|
Please send your feedback to feedback@chroniclesradio.com.
Feedback from last week's dispatch
Dear Chronicles,
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I was confused by what Acharya Adam Lobel said about Sakyong Mipham seeing his role as stabilizing the Druk Sakyong's teachings. It's hard to see how dissolving the traditions and forms that Trungpa Rinpoche established can be regarded as a stabilizing influence. If Sakyong Mipham feels the need to depart from the traditions and vision that his father established, I guess that's up to him. But to call this departure a stabilization seems misleading. Why the spin?
As one of those students who is not "keeping up" with Sakyong Mipham's new direction and teachings, I have to wonder how he intends to "unify" all of us. There are many people, like myself, who have a deep heart connection with Trungpa Rinpoche, whose lives have been and continue to be shaped by his teachings and empowerments, who hold his transmissions and feel a duty to understand, practice, and pass them on, and who find little or no connection between SMR's Shambhala Buddhism and his father's vast and profound vision. Is there a place for us in the "big tent"? Is this still our sangha? Or are we ronin warriors—cast out to find a new tent where we can practice the Vidyadhara's teachings as they were given?
Some of Trungpa Rinpoche's loyal students are dedicating their lives to preserving and furthering their teacher's legacy, and—interestingly enough—doing so without the support of Shambhala International. I guess it's up to all of us to exercise our prajna and decide which efforts best serve the Druk Sakyong's vision.
Thanks again, everyone at the Chronicles, for providing us with spicy food
to chew on.
With love,
Suzanne Duarte
Amsterdam
* * *
RE: Rabin and Lobel interviews
I agree with the sentiment expressed in Suzanne Duarte's letter.
Sakyong Mipham has every right, even duty, to promulgate his own
teachings. They are rooted in part in his father's teachings, and
perhaps to an even greater extent in those of Penor Rinpoche.
Ultimately they stand on their own and on the genuineness of his
being. However, to state that the Sakyong's dharma is identical with
that of the Druk Sakyong is a bit disingenuous. This would be a minor
issue if so saying did not also obscure the transmission that Chogyam
Trungpa worked so hard to provide.
This is especially true of the Shambhala teachings, which CTR said
had their own independent basis, and apply "to people of any faith,
not just people who believe in Buddhism". Shambhala Buddhism is great
for Buddhists, but it is more circumscribed than the "without
credentials" vision of Shambhala and of a Shambhala kingdom that
"should have lots of spiritual disciplines in it". I'm surprised that
Adam Lobel did not address this, and that it in fact has been skirted
by all the interviewees.
In the gap in the tapes :-) ,
Mark Szpakowski
Halifax
* * *
Dear Chronicles
Thanks for the interesting and inspiring
interviews with Adam Lobel and Chris Tamdjidi. I
would like to respond to the feedback by Suzanne
Duarte and Mark Szpakowski, if I may.
As a relatively new member (since the year 2000)
of the Shambhala sangha I am very intrigued by
the debate on the differences in vision between
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and the Sakyong. Maybe
I can not see clearly what the debate is about,
since I was neither a meditator nor a sangha
member when Trungpa was still alive. As Suzanne
Duarte said, I guess we all have to exercise our prajna.
Preserving the teachings and being open to
people of all faiths seem very worthy goals, a
spiritual discipline if you like. But saying
that the Shambhala teachings are non-sectarian
or secular, as Mark Szpakowski wrote, is maybe
not entirely true. At Warrior Assembly, the
chants that are then presented are clearly
inspired by Tibetan culture and Tibetan buddhist
teachings. If I were not have been a buddhist at
the time, and if I would have attended Shambhala
training because it is secular, I would or could
have been insulted or at least unpleasantly
surprised to find out that no other religions
are referred to or acknowledged in the Shambhala
chants, except in Buddhist and Tibetan/Oriental
terms. It seems more accurate to say "Shambhala
Buddhist", people will generally know what kind
of thing they get into. This should certainly
simultaneously imply that it is our discipline
as genuine followers of a spiritual path to be
open and inquisitive to the world, since no one
is immune to cocoon-inclined behaviour. And it
does not imply any superiority of Buddhism or
Shambhala (Buddhism) over any other lineage or faith.
Another thing that surprises me, is that some
people feel that the Sakyong is not preserving
the teachings in a way that his father intended
to be done by him. I do not know if this sounds
too simple or naive, but so far I have not felt
or seen any contradiction in what I have read in
transcripts by VCTR and the Sakyong. Certainly,
there is a great difference in style and also in
form, but underlying it all is the same vision:
liberation from ego, working towards
enlightenment for all beings, by cultivating
wakefulness, bodhichitta, fearlessness.
I guess we all have to find our own way to
cultivate these things, by following the teacher
and/or lineage that best suits us, inspires us
and helps us to become human beings with good
head and shoulders and a genuine heart of tender sadness :-)
Warm dharma wishes, Ans de Vries, Amsterdam
|
