Talk:Shambhala Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re the edit of Feb 22 by Sylvain1972 ("future Sakyongs are also expected to propogate Shambhala Buddhism"), I think the original wording ("as propagated by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche") was more accurate and NPOV than ("as propagated by the Sakyongs"). Neither the term "Shambhala Buddhism" nor the Buddhist-centric view of Shambhala it espouses were held by the first Sakyong, the Druk Sakyong. The term Shambhala Buddhism was introduced by Sakyong Mipham. Whether future Sakyongs will propagage this view is speculative, especially considering the history of change that already took place between the first and second Sakyongs. - szpak 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why you feal that the view of Shambhala is now more "Buddhist-centric." If I am not mistaken, Kalapa Assembly (and therefore the Werma sadhana) were open only to Buddhist tantrikas during the Druk Sakyong's lifetime. So there has not really been a shift in that regard. One can still do Shambhala training all the way through to Warrior Assembly without any exposure to Buddhism if one so desires. Sylvain1972 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since most of Chogyam Trungpa's students were Buddhist, most of those who attended Kalapa Assembly were Buddhist, but not all. In principle all of Shambhala Vision was open to all, whereas currently with Shambhala Buddhism in principle it's not (only the early stages of Shambhala Training). This is evident in Chogyam Trungpa's Shambhala books, in statements he made about Shambhala practices such as Werma, and in his consistent urging of non-Buddhist Shambhalians or Nalanda/Naropa people to not become Buddhists (cf Diana Mukpo's and Fabrice Midal's books (eg, Chögyam Trungpa: His Life and Vision, "Buddhism and Shambhala", pp 244 onward)). szpak 13:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one post on the congress website (http://www.shambhala.org/congress/) that claims "The new Shambhala ngondro seems to take us back to the 1980's when only tantrikas were accepted to Kalapa Assembly. Does this mean that the experiment of the 1990's - of opening up Kalapa Assembly (and Werma practice) to Warrior Assembly graduates - is considered to have been a failure or mistake?" Which suggests that at some point in the 80s you had to be a tantrika to get the Werma sadhana, which is no different than now. It's not just the "early stages" of Shambhala training that are presently open to non-Buddhists, it's all 13 levels, and Warrior Assembly (with stroke & lungta practices). That's everything except Werma and the dark retreats (which no one has ever done). And the Werma sadhana features explicit refuge & bodhisattva vows, so I don't know how it can be argued that "not Buddhists" were ever allowed to do that practice. Sylvain1972 15:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement you quote is factually incorrect, re Assembly in the 1980's, which non-Buddhists did attend. The Werma sadhana does have equivalents to refuge and bodhisattva vows - in its own distinctive, non-Buddhist language. Here's what Chogyam Trungpa had to say about that (from Comments on the Werma Sadhana, March, 1984):

From one way of thinking, the sadhana has been influenced by the traditional buddhist style, but on the other hand it is quite different. It is a self-contained practice. It is not particularly borrowed from buddhism, but it is simply self-existent in the Shambhala style.

It does not detract from Shambhala Buddhism to acknowledge its history, and that its view is different from, while building on, that of Chogyam Trungpa's Shambhala Vision. szpak 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

, I

Well, I suppose if the quote is mistaken, then that is that. However, I would argue that nonetheless it is a slippery distinction, hinging on what is "Buddhism." That is to say, if Trungpa received the teachings from the Rigdens, they in turn received them from . . . Shakyamuni, after all. Sylvain1972 02:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there are no references. Worldtraveller 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Kalachakra

Hello, I'd like to mention the issue around the New Kalachakra page at Wikipedia. There's a poster from Shambhala Buddhism who wrote there recently. Anyone know him ? He's been taking sectarian stances about the Kalachakra. Geir Smith 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalai Lama is not the head of the Gelugpa school

It is a common misconception that the Dalai Lama is head of the Gelug school. While he is indeed Gelukpa, and as the head of the Tibetan Government in Exile one could eaily infer that he must also be head of the Gelukpa, this is an error. "The head of the Geluk School is the Venerable Ganden Tripa (throne-holder) Rinpoche. The present Ganden Tri Rinpoche is Venerable Yeshe Dhönden who is the 99th successor to the Ganden throne"(www.kagyuoffice.org/buddhism.geluk.html). Please take some care to avoid perpetuating this error. [Steve Gamble]

Re: "The term Shambhala Buddhism has come into use as an an umbrella term referring to the teachings of Karma Kagyu and Nyingma lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, mixed with ..." The phrasing seems to imply that Shambhala Buddhism is an umbrella term for the teachings of the Karma Kagyu and Nyingma schools.

Consider changing the sentence to read "referring to the Shambhalian teachings and practices revealed by the Vidyadhara Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche (the 11th Trungpa Tulku and first Sakyong), as propagated by the Sakyongs, and incorporating teachings of the Karma Kagyu and Nyingma schools of Tibetan Buddhism in which Trungpa Rinpoche was trained [or educated]." [Steve Gamble]