you would have to have also a notion of how power worked in the world aswell I think both intellectually and in a decisive manner of actually being in the world…..so yes ‘open dojo’ I believe has to be connected to power in some way especially the way where the many will also inhabit it through dialogue as Mark envisages.
Well just some thoughts…..hope the discussion goes on.
Best
Rita
Ps –there is a longer film on the Zapatistas on the wiki article that Suzanne supplied – yes Marcus is an intriguing character –hes been in Chiapas for 12 years I believe and he does have the support of the Mayan people –so yes a great film to watch aswell.
I don’t want to monopolize the Open Dojo with talk of the Zapatistas, who were probably the furthest thing from Mark’s mind when he opened this discussion. However, a strange bit of synchronicity today encouraged me to dig out the lovely, insightful article on the Zapatistas by Rebecca Solnit that was published on TomDispatch almost four years ago, and which I’ve never forgotten. Rebecca Solnit is a respected environmental writer and activist. She went to Chiapas to experience the Zapatistas for herself. Her article “Revolution of the Snails, Encounters with the Zapatistas” may help to correct any misconceptions about them that still linger among RFS readers: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/174881/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_journey_into_the_heart_of_an_insurgency
The somewhat amusing synchronicity that led me to dig up Solnit’s Zapatista article is that a new article by Solnit was published on TomDispatch.com on Thursday, Dec. 22nd. Its title is “Compassion is Our New Currency: Notes on 2011′s Preoccupied Hearts and Minds.” Guess what it’s about! Yes! The Occupy movement – and the larger socioeconomic context of it. What Solnit says here about the Occupy movement does relate, perhaps, with the Open Dojo idea:
“Occupy has also created a space in which people of all kinds can coexist, from the homeless to the tenured, from the inner city to the agrarian. Coexisting in public with likeminded strangers and acquaintances is one of the great foundations and experiences of democracy, which is why dictatorships ban gatherings and groups — and why our First Amendment guarantee of the right of the people peaceably to assemble is being tested more strongly today than in any recent moment in American history. Nearly every Occupy has at its center regular meetings of a General Assembly. These are experiments in direct democracy that have been messy, exasperating and miraculous: arenas in which everyone is invited to be heard, to have a voice, to be a member, to shape the future. Occupy is first of all a conversation among ourselves.”
Solnit goes on to talk about a “contagious virus of truth-telling.” To read more, go to http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175483/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_occupy_your_heart
A couple of references that may be useful:
- Re Joe P’s questions about Alia Institute, perhaps the best expression of what Alia has been about is my wife’s Little Book of Practice (a free PDF download; I’ve also made ePub (iBooks) and mobi (Kindle) versions).
- We also wrote an article, Occupy Yourself: Lessons for Mindful Democracy (also in Spanish at the dharma|arte site).
Interesting that the Guy Fawkes masks have become one of the icons of #occupy. Also that “dignity” is so often the first word used, by the participants (not necessarily by the commentators) to describe what these movements, now reaching even into America, Russia, and the Middle Kingdom, are about. Occupy feels like a touching the earth gesture of finally acknowledging what is really happening (the “contagious virus of truth-telling Suzanne mentions), a self-witnessing to real global injustice, as the skyscrapers of finance, uncaring greed, and phoney hierarchy collapse. The occupy locales over time become charnel grounds of smart idealists, ordinary ground-down 99 percenters, and damaged, drug-addicted, street people – which our current forms of governance have not been able to deal with. Neither we nor they can be naive about democracy, dear leaders, or too big to question institutions. To that I think it’s important to contribute our best ideas and practice, in the spirit of finding not ourselves, but others, exceptional.
Thank you, Mark, for sharing your and (your wife) Suzanne’s writings that reveal more of the thinking behind the Open Dojo idea. I appreciate having these resources for other situations. Of the Shambhala Summer Institute, Suzanne says, “I have been in awe of the level of coherence that seems to “show up” of its own accord, in spite of the great diversity of people, cultures, and methodologies that come together for that short week. This coherence seems to exist between or beyond the parts as if something bright and powerful is able to shine through.”
To me, Suzanne is reflecting or echoing systems thinking, the slogan for which is, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” I believe a number of leaders in systems thinking have been involved in the Shambhala Institute, so the Open Dojo concept makes sense to me in systems terms.
Thanks also for pointing out that “the Guy Fawkes masks have become one of the icons of #occupy.” This observation immediately reminded me of the suspicion voiced by some people in this thread of the ski masks and kerchiefs that Zapatistas wear. So it’s OK if white people wear the mask of a white guy while protesting injustice, but it’s not OK for brown indigenous Mayan peasants to wear ski masks and kerchiefs?!?
A couple of other ideas you mention in this post resonate strongly for me: “The occupy locales over time become charnel grounds of smart idealists, ordinary ground-down 99 percenters, and damaged, drug-addicted, street people…” And: “I think it’s important to contribute our best ideas and practice, in the spirit of finding not ourselves, but others, exceptional.”
I think this latter is the way the Vidyadhara taught in the West: contributing “best ideas and practice in the spirit of finding not ourselves, but others, exceptional.”
Mark:
[ Re Joe P’s questions about Alia Institute, perhaps the best expression of what Alia has been about is my wife’s Little Book of Practice ]
But…I wasn’t asking about Alia. I was attempting to bring some clarification to your proposal.
Perhaps your response is a lesson in leadership? From your wife’s inspirational missive:
[ Framing is a primary leadership act....
When we encounter a frame different from our own, we can either so-
lidify the boundary between us or be open to the possibility of creating a
new, larger frame together. ]
So critiques could be re-”framed” as questions from students, thereby asserting leadership in a “non-aggressive” manner? …I think I’m catching on.
Psychopaths In Everyday Life
I think this is educational and important.
It’s long so get comfortable and plan to
spend some time if you decide to watch
in its entirety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWpxH-RlFQ
——
Sangha-talk policy: one post per day.
More at http://www.shambhala.org/members/lists.html
Madeline, will be watching that video tonight. Peter Coyote narrating. Very cool.
No I’m not racist, Suzanne. I haven’t expressed an opinion about #ows and their purported mask fixation, so assumptions I think it’s OK for white people to wear them while denigrating non-whites for that is uncalled for and baseless.
And because those dice have been cast: Given the mixed nature of American society, how can anyone be sure only whites wore Guy Fawkes masks? Are they American participants? And out of the tens upon tens of thousands of demonstrators not only in America but all over the world, how many wear that mask? Is it in any real way a representative icon for the vast majority of participants, or of the basic aims at all? I think not.
I support the #ows movement, but find the GF mask one of the creepier manifestations of that, a magnet for aggression, not at all expressing the heart and intelligence that has spawned this movement, so it isn’t particularly surprising mass media has glommed onto it. We don’t need to follow suite.
My thinking is the GF mask has become the #ows’ icon in main stream media in exactly the same way serial killers get catchy names, not because the movement itself is saying that’s what it’s about, but because journalists want a catchy hook. The movement acquiesces or enjoys that to the extent it raises the issues onto a public platform, but at some point I think that will need to be corrected.
Guy Fawkes was only the trigger man for a back-room plot to assassinate King James I and return a Catholic king to the throne… or whatever nefarious intents lurked. We can be sure control of wealth was key, but I just don’t see a popular uprising for a common cause. It was an attempted putsch or coup d’état to remove one figure in favor of another. In England with Guy Fawkes Day it is the victory over such conspiracies, not the spirit of violent revolution, they celebrate.
While I understand the frustration the mask’s theatrical and ritualistic threat may express (which is quite another thing than hiding one’s identity from authorities), it is not the intelligent or relevant part of the movement worth focusing on.
In the inspiration of doing better than mass media in perceiving #ows and other people’s motives, methods, and meaning.
I don’t agree with Mark and Susan’s essay making the connection with shamatha’s power of breaking habitual patterns via mindfulness practice, with the #ows or any political movement. Mindfulness practice helps dice out egoistic tendencies in oneself and our projections of others. But the intelligent relevant part of the movement is not non-conceptual or born from mindfulness practice. It is happening because the suffering and injustice have become not only intolerable, but for many literally un-survivable, and a critical mass of people understand why that is so, and imagine alternatives already.
Rather than a sudden gap or break with the status quo, over a long time, decades at least, a lot of thought and work on a cultural level has occurred: essays, lectures, debates, examinations, journalism, science, books, scandals, film, education, reports, env. and political disasters, exposés, the internet and its contribution to communication systems, etc. have been accumulating and creating a general awareness. When society comes to an impasse like this, we have examples throughout history, eventually, and this is what I think we are witnessing, a critical mass of people will have a good enough grasp of systemic problems, not just “this sucks” but “this sucks because of… “, and then revolution of one kind or another is virtually inevitable.
The #ows movement, rather than a sudden gap, was predicted well over a decade ago, even within Pentagon reports about the results of climate change. The PTB have known this was coming, they just didn’t know exactly when.
Mindfulness practice will be helpful for the things it does (relating to the nature of mind, projection, ego etc.), but without the kind of intelligence generated by thought, general education, science, open debate etc., such a movement would a. never achieve popular support and b. would only be about frustration and destruction. (i.e. the GF mask…)
Mark rightly pointed out the vision of what comes next is essential.
On one hand mindfulness practice. On the other the need and responsibility to explore, examine and define our situation. The first might help dice out P.A. and I. The second will provide the intelligence for sane proactive involvement in the political process.
In the inspiration that clearing the decks is not a matter of aesthetics, but rather to get ready for action.
A good homework assignment might be to look and observe other Buddhist Centers, and see how they suceed (or not suceed) in preserving their lineages.
Our lineage has gone thrugh so many changes since the Vidtdhara’s Parinirvana, it is mind boggling.
If I knew back then what I know now about the changes that would occur within Vajradhatu / Shambhala and our sangha, I probably would hesitate from becomiming a Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche student. On the other hand, it was Rinpoche, not Buddhism, that made me discover and become a Buddhist.
I hope to not ever go through such a period of transitions in one lifetime ever again. what is the point of tradition if you don’t know what changes will be made from one year to the next?
The idea of lineage is to preserve tradion (and hopefully be flexible).
Yes, the world is changing quickly, which is why we should presrve our tradition(s) more. We want to pass on to future generations not just what we know, but what previous generations taught and practiced as well.
Otherwise, it would be like relearning how to tie our shoes everytime we tie our shoes in a different manner (which would be interesting, but somewhat pointless)…
Dear James, and Rob
James I take your points but I think there is something bigger going on re the formation of an enlightened society which is somewhat beyond the cultural level. One only needs to look at the Arab spring in this regard and to see how the people there were also united in their practice of Islam
Revolution also I do think does not only come about through culture it comes about through faith in the widest sense aswell –in Europe we can look to Luther to embody this dimension and in our own era I dont see how you can separate those most profound philosophers Freire and Illich from their ‘religious’ upbringing.
I think the problem with our secular age is that we dont know how to see, feel the sacred in our world so therefore we are hunting for definitions as to how this enlightened society can come into being beyond the ethos that the present SI organisation has constructed. However in many ways we will have to explore this seeming division in the coming years whether by the meditation process or deep analysis.
Of course I do agree with the division of state and church thats what the Enlightenment gave to the west and that should be protected at all cost, but I also think we need to go further in exploring how the sacred can be manifested in our lives and that I happen to believe at this time in history has to be somewhat a western venture because we are so holed up in materialism.
I also think revolution is not inevitable –it has to be worked at ….the occupy movement has been somewhat crushed in the states and now I dont see that many people taking to the streets-hopefully in the New year this may change and people again may feel more empowered. Taking all these thoughts back to the open dojo ‘concept’….we have to have bigger minds to encompass what could take place if mindfulness truly clicked with the exercise of clear power.
May I also say that I agree with Rob re the rapid changes in SI –there indeed has been little accommodation for everyones different connections to Trungpas teachings and in the west I do not think that is how we are built in relation to connecting to religious and secular practice –there must be left oceans of room to examine ones own personal relationship with the teacher and the practice. Our own philosophical tradition starting with the Greeks does indeed emphasise the individuals priority in seeing and being in the world from his/her own cognizance of it and this attitude is redolent in our history through the democratic process. This connection to democracy I also believe is inherent in the open dojo way of thinking and being.
Well just some thoughts from this side of the pond.
Best for the New year in 2012.
Rita Ashworth
Rob,
I got a kick out of your description of the numerous changes. I can sympathize. But I don’t think the point of lineage is to preserve tradition. Rather, the point is to transmit realization in spite of tradition. The teacher is the teachings. The teacher authorizes his/her heir. (In that vein: The Sakyong is the authorized family heir. It’s not clear to me how he was authorized as the Dharma heir to replace the Regent.)
I’ve been following some of the links from the Alia website: The Presencing Institute, Reos Partners, Alia Institute, Otto Scharmer… Am I the only one here who finds it worrisome that a significant number of the sangha seem to have shifted their efforts to what appears to be a trend of “Dharma-tinged New Age self-development psychology meets Fortune 500″ — teaching high-priced workshops to CEOs? Did I miss something? In my online meandering I find strikingly opaque jargon like “multi-stakeholder process”. (Which means “people talking”, in case you’re curious.) That jargon is peppered repeatedly with buzz words like leadership, process, change, future and Theory U, the diagram for which looks like something that could have come out of a 70s self-help book:
http://www.presencing.com/tools/u-presentation
Yet Mark is proposing this stuff as literally a replacement for Dharma practice. He presents his proposal in the context of being an answer to “how to carry on in the absence” of the Vidyadhara. And since he’s passed on all requests to explain, expatiate, discuss, or debate, I’m guessing that he’s regarding himself as a teacher of this New-Age-meme-set-for-the-white-collar-world in posting his proposal.
The context here, for me at least, is that of how to make for a more “enlightened” world and its society of humans. I have found the concept of “open dojo” helpful in clarifying some issues. This context is secular: “dharma” in perhaps the root sense of that word (how things are), but not specifically in a “buddha” dharma or other religious practice sense. It is not a replacement for “Dharma practice”: I think it’s appropriate to insist that secular “warriors” each have a deep and ongoing non-trivial personal practice, which usually has some flavour of religious basis. My own tradition does not own the space of authentic practice and being and understanding. This happens to be how my teacher, Chögyam Trungpa saw things, and he expressed this quite openly and publicly (as well as, in my case and that of others, directly one on one re this exact specific point).
A question is how we can come from our individual traditions, to discover and present and offer an open space that is civic, civil, not superficial, not ignoring, and not separate from effective action. There is a sense of practice in such a space. It depends on each person’s individual practice of how they hold themselves, but its character and vocabulary and symbolism needs to be an open umbrella, held in common, not bound to any one person’s religious proclivities – including mine and yours. This is a challenge and open experiment. We need to regain our own lineage of humanity, as CTR says in the Sacred Path book, last paragraph of last chapter (titled “The Shambhala Lineage”):
“This context is secular… I think it’s appropriate to insist that secular “warriors” each have a deep and ongoing non-trivial personal practice”
I can see the appeal of what you’re talking about, especially for Shambhalians with enlightened society in mind. But you started by saying that both Buddhists and Shambhalians have had difficulty finding direction since Rinpoche’s death. Then you proposed that ideas like open dojo might fill that perceived gap. You also define open dojo as an idea in a secular context. And in fact you indirectly assert that Rinpoche taught that sangha is synonymous with [secular] society.
You say it’s important for people to have some kind of practice, but that that’s mainly a private issue. The overarching View is open dojo — which defines a responsible citizen, practicing humility, mindfulness and openness, in a healthy, well-oiled society. Spiritual practice only serves that goal or ideal.
It’s quite radical to include Buddhists in such a View-shift, because by implication you’re redefining the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice as a secular/worldly one.*You redefine Buddhism itself by proposing a secular umbrella over it*.
This topic is made murky by vague terminology: spiritual/religious vs worldly/secular. In Buddhism there is path. Worldly issues are interpreted in the context of path, which is spiritual/religious View. You say that you’re addressing a worldly/secular context. No matter how well-motivated and refined a secular View might be, it’s still defined in terms of relative goals within the operation of human society. From Buddhist View, whether we’re active in the world or not, to practice a secular/worldly “uber-View” can never be more than merely redecorating Samsara — and in fact losing sight of the path altogether. Which is why I find it worrisome that not only never-Buddhist Shambhalians, but also older Buddhist sangha, would be getting involved, apparently en masse, in what’s essentially nothing more than self-development psychology.
(I suppose I’m getting at a point similar to James Elliot’s: that path shouldn’t be seen to be on the same level as social structures. The former context can encompass the latter, but the latter cannot even perceive the former.)
I’ve been speaking primarily in the secular, societal context, but it is true that I think the open dojo concept can also be useful in a strictly religious context, in particular regarding the issue of identifying and working with someone you consider a realized being, or at least someone on the way there who is, relative to you, a teacher or master. Specifically, “open dojo” describes the way of being, and even the state/non-state of mind, that such a being ought to have, ideally. This is based on my own understanding and practice, and on having met at least one person who embodied such a state of mind. So the term “open dojo” is one vocabulary for articulating a quality that seems to characterize a more enlightened being.
On the secular side, I don’t think I’m saying anything that isn’t said in the Shambhala teachings of Chogyam Trungpa, such as in Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior. Buddhism is its own container, with its own “ultimate goal(s)”, over which buddhist teachers may argue. In our world of local and national societies and countries, however, we live with many other people who are not buddhists. I don’t presume that they cannot be authentic and even fully realized beings. And if there is to be political consciousness and discourse that includes all of us, it needs a larger container that allows but does not require specific religious practices. Your personal practice is your own business, though I would go further and say that being a participant and leader in the public sphere demands such practice on your part, so you may better dialogue and recognize open space with others. So your practice is personal, but not a private issue: it affects how you are in the world. Being able to work with your own mind, heart, and perceptions is essential. That can be done in a religious way, but can also be done in a non-religious, though sacred, way (eg, mindfulness/awareness to start with). That’s what Shambhala is about, is it not?
In our time the purely secular as non-sacred bottom line is in visible meltdown, and becoming obsolete. There is widespread realization that dimensions of value, of the good, of excellence, need to be part of our everyday governance and business life, down to the bookkeeping: cf Umair Haque’s Betterness, for example. (… continued…)
As to whether such a view of open dojo as societal practice is “merely redecorating Samsara”… As a buddhist, I recall that “emptiness is not other than form”. Samsara is not the same as the phenomenal world, and practice does not obviate “meditation in action”, including the moving mind of attention, intention, and being in the world.
As a shambhalian: drala is an opening in the phenomenal world through which the cosmic mirror manifests. Paying attention to the details of the phenomenal world, including our family, business, and societal details, is the path to bring down such drala into every moment of our lives. Buddhism does tend to have a slight anti-phenomenality bias, varying with school and teacher. CTR himself obliterated such distinctions: “this very world is the mandala of all the buddhas.” But this is probably a minority view among buddhists.
Re “that path shouldn’t be seen to be on the same level as social structures”: I’m talking about the sacred path of the warrior. That warrior could have a buddhist, hindu, moslem, christian, jewish, or whatever religious path. If they are a true yogi of their tradition, then they could also have a secular/sacred warrior’s path (of “immaculate discipline and unflinching conviction”), and meeting ground, and “archery range”, where they could meet and dialogue and play and govern with other warriors. Such meeting ground is not the religious tradition they hold, but the openness they allow.
Summary: separate church and state, but join secular and sacred. The confusion is in considering the sacred to be purely the province of the church, and the activities of the state (including finance and business) to be purely secular and value-neutral. We are perhaps discovering that the latter is one of those primitive beliefs about reality.
Rita,
Martin Luthor’s an excellent example: that revolution was not his plan, it wasn’t an ideological shift, an awakening, or some other ‘mind first’ sort of thing. It was due to systemic amassing of centralized wealth and power, leading to a critical mass of people adversely affected no longer able to ignore its effects. It is incidental the power was controlled by the Vatican.
His ‘95 These’ nailed to a church door in a small German town echoed throughout Europe, not because of religious insight, but because of fertile ground, made rich by many people talking over years about injustices and what could be done. There were centers of liberalism, but witnessing and discussions were all over Europe, in pubs and houses, town squares and villages, and among sympathetic (or scared) monarchs and dukes etc. If that were not so Luthor would have been burned at the stake and forgotten. It was in no way organized. In some areas there was anarchy and violence. Though Luthor tried, there was no leader to reign it in, no common communication avenues, so it split up, if ever united, into various experiments. (With internet etc. we might see something else on that score.)
That his revolution, or any other, was religious or ideological in nature is in my opinion false. Revolutions are inflamed by the fact that current religious or social dogma and the PTB are blatantly destructive and evil, again, to a critical mass of people. Evil here referring to calculated suffering and death, not heretics. That in turn causes people from all levels of society in grass root ways to rethink things. This is proof of basic goodness, not that religious upbringing produces compassion. It was the critical mass of so many people already having gone through that, which set the stage for Luthor to become a catalyst for literally changing the world.
The Jasmine revolution: “Democracy Now” is my main source currently. Following interviews and discussions about Egypt by people who are there as the dust settles (or is kicked up anew), while some fought corruption, some were involved because they thought Mubarek was too liberal. (!?) If so then it was the untenable suffering that united them, not religious views. In the same way you don’t have to be Islamic to support that movement. There’s something more fundamental or vaster or more universal than religious views at play.
(cont.)
My point was it is education, open discussion, a look at reality unfettered by religious dogma and denial, on a fairly wide social spectrum that brings about paradigm shifts. Ideologies or dogmas that individuals try to instill won’t stick unless they are anyway already intrinsically there (BG, if it isn’t just a political tool, is not “Brought To You By…”).
What I agree with in Susan’s essay is that a break from the status quo is essential. I just don’t think it comes about on a socio-political level through mindfulness practice. Mindfulness practice is something we as individuals work with to cut through our own egoistic instincts and projections, but it isn’t the cause of paradigm shifts nor a way to educate people about what is going on politically, scientifically, culturally, environmentally, legally re injustices and corruption etc., which is the only way such change happens; i.e. when a critical mass knows in their bones, beyond risk to life and limb and career, that political social change must happen.
The question remains, and what is missing in Mark’s essay, is what it is that actually generates Open Dojo environments. Mark, our current systems are NOT free of religion, or purely secular. At all. Whatever the problems may be, that’s simply not true.
As long as we avoid political controversy and gather to work within a common understanding of contemplation with somewhat abstract concepts that don’t really impinge on each other, no problem, but as soon as something needs to be accomplished and there is disagreement, we seem to have nothing to offer. Harking back to medieval styles of governments is not a solution in these times, and we have done zip in exploring any other possibilities.
I’ve experienced the kind of open space Mark and don’t question its value, but see no method for engendering it, other than… we experienced it around Trungpa Rinpoche. That’s not enough. That individuals have to be developed enough to grok such things comes closer Buddhist approaches, but still leaves all dynamics about leadership, government and conflict resolution untouched.
In the inspiration that ‘we’ are not going to make ‘them’ find or acknowledge BG. The problems, on a socio-cultural level lie in any case elsewhere.
Dear James
Thanks for your comeback on by post.
I am not a qualified historian of how the Reformation happened and my knowledge of it is principally based on Owen Chadwick’s book on the Reformation, as an aside I had to study the history of Christianity because I needed it to get into college. But reading this book yes its true there was much disagreement in the way the Catholic church governed Europe especially in the way of selling of ‘indulgences’ – a means of forgiving sins to the general populace. Luther rejected this practice and placed his Protestantism not on works only but also faith. Yes the history of the Reformation I find really intriguing as there were so many attempts to create ‘new’ societies under the auspices of ‘religion’ similar to what we are encountering today. So I still feel that in the realm of the political ordering of society we can not exclude the ‘religious’ dimension totally – this is what I have gathered from my reading.
As to Islam I am not totally familiar with all of its tenets – I only know that when I mix with Muslims in the UK there seems to be a palpable sense of brotherhood and sisterhood that comes from them practicing their religion together much as we do in a sangha and I do believe that their faith does go out much more than Christianity into the ‘political’ realm.
In addition perhaps by default as time passes I am finding myself that what once started as a personal practice to ‘attain’ whatever I thought enlightenment was years ago –has now become a more outer and other-directed engagement with society and people….that Mahayana quality of practice does seem to happen naturally even we dont want it too! So yes there seems almost a visceral desire to stem suffering that develops and in our western context here I think the political dimension enters into this ‘desire’ to provoke engagement/unity. So it is this way that I am seeing the connection between ‘politics’/practice which does connect with the open-dojo concept because I can no longer slice people into groups of who professes dharma and who does not. Everyone is suffering –and it does hit you more and more as time goes on.
As to creating open dojo environments I hope to have many more discussions about this through rfs and other means and principally this is why I am engaged in helping to promote the Buddhist convention in my local area of 300 to 400 hundred people. I do think we need to go into the area of enlightened society more deeply in an analytical sense than we have done before so it is not only SI that is considering these deep questions in large gatherings. Indeed when I glimpsed Marks article I thought wow they are having an Open Dojo thingie in Halifax at last and was quite elated by that rushed thought at first!
Just also as an aside to Suzanne I have been researching the environment more on the internet and I can see now that we are definitely more up the creek than I previously thought-so yes in terms of our discussions of politics we are perhaps being naive but I still believe we shall have to have more connections with others in seeing what is possible to stem our naivety and inevitably this calls for association with the ‘political’ realm and theoreticians of social affairs in my opinion –thats why I am reading left-leaning articles etc etc.
Well best from the UK.
Rita Ashworth
[As to whether such a view of open dojo as societal practice is “merely redecorating Samsara”… As a buddhist, I recall that “emptiness is not other than form”.]
Then why does the form need to be changed? Isn’t it all about View? If our View is worldly then how can our actions not be samsaric?
[Samsara is not the same as the phenomenal world]
Even if you’re trying to improve phenomena?
[and practice does not obviate “meditation in action”, including the moving mind of attention, intention, and being in the world.]
Is meditation in action somehow different from non-action?
I was trying to clarify the View issue, but I’m having a hard time saying it clearly and simply. The point being that there’s a difference between action as expression of awareness and action upon other in a worldly context.
[Buddhism does tend to have a slight anti-phenomenality bias... CTR himself obliterated such distinctions: “this very world is the mandala of all the buddhas.”]
Isn’t that basic Vajrayana sacred world View? In other words, again, it’s not making a statement about the value of the phenomenal world. It’s offering a View to help one fully enter into Nowness without being hooked by sacred/profane value judgements. I don’t see anything there that’s actually about phenomenal world per se. It’s about how to practice with one’s experience.
So, I’m not so much questioning open dojo as an activity. And I’m not questioning attention to worldly detail. Rather, I’m questioning open dojo as a View to be adopted, stressing social action in a worldly context. If it goes to that level then isn’t it a samsaric View by definition? With such a View we amplify the apparent solidity of selves and — as has been seen — we eventually end up descending to the level of the quasi-scientific mess that is the Western self-development psychology marketplace.
Political Consciousness
This is a one page fragment that Trungpa Rinpoche wrote down from a larger text. It’s short enough that you can get all of it (one page) on Google Books (click the link above).
I thought of it, and realized that it has basic definitions of key insights, and that it communicates an awake stance.
From the point of view of this article, “Political Consciousness” is the awareness cultivated through the Open Dojo. It is also what the individual participants cultivate.
Definition: Politics
The entire text is worth reading and discussing, line by line. Having known CTR in Action, so to speak, I can say that this is not just theory, but simple and direct. And it meets the discovery of that that is happening all over the place:
Political Consciousness, The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa, Vol. 8, p. 419
Dear Mark
Thanks for this ref…will get Vol.8.
Re the posts up above seems we all seem to think that Occupy is fine so at least that is a basis for discussion. The methods they use in the General Assemblies could be somewhat a foundation for discussing politics in an ‘enlightened society’ with some adaptations.
Reason I put up the Zapatistas was the methods of governance they were using- they seemed to correlate a little with deleks to me and the ‘Z-eers’ were running their own areas quite well.
Been watching a video of Luther –broaching my lack of knowledge –much more in awe of the man now…as a monk for five years he went through so many austerities. He also came to his conclusions about his faith by reading the bible in Latin, Greek and Hebrew –such a linguist!
Re Holloway ‘Crack Capitalism’ nearing the end of the book –main thesis is to have real democracy beyond the institutional level –seems to think when we create institutions we get trapped in our own nutty creations –works a little with the sense of ‘open dojo’ in that power would have to be fluid and kind of never-ending in its circularity. Perhaps also in Marxism they are coming too to the end of the State creating change as a body. Such thought has repercussions about how we will eventually ‘construct’ governance in enlightened society-seems to be imbued with the notion of us all being leaders/warriors. So yes power can not be fixated at any one point….has to be power that is continually under questioning – hmmmmm-could also put here ‘awareness’. Could one refine a Shambhala Declaration in terms of power being of no-fixed abode-interesting.
Looking forward to further discussions….think we do not need to explain to others re this notion of ‘Open Dojo’ any more -we need more to put some notion of its operation out there that would make the discussion go further and not get stalled.
Well best from the UK.
Rita Ashworth
Rita,
You’re on to something with the idea of power structures themselves in flux; not inevitability impermanent, but immediately, intentionally as circumstances and needs change. Might be an element of systems capable of organizing modern societies.
No reason or way to eliminate hierarchy, the most efficient way to organize anything, but it’s equally true when a hierarchy becomes too static it develops anomalies or sicknesses, an inability to respond or various corruptions leading to collapse or disruptive change. That’s biologically as well as politically true. VCTR seemed to infuse his mandala, somehow, with some kind of uncertainty or groundlessness that mitigated individual tendencies to solidify. Can that be done systemically?
FYI, deleks at inception were for a social network independent of particular careers positions or agendas within the mandala. It was a way to de-centraliz or ‘de-hierarch-orize’ the social network. There may have been some feedback loops added on, but that wasn’t the main idea. Deleks were not in any real sense a political structure; one could argue they were by intent NOT that. However, they were also very clearly an adjunct to something larger, everyone’s inspiration and involvement in that, and hence an expression of a unification. Deleks mirrored, ideally, the need for an open communicative social network.
The Zapatistas on the other hand are specifically about NOT being part of their larger government. That may be what’s best for them now, I never said they were ‘wrong’, but what they are doing is marked by separatism and struggle, and so is a questionable model of enlightened government if there is such a thing. The same can be said about some expressions of OWS though there is an understanding of these things to be found as well.
To my eyes, the Zapatistas, as only one example, have encountered the failure of nation state government, and have gone a step backwards to more local agricultural styles of government. With End-Of-Oil that may be what we’re all eventually in for, but maybe we might look for ways to organize within modern society, rather than emulating systems that are in part reactions against, or due to the collapse of, central govt..
In the inspiration that we’re all in this together.
Mark,
With: “Political Consciousness” is the awareness cultivated through the Open Dojo.- I hear what I think a quirk of Shambhala Buddhism, that our milieu isn’t a result of practice, but rather the thing itself which will make others good. Maybe it’s subtle, (I don’t think so but…) in this way we generate the notion that the system itself is the aim of one’s practice, changing ‘it’ or the ‘social paradigm’ in order to bring about a deeply personal and individual enlightenment as well as the happiness of others. Government IS responsible for some very specific things, but not that.
No system will itself generate enlightenment in citizens. Ever.
I have trouble with how Trungpa Rinpoche in that link describes democracy as creating a sense of entitlement. That critique is a little too fortune-cookie, and certainly not what ignited the OWS movement.
I could understand when he at other times critiqued democracy for pandering to lowest common denominators, but ANY government by virtue of its existence will have expectations placed on it: a fascist regime that knows best, communists demanding adherence, socialist universal care, or a monarchy that promises happiness. It either works or it doesn’t and citizens respond accordingly.
His description is also akin to the protestant work ethic, which I don’t have problems with, but on a purely logistical level there are social contracts and interdependencies in modern society which cannot be circumvented with calls for more self-reliance. See Moore’s documentary “Roger and Me” for an example of how complete self-reliance in modern complex society is as mythical as the freedom in “The Myth of Freedom”.
In general, I find Trungpa Rinpoche’s descriptions, as they almost always were, a prescription for how the individual works with mind. On that level I have no argument, but I don’t see anything that gives any clues about systems of government or organization.
I think we are probably on our own there, and as mentioned before something new that hasn’t yet existed will probably have to evolve, capable of organizing a society that is more complex than anything that has existed before. Or we wait for collapse to throw us back a few centuries.
In the inspiration that having expectations of others, leaders, or governments is deeply intrinsic to human nature and important for society.
Dear James et al,
Interesting to read your comeback on my post re structure and your point about the deleks as de-hierarchical system or network is quite profound. It sort of chimes to the philosophers that I am listening to on the net particularly Michael Hardt, an American, who has written a trilogy of books called Empire, Commonwealth and Multitude.
Hope people can take a look at Hardts lecture at the European Graduate School which goes into these ideas http://youtu.be/WgGHzqkDcUo
He is also kind of edging into Shambhala territory I think with his further lecture in 2007 at EGS on Love which he allays with politics as an allied concept. To a certain extent in this lecture he is merging the sacred and the secular- well at least I think that is the case.
I have not read his books but hope to read ‘Multitude’ -but from listening to him on the web Multitude has that sense of a dehierarchical system and refers way back to English history at the time of Civil War where the Multitude was the people who held no property and could not vote but also had immense power in the way that they could affect the war. The Multitude later became the more lefties of that time namely the Levellers and the Diggers.
The Multitude in our present age I take somewhat to be the occupiers and those people who are saying no to the established systems as much as they can under a capitalist domination.
I think the point of the Zapatistas and why Holloway is so interested in them is not that they are separate from the national government but that rather they are saying no to capitalism, to a ‘defined structure’. He sees them as an example of autonomous collective of people providing a new vision of power and how to use it in Mexico. Both Hardts and Holloways thinking to me kind of resound with the way Trungpa used politics and to the sense of the Open Dojo that Mark is describing.
It would be interesting to hear Hardts views on the sense of groundlessness/uncertainty that Trungpa talked about….. as a social theorist he might be able to meld this with politics as he as somewhat done with Love.
Well best and hope the debate goes on.
Rita Ashworth
Rita,
Will look into Hardt.
Two short things.
One, hierarchy is the best way to organize anything. We see it in nature on all levels, and in human activity, even in sentence structure. Without hierarchy we wouldn’t be able to understand each other and nothing would happen, not in the sunyatha heart sutra sense, but literally. The idea isn’t to get rid of hierarchy, that’s impossible, but to stop it from solidifying into one particular view, stance, ideology, approach or whatever.
Perhaps this is key to Open Dojo, that there has to be some space where hierarchy does not reign. That may be the element that creates the magic. We need a space at least within us, and perhaps ‘out there’ if we can afford it (and why couldn’t we?), which is not locked in to a particular hierarchy. If we instead solidify that then our center becomes externalized, and we run into all kinds of problems. Whatever Trungpa Rinpoche said or did could usually be seen in various ways, but I think this may have been one of the inspirations of the Deleg system.
Second, and not unrelated to this, I loved what Trungpa Rinpoche described in the Q and A from Mark’s link:
“I think the notion of a group is very misleading. There is no such thing as a group, actually, but putting individuals together is what makes a group.”
If this is really understood, embodied, then it would go a long way in de-solidifying and de-centralizing whatever hierarchy may be genuinely useful for the task at hand.
In the inspiration of Milarepa’s suggestion that we try to be like quicksilver.
Dear James et al
Thank you for your reply.
Here is Hardts second lecture re Love which plays with the notion of hierarchy in ‘politics’. Its amazing how close he is to the shambhala teachings in my opinion. Really going to have to get that book Multitude.
http://youtu.be/ioopkoppabI
I am even considering sending an email to him re the Shambhala book to see what he makes of it.
Yes of course there is hierarchy but what also makes the whole thing work too is that sense of relaxation/amenability that groups have when people work well together. Conventionally Hardt talks about this in relation to his joy in being involved in revolutionary activity.
So I dont know we might even have to unpack the notion of hierarchy much as Hardt is trying to do in standard politics.
Well best rita
A Glimpse of Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, 16 July 2004
On a bright and breezy summer afternoon I was circumambulating the Puja House at the top of the hill that overlooks Always Joyful Noble Park, while practising Vajrayogini. And just like that, Rinpoche was suddenly stepping out of the Puja House very slowly and very close to me, whispering toward the sky, saying I should practise nicely. Behave normally. Inside can be – what Rinpoche said “inside can be” escapes me now. But outside should be natural or else other people could have conceptions and confusion. Some may say John is a good practitioner. Others may say that he is a phony, he is pretending. Rinpoche doesn’t think this way but others could. Rinpoche can understand but others may not. Not this life’s reputation but fully enlightened buddhahood.
Then Rinpoche sent me past him around the Puja House to continue doing khorwa. I was crushed. Though Rinpoche’s whispering was kind and gentle, it stung like a scolding. What is behaving normally? What is unnatural? I walked on stunned that my behaviour could still be disturbing to others.
Rinpoche left the Puja House and took the grand khorwa path that goes all the way around the park, and I followed Rinpoche. Leaving the path, Rinpoche went toward the lower house. A few minutes later I too left the path and went toward the lower house, and just as I was about to reach the corner where the house and barn are close together, the canopy of Rinpoche’s sun umbrella appeared.
Meeting Rinpoche coming toward me, verging on tears I said that I don’t mean to be phony or to be pretending, and I don’t mean to be causing conceptions and confusion or harming anyone. I mean to be normal and natural. I’m not trying to prove anything to anyone. Anyway there is no me.
Rinpoche asked me where I was going and sent me on my way into the barn. Once inside, I burst into tears for an instant because of the futility of always displeasing and never pleasing Rinpoche and of after all these years to be still hurting others.
Then I sat calmly on a chair a few feet from and facing the door, sensing Rinpoche’s presence remaining nearby outside. Rinpoche’s umbrella appeared in the window of the door. Rinpoche called my name and I opened the door and knelt down eye-level with Rinpoche standing at the foot of the steps…
Rinpoche said I was feeling good about how my practise was going, and said we Vajradhatu people like to call this “vajra pride” and are boasting. But this vajra pride can be penetrated by something like Rinpoche’s criticism saying I am phony and pretending. Rinpoche asked me what I thought vajra pride is; but just then, I couldn’t say.
You say, There is no me, yet you are defending “me” saying you are not a phony and not pretending. Then Rinpoche spoke of confidence, but except for the word “confidence”, the rest escapes me.
I’m not saying that I’m not phony or not pretending. If Rinpoche says I am then I am. Rinpoche can see better than me. What I meant to say was that I don’t mean to be phony and pretending and harming others. And that I have nothing to prove to anyone.
There you are still saying I – I have nothing to prove.
Or then I should say this manifestation has nothing to prove to anyone.
That’s not how you said it before, Rinpoche said.
Then Rinpoche said that since I attacked Rinpoche, Rinpoche attacked me, and that was very good. It shocked me to hear Rinpoche say I attacked him – but Rinpoche gave a thumbs-up, and sent me to the library above the Puja House to pray to Vajrasattva, Guru Rinpoche, Yeshe Tsogyal, Padmasambhava with this emotion and to abide indivisibly, not visualising but just praying to them.
Rinpoche said that it is hard to be a teacher, and that Rinpoche cannot liberate – liberate to the path – for me. Rinpoche may also have spoken of the ideal that is beyond concept. Then Rinpoche told me to write this down, and save it, forever.
Thanks. I wish I had met him.
Wouldn’t it be safe to say tat Shambhala is about accomadating change yet being focused?
Rob,
That would be safe to say. I don’t see Shambhala doing that.