Talk:Shambhala Buddhism/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

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)

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)

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)

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]

That makes a lot of sense to me, I'm going to do it. Thanks.--Keithonearth (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shambhala flag.jpeg

Image:Shambhala flag.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-traditional Buddhism??

I hadn't paid attention to the CFD for the Shambhala Buddhism category at all, but when it was deleted today this article and Sakyong Mipham were rolled up to the Non-traditional Buddhism category. Non-traditional really? I guess there is some mix with zen, and western cultural appearance, but I don't see it so off the beaten path. To me, it seems like it should be under Category:Vajrayana_Buddhism or Category:Tibetan_Buddhism more specifically, perhaps members of both Category:Kagyu and Category:Nyingma instead to be really specific. But I consider the shambhala terma within the nyingma stream, and the zen elements just borrowed, and the cultural aspects well just cultural. Thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would put it under all of the categories you mention and take it out of the Non-traditional Buddhism category.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Size

Here's a self reported membership size citation http://www.shambhala.org/community/sns/index.php?id=573 Though that only includes registered members who pay dues or meet some membership requirements, compared to people who participate in the community in some way or self identify as a member. I would expect self identification to be a larger number by some degree. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms, controversies, and sexual abuse

Certainly there have been many criticisms and controversies of Shambala Buddhism, and the Dorje Kasung has been involved in violence, sexual abuse, and rape. Someone knowledgeable on the subject should expand on these and make this article neutral. Right now it is totally biased in favor of the subject. Laval (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue really isn't the POV of the article so much as it's copyediting. It mentions the abuse, and all you can do is mention it, it's up to individuals to understand it. I think more editing needs to be done to make this article readable, before discussions on neutrality. NickCochrane (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

References, jargon, and bias

Several references need to be cleaned up. I found the one cited as [2] in the article, but the others are harder to find.

The article uses the word "neurosis" in a manner with which I am unfamiliar. It seems like it is only used this way in this one form of Buddhism, so I am having trouble understanding the meaning.

The term "mudra" is used, but its meaning is not specified in this article. Since the main article has so many sections, the specific meaning should be clear in this article.

Still needs objective information from an outside perspective; the original author is clearly a part of the Shambhala community. AnnaBorgida (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)