|
Discussion
Latest posting: 25 January.
Join the discussion: feedback@chroniclesradio.com.
Dear Chronicles,
In recent weeks I have been listening carefully to your interviews. First
off, I want to thank you and Julia for this project. It is very helpful in
understanding different perspectives and it does indeed bring us together as
one community. Second I want to share a thought or two about some of the
recent broadcasts.
It seems to me that an important issue is beginning to take shape. The
issue is: As our sangha and administration make strategic and financial
decisions, how much can we depend on our faith in the lineage and the
blessings of our teachers, and how much must we accept as our own
responsibility. In other words, without a strong connection to the lineage
blessings there is no vision. On the other hand, in blind faith there is
real danger. So how do we avoid these two extremes: no vision vers. blind faith?
Bill Karelis and Ken Green in their interviews, both gave a very similar
warning. As Ken put it, 'there is no script for what we're doing'. In
other words, it is quite possible for us to make bad decisions and as a
result, lose what has been created. The gurus won't necessarily bail us
out. Important strategic and financial decisions which affect everyone
cannot be based solely on the ideas of a few ordinary people in powerful
positions. They need to be examined very carefully, and not by just one
small group, or the danger of serious mistakes is great.
In a rebuttal of sorts, Jeff Waltcher, explained his view as a key SMC
administrator. He expressed his faith in the "intentions" of the sangha and of many great teachers in establishing SMC. He said that through those high intentions an atmosphere of basic goodness has been established there, and as long as we don't lose that atmosphere we can build what we want, and pay for it by offering whatever programs are necessary without fear of compromising our Shambhala vision.
These two different perspectives and the danger of falling into the extremes of no vision or blind faith, have been in our sangha since the beginning, and continue to be extremely important. I think it would be most helpful if you could find a way to explore this more directly, and in more detail. For example, you could interview people on their experiences at Naropa Institute in the early days. I'm remembering the magical way fundraising was done. And on the other hand, how the Board made a disastrous investment in land for a new campus, setting Naropa's finances back years.
I'm sure there are many other ways to get at this topic. But I think its
important to do, and I hope it could be done without sinking into
complaints, finger pointing or emotionalism.
Thanks again for your great work.
Yours in the dharma,
Jay Lippman
Dear Chronicles:
I'm curious about the "big tent" vision for Shambhala that Leonard articulates in his reply to Alan Anderson [below]. To me, it has always seemed more hopeful than likely that followers of other faiths would accept the kingship of a Sakyong, especially a Sakyong who has made Shambhala itself more explicitly "buddhist" and who wears buddhist robes.
Is this really happening? Anywhere?
Regards,
Rick Finney
Dear Chronicles,
Inasmuch as I suspect that Leonard Hortick is a "good person" in much the same way that he stated that the Sakyong (and George Bush) was a "good person", I am rather unconvinced that he really has the respect for the Sakyong that he feigns in this interview. If he did, he wouldn't, for example, make multiple references to a "Church of the Sakyong". That is condescending and utterly transparent as such.
I am one of those 30+ years sangha members who takes great joy and delight in both my root guru Trungpa Rinpoche and my current guru Sakyong Mipham. I call this phenomena, "LINEAGE", and my guess is that lineage has always been somewhat thorny. I'm sure that there were plenty of Marpa's disciples who were aghast at the selection of Milarepa, and plenty of his disciples who could not comprehend how the scholar Gampopa could fill the shoes of their beloved wild yogi, Mila. Happily, there apparently were many disciples who were able to appreciate the enrichening, "additive" quality of lineage and they helped carry it forward.
That being said, I am confused about the mission of the Chronicles. Lately, it seems to prefer to interview those who must oh-so-regretfully criticize the Sakyong. Apparently, for some students, the Vidyadhara was the essence of wisdom and skillful means in every aspect except for one---his choice of successor. Ah, his Achilles heel!
Why don't you interview students who have transitioned joyfully and intelligently from the Druk Sakyong to the current Sakyong? They are out there and their understanding of how beautifully the Sakyong is holding his seat and is moving us away from our habitual tendencies toward Buddhist ego-enhancement are valuable. Why don't you interview them on this topic? I suspect for instance, that John Rockwell's or Richard John's interpretation of what's going on right now with the Shambhala lineage is certainly at least as articulate and worthy of propogation as Hortick's or Midal's. I've also heard of other older students who reluctantly went to Rigden Abhisheka or unenthusiastically waded into Primordial Rigden ngondro and had their minds blown by the brilliance of this Sakyong in propogating the Vidyadhara's vision. But do we hear from them on this topic? Do we get to hear a counterpoint to the opinions of the disaffected with regard to the State of the Sangha?
If you don't exercise some editorial balance here, you might find yourselves guilty of leading some listeners to believe that one side of these so-called "issues" is, somehow, less empty than the other.
Cheers,
Alan Anderson
* * *
Reply from Leonard:
Dear Alan,
Thank you for taking the time to listen and comment on my interview with Walter. I am sorry that you found the term "Church of the Sakyong" condescending. It certainly was not meant to be so. It was meant to describe the group of people like you, who consider Sakyong Mipham their root guru. I have every respect for your choice. I hope you can respect my choice not to see Sakyong Mipham that way. Shambhala is a big tent that includes not just students of the Vidyadhara, Sakyong Mipham, the Vajra Regent, Ponlop Rinpoche Tsoknyi Rinpoche, etc. but also Christians , Jews, Muslims and everybody who possesses basic goodness and is willing to work with it. How can we best manage this diversity?
How is the lineage going to carry the community forward? I can respect Sakyong Mipham and respectfully disagree with some of his policies. We all want to hold the community together and see it flourish.
Alan, after thirty plus years in the same community, people like you and I are family, even if we haven't met. I don't know about your family but in mine not everybody has the same ideas on politics and religion. As a single dad raising three girls ages 9, 11, and 13 my biggest challenge these days is that "Daddy says do this" just doesn't carry the weight it used to.
What is the best idea on how to hold the family together and deal with the alienation that people feel? My idea is power sharing by having greater community involvement in policy making. Like you, I am interested in what people like John Rockwell and Richard John think.
Walter Fordom and the Chronicles are doing an excellent job of holding the community together. They are presenting a balanced approach. Just last week, Jeff Waltcher a close associate of the Sakyong was interviewed.
Alan I hope you continue to support the Chronicles.
In the Dharma,
Leonard Hortick
* * *
Reply from Walter:
Dear Alan,
I very much appreciate your writing to criticize our editorial policies. Last summer, when we aired Julia's conversations with Acharya William McKeever, Acharya Adam Lobel, and Chris Tamdjidi on consecutive weeks, we were criticized by several people who felt that the Chronicles had become a propaganda site for Shambhala International. Unfortunately, those critics were unwilling to post their comments publicly.
You can count on many more Dispatches, including conversations with devoted students of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, hopefully some more Acharyas (they tend to be a very busy group--hard to schedule), and administrators. So please stay tuned. There's more to come.
You're right. There are many of the Vidyadhara's students who were extremely moved and inspired by the Rigden Abhisheka. You can hear some of their enthusiastic comments on the Rigden Abhisheka Log on the Chronicles. Please scroll down and click on some of the faces you see to hear their comments.
Thank you again for your feedback.
Warmly, Walter Fordham
-for the Chronicles
Dear Chronicles,
Leonard's interview was the first that spoke directly to the issues. And thanks to you , for letting him do so, and not maneuvering the interview.
It is not surprising that he is a student of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, as he spoke to the issues so directly and clearly. Others have tried, but they always seem to still be trying to be politically correct. Perhaps because they are still trying to make it something it is not, never has been and never will be, and they are therefore muddled about it.
Leonard clearly is not, and he sees it with clarity. This interview will probably be very helpful to people so they can move on.
Chris Chandler
* * *
Please send feedback to feedback@chroniclesradio.com.
|
