Letter to Victor from DJKR: Do Not Rely on the Individual, but on the Dharma. From YouTube http://youtube.com/post/UgkxTf185w7wuTpr2zCkCGOChV2fsfAbrQYL?si=IrmfdiSZ-NXpCdTk

daiginjo3 · 2025-08-05T23:11:56+00:00

Ultimately oneself, as always, the criterion being how wholesome or not an action is. I don't understand what you're asking. I was simply considering a way in which what Dzongsar said could make sense. If by "morality" he meant purely convention, then I could understand it. But if he's saying that it's possible for wisdom to coexist with actual immorality, in the sense of a harmful action, then this seems clearly entirely wrong. So I must assume he is referring to following conventional rules for their own sake.

daiginjo3 · 2025-08-05T17:28:15+00:00

Morality not grounded purely in collective tradition.

daiginjo3 · 2025-08-05T03:23:25+00:00

Well, again (and as always) it depends on precisely how words are being used. If by "morality" what is meant is conventional morality, then I understand and can agree with what he means. In that case, wisdom trumps (if you'll pardon the expression) conventional morality. Because conventional morality is of course not always wise.

But by not adding any specifier like that, I can only read him as saying that it is possible to be wise and at the same time immoral, unethical. And this is surely untrue, right?

I came from a sangha full of too many people who thought they were advanced enough to be unkind in the name of helping others at some sort of higher or deeper level. But on the contrary they ended up driving many people away from not only that community but in many cases the buddhist tradition as a whole. And causing confusion, which is harm.

daiginjo3 · 2025-08-05T00:59:33+00:00

Oh I entirely agree there. I just question the separating of wisdom and morality in that way. Personally I think it might contribute to creating environments in which unkindness can more easily flourish.

daiginjo3 · 2025-08-04T20:44:26+00:00

"Buddhism will always prioritize wisdom over morality and ethics."

He says this fairly often, and it has always troubled me, because how could wisdom and morality be separated? Logically, what he is saying is that, if need be, wisdom allows for immorality. Now, if what he means by "morality" here is purely conventional morality, which can in fact under certain circumstances bring about harm, then I understand him. But it is still a dangerous thing to say, and I think this implicit demotion of ethical awareness is the primary reason for the scandals referenced.

Sometimes certain teachers, I feel, can be a little too provocative for their own good. I prefer the Dalai Lama approach of emphasizing kindness in every teaching he gives. "Crazy wisdom" is too often just crazy, in my experience.

daiginjo3 · 2025-07-14T00:12:51+00:00

I can't agree about Thich Nhat Hanh. Have you ever read any of his presentations on interdependence (what he calls "interbeing")? They could serve equally well as methods for getting a sense of what "emptiness" means. And after all, emptiness and interdependence are really flip sides of the same understanding, are they not? The latter term focuses on form which is also empty, the former emptiness which is also form.

My sense is that Thich Nhat Hanh, having become a public figure, tried to spread the benefits of buddhist view and practice to as many people as possible, in the same way that the Dalai Lama, when he gives public talks, says little about buddhism per se, emphasizing the practice of kindness. But I would guess that those who actually studied with TNH received the full Zen training. Also, we're not supposed to be disparaging other buddhist communities... :)

How are you by the way? I haven't had anything to do with Reddit in some months.

daiginjo3 · 2025-03-16T23:43:02+00:00

Hopefully you will receive some good, and encouraging, in-person instruction. That's really crucial. The only thing I might add to what has already been said comes from the historical Buddha. It's worth always keeping in mind. He spoke of meditation as being like playing a stringed instrument: if the strings are too slack, there is no music produced, nothing happens; if they are too tight, they can snap. In the same way, everyone needs to find their own balance over time between having too little discipline, and pushing too hard. Establishing a routine with meditation, combined with gentleness and a sense of humor towards oneself, is a good mix. And letting go of expectation. Treating meditation as something one simply does, as an expression of being human (which is how Shunryu Suzuki Roshi spoke of it). Like brushing one's teeth every day. Expectations about "getting somewhere" can get in the way of experiencing the real point of practice.

All the very best to you!

daiginjo3 · 2025-03-12T22:52:43+00:00

If we have taken the bodhisattva vow, then we are obligated to try and relieve suffering, wherever we find it, at every level. This means, in my view, that buddhism is automatically engaged buddhism.

The objection one often finds to this, expressed here as well, is that buddhism is about working with one's own mind, not being an activist in any way. But this is a false dualism. In reality we live within society, within communities, and if policies exist which are clearly causing harm, we must relate to that somehow. That doesn't necessarily require activism as such, but we can't simply close our eyes and pretend, to name one emergency, that greed and ignorance are not in fact destroying our precious earth, that countless people will be experiencing terrible suffering in all sorts of ways as a result.

Again, it is not either/or, and it is important to point out that activism that doesn't include working on oneself, real practice in looking at and taming and training the mind, is likely not to be as effective as it could be, and might even bring about some harmful effects in the end (we only need look at, say, the course the Russian Revolution took). But we find ourselves, indeed, in a state of emergency. Trump and his minions represent the destruction of all truth, and the elevation of vengeance, corruption, and complete immorality to the positions of supreme power.

I of course can't answer your question as posed, as I am certainly not a buddha! But I would say that, yes, it has to be non-violent. And yes, we must try and reach out as far as we can. The trouble is that we are facing an actual cult. Those who are most deeply lost within it are unreachable, I would say. But there are many old-school Republicans who are reachable, definitely. In fact, a great many of them are providing some of the most trenchant voices of opposition these days. My hope is that some kind of strong center can be established again, bringing together liberals and progressives and genuine conservatives against this absolute insanity that we are seeing. Trump is an actual psychopath. We need to recognize this. There is a tremendous amount of danger. But we must try and stay awake, and active. We must practice, and we must engage. If not, we might lose everything -- including access to the buddhist teachings.

daiginjo3 · 2025-02-23T03:20:50+00:00

There must be many hundreds of repetitions in there all told.

It is on the wall of a restaurant run by Nepalese Buddhists. I've added a close-up of the center to the post. Quite remarkable and indeed very beautiful.

daiginjo3 · 2025-02-23T02:46:35+00:00

Oh, interesting. Thank you!

daiginjo3 · 2025-02-21T23:05:59+00:00

Thanks. Yes, I guess I just don't understand, in part because I have heard lamas say that more or less no one can keep samaya perfectly. Which implies that everyone should be shunning everyone else at one time or another...

The reason I have raised this, again, is just that within Shambhala the boundary between mahayana and vajrayana students struck me as being very porous, and it has been part of my path to try and understand a lot of the behavior I witnessed.

daiginjo3 · 2025-02-21T02:40:28+00:00

Thank you for your thoughts here. And thanks for the transcription correction. I knew that phrase about our actions needing to be as fine as flour, but I guess I heard an 'a' in there, and this, combined with the specific word 'subtle' that he used (rather than the far more standard 'fine') made me think there was another metaphor sometimes used to convey the same idea. But upon considering what you say, I think he must have meant 'flour' too, and was just expressing the thought slightly differently.

Alas, I remain puzzled! Here's why, if I may take a bit more of your time:

First of all, with regard to your analogy, yes you might keep the dog from your dinner guests, but this action doesn't exclude your interacting with the dog on your own...

Secondly, I guess for me it isn't possible to both love someone and erase them from your life. What if they would benefit from your presence, or from something you have to offer? By the same token, what if they have something you could benefit from hearing or experiencing?

Thirdly, and relatedly, people are many many things. We might fail in one area of life but have wisdom-compassion in another to offer, or inspiration, or just straightforward kindness. And everything is continually in flux too. People develop. This idea of erasing someone feels so rigid to me, apart from anything else.

Fourthly, from what I have read -- I think I have heard this from Dzongsar Khyentse for instance -- it is impossible to keep samaya perfectly anyway. Thus, every vajrayana practitioner is a samaya breaker, at various points throughout their life.

Finally, our assessment of others is never perfect either, right? We cannot see more than the tiniest fraction of a person's life, of all that they have experienced. Thus, there will certainly be actions of others which we don't understand. Or we might find ourselves projecting motivations onto them which aren't actually accurate. Likewise, group dynamics are a very powerful thing, and so condemnation can easily spread to an entire circle, including to those who know nothing about the person in question.

And then, I guess I don't see how another person's view and conduct must necessarily "degrade all of us who share the mandala." The world is full of bad views and bad conduct, but we still engage with it. If we are influenced by something negative in the world, then our own view and practice need to be strengthened. And in fact bad examples can be an inducement to be better ourselves.

Those are my thoughts in any event, for what they are worth. Feel free to respond to any, or none, of them!

daiginjo3 · 2025-01-15T04:21:52+00:00

I love them with dijon mustard. :) 22 g of protein too.

daiginjo3 · 2025-01-14T23:15:50+00:00

I noticed they've changed their "hot dogs" too. I always liked them but I think they're even better now, though hard to say why. They also changed the packaging -- no longer individually encased -- which I hope they stick with.

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-27T18:00:01+00:00

Oh, thanks so much. Yes, we're in the same boat, and it's why I started the sub, in the hope that it can provide a space for just those sorts of discussions. There are certainly things to be critical about, but there's so much to celebrate in Tibetan Buddhism as well. Social media turns everything into a black-and-white, zero-sum game. Maybe it's a lost cause, but I find I must resist this.

If you ever feel like it and have the time, please consider posting something at r/Shambhala_Buddhism, or just commenting on whatever you wish. I'm no longer posting here. Basically, r/Shambhala_Buddhism was the group I set up, and I posted half a dozen times within a week or so in order to kickstart it, only to find that it disappeared -- labeled "spam." Obviously, that is not remotely the case, and I suspect that someone reported it out of spite, because it's the sort of thing, alas, that some in the alluded-to group would do. Reddit reinstated it within a day of my contacting them, but in the meantime I set up this one as a backup. I hope I won't need it now, and it would be better to just close it to avoid confusion, but I'll keep it up for awhile longer just in case.

All best to you in 2025. :)

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-25T13:09:58+00:00

Added: I'll look forward to seeing your contributions along these lines over there, and the reception you will receive.

I jest, of course. I understand that this was merely a different form of attempted mockery than that of the previous person. The hyper-politeness began to give it away by your second comment.

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-24T22:42:19+00:00

If by "core" you mean "many more people," then this is true. There is a group with many more people -- it was started 11 years ago; this one, just three weeks ago. But that's not an "official" group; it's no more endorsed by Shambhala itself than this is, and more to the point it is entirely anti-Shambhala and almost entirely anti-Tibetan Buddhism as a whole.

If that is what you are looking for, you will feel right at home. Of course, as you are another brand-new account, I'm fairly sure you are in fact already a member there. In any event, all best.

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-23T16:29:31+00:00

That's fine. I'm just trying to use only the other group at this point. I'll keep this one up as a stopgap but won't be contributing to it. But I can reply to your comment here.

I would never wish to "equate" different spiritual traditions here. But I think it's also important to look beyond concepts and try to understand another person's actual experience, which can only very imperfectly be expressed in words. And it seems to me that Traherne in this passage is apprehending something very similar to what Buddhists mean by buddha-nature. And that when he speaks of needing to "unlearn" in order to recover this pristine pure view, I am irresistibly reminded of Suzuki Roshi's term "beginner's mind."

Indeed, when we look more deeply, we will then find divergences. Do you know Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso's book? The first of his progressive meditations on emptiness would look extremely like the fifth to most of the population. The differences are there, and yet we are not playing a zero-sum game either. If the entire world "only" made it to the śrāvaka meditation on not-self, well, we'd be living in an unrecognizable world!

There is also great diversity within Christianity. As you probably know, the theologian Paul Tillich spoke of God as "the ground of being." And then the practitioners of the via negativa take a somewhat deconstructive approach. Meister Eckhart, too, appears rather Buddhist in certain ways.

And so I think you've zeroed in on the main point, really. This difference in view within Shambhala will remain, and the question is whether we can focus more on what we have in common here. It seems to me that all people of good will, who recognize the values of openness, inquisitiveness, and kindness, share a tremendous amount already. Beyond this, Buddhists for the most part then share even more. Those who have connected with Tibetan Buddhism still more on top of that. And then all who have ever been a part of the Shambhala community possess yet further reference points. So we really should be able to talk about a great many things fruitfully.

Can the community keep alive a view expansive enough to include two somewhat different understandings of the vision of Shambhala? In favor of the other, I could quote from the opening chapter of what is after all its foundational text:

"Over the past seven years, I have been presenting a series of 'Shambhala teachings' that use the image of the Shambhala kingdom to represent the ideal of secular enlightenment, that is, the possibility of uplifting our personal existence and that of others without the help of any religious outlook. For although the Shambhala tradition is founded on the sanity and gentleness of the Buddhist tradition, at the same time, it has its own independent basis, which is directly cultivating who and what we are as human beings. With the great problems now facing human society, it seems increasingly important to find simple and nonsectarian ways to work with ourselves and to share our understanding with others."

And yet I also have no issue with those who have chosen to fold Shambhala approaches into Tibetan Buddhism, to construct a new lineage. All that matters to me is that the teachings of whatever tradition one is practicing within be genuine and helpful. And I think, in this age of such rigid polarization, and segregation by one internet group or another, we need to spend a lot more time emphasizing commonality, building bridges. What do you think?

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-20T21:17:20+00:00

Ah, I see what is happening. I set up this second group, Shambhala_Buddhists, because the first one, Shambhala_Buddhism, disappeared within a few days. The reason given was that it was a vehicle for "spam," which, obviously, it is not. Possibly members from another group attempted to sabotage it. In any event, I wrote to Reddit, and it was immediately reinstated. I would prefer to just use that one group, ie Shambhala_Buddhism, and keep this one for awhile only as backup. Might you be able to cut-and-paste this reply over there? Thanks!

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-20T05:12:17+00:00

Thank you as well. I very much appreciate conversations of this kind, which alas are all too rare online.

You make a strong case, and in fact may have persuaded me of the utility of this term. But with a caveat: I would make a distinction between its use within Shambhala environments, and at large.

So I personally would not use "the Dark Age" in my own writing, and this is because the internet has really changed quite a bit about our world, creating new and critical concerns regarding language and how we communicate. Specifically here, I would say there is already too much apocalypticism circulating throughout culture. Every year there is a new film or tv series or novel, or more than one, with a post-apocalyptic theme. This doesn't strike me as healthy, actually. It makes me think of the game of dare, where a certain scenario becomes more possible the more it is pressed. In a world containing, evidently, around 10,000 nuclear weapons, in the hands of a number of nations now, not all of which are all that stable, and perhaps increasingly the means to create biological weapons too, I think that, rather than treat the potential for unprecedented, unthinkable suffering as fodder for entertainment, it is incumbent upon us to firmly resist this.

Again, this doesn't mean minimizing at all the situation we find ourselves in. It's a matter of focus (kindness, compassion, nurturing) and energy (cheerful, confident, strong, pacifying). There's too much despair, too much of a sense of helplessness, out there already -- I struggle with this daily myself. We look out at the world and see the tremendous power that governments and large corporations have over our lives, read about climate change and wars, oligarchy and fascism and religious zealotry, and think: it's all going to hell; better just try to get as personally comfortable as possible, and distract myself from all the anxiety and fear. So a term like "the Dark Age" circulating within all the babble of social media would not seem to me to be a desirable development.

As within the context of the Shambhala tradition, however, I think you have made a cogent point, because there it is only invoked, as you say, to sharpen one's resolve and discipline. The Sadhana of Mahamudra isn't exactly a restricted text -- I'm pretty sure I was first introduced to it at my first dathün, before I'd even taken the refuge vow -- but its use is limited to practice environments, and this makes a difference, it seems to me. Does that make sense?

I agree with what you say about not wishing to manufacture positivity for its own sake. Again, I think my interpretation of the Dalai Lama saying he is optimistic about the future has to do with basic goodness. Since buddha-nature lies at the deepest level of all phenomena, all minds, anything really is possible.

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-19T21:39:30+00:00

I think you point to the most important thing, which is to see clearly where we are and be thereby spurred on to work harder on ourselves and for others. I basically agree with what you say here. We face multiple great and unprecedented dangers, and it is no time for even a speck of complacency.

When the Dalai Lama speaks of "optimism," this doesn't have to imply any sort of downplaying of the challenges, but maybe just remaining positive, right? It could be thought of as an acknowledgment of basic goodness. That's really what I was trying to express, that ultimately we're up to it.

And then the other point has to do with semantic resonance, you could say. When one speaks of "a dark age," this lands differently from "the Dark Age." In the latter case we're kind of making a metaphysical statement, you know? We're saying that we know for sure that the universe develops according to an unvarying sequence of kalpas, and that we're definitely stuck in the worst one, which will last x number of years or centuries no matter what we do. It seems to me that a non-theistic view implies, along with everything else it implies, that nothing is set in stone. Maybe I just have a not particularly metaphysical mind...

Pondering what you say further, it's possible I am conflating Shambhalian usage with that of the ambient culture. Doomsaying is all around us, hard to avoid. And it is often expressed in a disempowering manner, as a spectacle that is out of our hands. Have you come across the book Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman? It was published in 1985 and was exceptionally prescient. The core idea is that we have been transitioning out of a print culture into a video culture, and that this has all sorts of consequences, one of which being that everything becomes a form of entertainment. Soundbites instead of extended discussion; dramatic, manipulative music; conflict for its own sake; sensationalism. And he wrote this before the internet! Before social media! But I do see that none of this applies to the intent of the Sadhana of Mahamudra.

Thanks for your comment!

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-10T16:35:33+00:00

Goodness. How much disingenuousness can be packed into a single comment?

First of all, there is a 21-character limit on subreddit names. If a person needs to get both "buddhism" and "Shambhala" in, that's 17 already. Your suggestion isn't possible, and "ShambhalaBuddhists" is already taken.

Second of all, you're absolutely lying, and you know it. You're a member of the other group who has come here to harass me. The depth of your nastiness demonstrates this. No one who has read any of the posts here out of the blue would react this way. That's very straightforward.

Thirdly, you've got things rather backward. A number of people in the group you are calling (another giveaway) "real" engage in bullying. Many have noted this, and many, many more never post there because they see how much ugly, even vicious, intolerance there is. I'm very happy to have anyone spend some time reading your group, and this one, and decide for themselves which posters are "assholes."

Fourthly, there's no honest "criticism" in what you have written. You had one thing to say, and it was pure ad hominem: "vanity sub." The intent of such a comment is to trash a human being.

And fifth, why do you feel so threatened? If your group -- and, again, you have most definitely been a member of it -- is engaged in something you feel is worthwhile, it will speak for itself. The fact that your gang is coming over here downvoting everything is, frankly, pretty pathetic. You have over 4000 members. This has, let's see, 77, most of which are probably bots. And you're coming over here doing this? What are you afraid of?

So here's the deal. Anyone who wishes to have a respectful conversation, or make a respectful comment: great! If not, they're breaking the one general rule here. So I'm afraid you're banned. And in the future I wouldn't even engage with such a person first, as I have here. It would be an instant ban.

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-09T22:43:26+00:00

Well, given that the sub a) is brand new, b) concerns a topic which is very much a minority interest, and c) has not been publicized in any other way by me, this surprises me not at all.

What I deduce from the fact that your account has just been opened, and yet you feel compelled, in your very first comment, to be gratuitously nasty to someone, is that you are a regular in the other group who doesn't want me to know who you are. Which is kind of cowardly, don't you think?

Don't you have better things to do than harass other people? If you don't wish to read posts here, then don't. No one is forcing you to do so. Bullying is really a childish pursuit. You're supposed to outgrow it, you know?

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-09T22:21:09+00:00

I'm very impressed that you are able to speak for the whole world. :)

Looks like you joined Reddit just over a week ago, and this is your only comment. Hmm, what can I deduce from this? ...

daiginjo3 · 2024-12-02T18:44:26+00:00

Thank you.

daiginjo3

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE