What happened?

5 Responses to “What happened?”

1. Suzanne Duarte on April 1st, 2010 1:18 pm
   

   Dharma landfill – that’s good! Thanks, Paul.
2. Chris on April 1st, 2010 1:47 pm
   

   I invite people to see the level of misunderstanding of “sangha”
   and “refuge in the sangha,” in the document linked below, and why this has become a cult under the leadership of SMR, the President, and others, who clearly have a distorted view of what taking refuge in the sangha is, and then mixing this distorted view of refuge in the sangha, with Shambhala governance. .

   This is why no one is questioning, or using their critical intelligence or speaking out, who are in the Sakyong’s mandala. They are the blind, taking refuge in the blind. These are people that feel, according to SMR’s view of “sangha” as expressed by RR, that they would be “abandoning sangha” if they don’t see their ordinary confused beings as enlightened at all times. This is confusing relative and absolute, confusing secular goverment with a skillful means of vajrayana Buddhism and is a tragic result of mixing Shambhala and Buddhism.

   Distorting the meaning of “taking refuge in the noble sangha” which means taking refuge in the actual “noble sangha” i.e. the lineage of those who have reached realization, and are worthy of refuge, has had devastating consequences. This misunderstanding of “taking refuge in the noble sangha ” with taking refuge in other confused beings with us on the path, was addressed by Gampopa, the The Jewel Ornament of Liberation, (which fortunately can’t be edited by Shambhala Corporation is explicit about saying WE DO NOT TAKE REFUGE in ordinary beings, because they have FEAR and confusion, like us, and this would be the blind leading the blind This, I believe, is one of the root confusions that got us in this mess. It is also another example of how terrible is this Shambhala Buddhism, which is mishmashing two ignorances of people with little understanding of the Dharma and little understanding of CTR’s terma of Shambhala.

   Here is the RR interpretation of sacred/secular governance:

   http://www.shambhala.org/community/govdocs/Secular_Sacred_Governance.pdf

   I invite you to read this sacred_/secular governance treatise by Richard Reoch, which
   conflates a misunderstanding of one of the three jewels of buddhism with a misunderstanding of the Shambhala sacred path of the warrior.

   This is clearly one of the reasons NO FEEDBACK ALLOWED and why these administrators give and get no feedback, and why ShambhalaBuddhism has slowly evolved into a seamless, impervious cult, from top to bottom.
3. Ash on April 16th, 2010 2:08 am
   

   Where is that passage in Gampopa, do you remember? I have been a little puzzled by this ‘noble-only’ definition of the sangha because it does not accord with my personal sense of it, nor my memory of earlier studies. I took a quick gander at the Middle Length Discourses.

   In the Baddhali Sutra, the Buddha is going on and on about various faults and taints the occur within the Sangha because of lack of individual training in some cases, but also larger societal factors in others, including such deeply pithy progressions as: ‘ These things that are the basis for taints do not become manifest here in the Sangha until the Sangha has reached greatness….. then the Teacher makes known the training rule for disciples in order to ward off those things which are the basis for taints. Those things that are the basis for taints do not become manifest here in the Sangha until the Sangha has reached the acme of worldly gain…the acme of fame…the acme of great learning…the acme of long-standing renown. ”

   In any case, clearly there can be problems in a Sangha, i.e. they are not all realized.

   In the Vatthupama Sutra (Simile of the Cloth) the Sangha is defined simply as: “The Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples is …”

   I suspect that just as there can be outer, inner and secret definitions of the Sangha, as in Richard’s treatise, so also there can be various ways of discussing or defining the ‘Sangha’.

   My understanding, rightly or wrongly, has always been that basically anyone who has taken Refuge is part of the wider Buddhist Sangha, but that usually one thinks of a particular sangha of which one is a member based on location, teacher, lineage or what have you. I have never thought of it as ‘only those people who are Acharyas are Sangha members’ sort of thing and I find that notion rather strange, as well as being somewhat theistic in the sense that if you are taking refuge in people who by definition have achieved superior levels than yourself and thus you are not a Sangha member after first taking Refuge in it.

   I find Richard’s piece on the whole quite admirable.
4. Kevin Lyons on April 23rd, 2010 4:07 pm
   

   I like to think, that in the broad and scattered Diaspora, in which we the loving students of the Vidhyara, our Precious One live, we continue as his dharma heirs wherever we go or whatever we encounter. Our Rinpoche has not gone. Perhaps we said our goodbyes to his physical manifestation one May morning many year ago but his intelligence, wisdom and immense compassion is always with us and is always accessible to us.
5. John Tischer on September 20th, 2010 10:07 pm
   

   Loosing BPB and Prajna

   Places where some best moments and some
   not so fun ones were…I saw Trungpa,
   Rinpoche at both places…my first wife cooked
   dinner for Rinpoche at BPB…I was helping in
   the kitchen…heard the Fifth Symphony playing….
   the plumbing under Prajna was another story…
   don’t ask…we always got it working…memories
   stronger because his body was there…the nirmanakaya
   was there…lost to neglect, at best….his residences at his
   dharma centers…where he lived. So much for respect.
   So much for tradition. So much for lineage.