An unusually public display of dissent and controversy among the
Halifax-based Shambhala community is playing out on a provocative
website that questions the present leadership direction of the
organization.
RadioFreeShambhala.org was started about a year ago, says Mark Szpakowski, a web developer who
came up the idea for the site with fellow Shambhalan Ed Michalik. “It
came about because there wasn’t a venue for discussion, and there were
a whole lot of topics that some people thought weren’t being talked
about at all,” explains Szpakowski.
The heart of the issue is a disagreement over the relationship
between Buddhism and Shambhala.
“Shambhala” is a collection of teachings from Chögyam Trungpa
Rinpoche, a charismatic Buddhist scholar who, at the age of 20, fled
Tibet as Chinese armies were moving into that country in 1959. Trungpa
went on to become the leading figure bringing Tibetan meditation
practices to the west, and became established among the 1960s
counterculture—Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs, for example,
taught at Trungpa’s Naropa University in Boulder, Colorado.
In 1986, Trungpa moved his operation to Halifax, and many of his
supporters followed him here, establishing the local Shambhala
community.
Trungpa died the following year, and after a mostly
behind-the-scenes power struggle lasting two years, his son, Sakyong
Mipham Rinpoche, took control of the organization.
“Many people who are devoted to Trungpa Rinpoche and who don’t
consider the Sakyong to be their teacher don’t feel welcomed by the
community, and they’re afraid to speak up,” comments dissident Andrew
Safer on the Radio Free Shambhala site.
“Chögyam Trungpa had done the Buddhist thing, and he was an
absolute master of them, and took a very rigorous approach to that,”
explains Szpakowski. “But he saw that for the next long period of time,
what the world needs is some kind of relationship that brings the
sacred and the secular together.
“There was a whole stream of teachings that were presented that were
independent of Buddhism, which were the Shambhala teachings, even
though of course Chögyam Trungpa obviously came from Tibet and he
himself was a Tibetan Buddhist.”
Trunga taught that anyone at all, from any religion, or an atheist,
could use Shambhala practices. And, in fact, many of Trunga’s followers
don’t consider themselves Buddhist; Michalik, for example, describes
himself as a devout Roman Catholic.
But, say commenters on the Radio Free Shambhala site, Sakyong Mipham
has insisted on re-asserting the traditional Tibetan Buddhist lineages,
and generally bringing religion back into the organization.
That kernel of disagreement has widened into broader disagreements,
including over organizational finances.
The Shambhala organization did not respond to a request to be
interviewed for this article.
This article appears in Jul 30 – Aug 5, 2009.


Someone please explain to me why the Shambhala community needs a King and Queen? I don’t get it.
You can actually read about the King and Queen principle, generally, in Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior.
Trungpa Rinpoche talked about how the ideal gov’t was “benevolent dictatorship”—he meant that tongue-in-cheek, mostly, but not entirely. Anyone who’s seen us here in the USA try and fail to pass Universal Healthcare reform for more than 100 years might see his point.
Having visited the Halifax Shambhala Centre on several occassions while taking some meditation training my impressions are less than positive. It felt unfriendly and very clique. It always felt unbuddhist or at least what my understanding of buddhist principles are based upon. Doesn’t surprise me there is a political battle with the egos.
Maybe try again, of course people who know each other will convene, but my experience is that this community and teachings are the warmest and most potent around. No community is perfect, they will always have human shortcomings, but we give each other always, another chance. It is difficult when the teacher dies, and I’m so grateful that the community could continue. The meditation techniques offered by Shambhala are invaluable.
As a long-time member of the Shambhala community, and a student of both Trungpa Rinpoche and Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, I don’t feel the Radio Free Shambhala website or this article about it accurately represents the state of the community or the organization that is Shambhala.
As the first comment notes, there are always human shortcomings, and the transition between teachers and leaders of a lineage can be difficult. Some people will connect more with the previous and others more with the next teacher; some will feel a continuity of purpose, teachings and spirit, and connect with both. For those who don’t, outer differences in style and expression may be perceived as inner differences in meaning and substance.
While there are issues of organization and finance in Shambhala, I feel that these have more to do with a diverse group of amateur volunteers who are primarily dedicated to a spiritual path attempting to run the organization of a large, international community with a network of major city and retreat centers, all funded by donations. The best way to approach these issues is to be open to raising them, but to work together and to support each other in addressing them and running the organization.
The founders of Radio Free Shambhala are all dedicated students of Trungpa Rinpoche. They haven’t, however, connected with Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche. They also represent a vocal minority in the measure, form and content of their dissent. In Shambhala and Buddhism, connection is needed to share what the teachings are about, which is the essential wakefulness that all of us possess and that an authentic teacher represents. When there is a lack of connection, it is possible to doubt a teacher’s authenticity; the only true evidence we have is a personal, open heart-connection. But this presents a case of the logic that lack of evidence for something (e.g. a teacher’s authenticity) does not count as evidence against it. While a shift in connection can be painful, the antidote to it is not to start a blogsite to complain about the teacher with whom you haven’t connected – esp. when that teacher has been so well-trained, is so well-respected and has been confirmed and supported in his important role by many other important, respected, authentic teachers – but either to make a sincere attempt to connect, or to follow the teachings of another teacher – or just to ask a teacher whom one does respect what to do about one’s feelings of lack of connection! It’s also just the polite and decent thing to do.
Contrary to the Radio Free Shambhala “take” on Shambhala, The Sakyong has not abandoned the Shambhala teachings in favor of a regress to questionably materialistic and merely culturally exotic forms of Tibetan Buddhism. Instead, he has fulfilled his mission of completing the Shambhala path, introducing important forms, teachings and commentaries that allow practitioners to progress from the introductory Shambhala teachings given by his father Trungpa Rinpoche to the most advanced teachings Trungpa Rinpoche revealed. There are aspects in common with this complete Shambhala path and the teachings of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism – but this is a good thing: those are just the tried-and-true, and even ultimately necessary, methods of waking ourselves up provided by the Vajrayana – its essence, which is something that Trungpa Rinpoche also taught. The RFS people seem to have a very limited view of the Shambhala path, its current unfolding and its deep historical and substantive relationship with Vajrayana Buddhism. Many of them seem just not to have come around for many of the important recent events, teachings and gatherings in Shambhala, and so don’t have a well-informed, first-hand view of actual participants. My own experience has been that it’s hard to doubt the authenticity of The Sakyong if you attend and practice his teachings, and also if you just pitch in and help with the various initiatives he’s started.
What’s upset me most about RFS is a disrespectful attitude and ungrounded, personally-targeted negativity in many posts by its founders, not just toward The Sakyong, but also toward his family, which includes revered Tibetan Buddhist teachers. This to me seems to give a hint of what’s really going on at RFS.
If you would like another view of this, here (http://www.daylife.com/photo/05bea5NbjoeHO) is a photo of His Eminence Namkha Drimed Rinpoche, the Sakyong’s father-in-law and a close friend of Trungpa Rinpoche from their early days in Tibet, with His Holiness The Dalai Lama this past week, at a blessing ceremony for His Eminence’s new monastery in Orissa, India. H.H. The Dalai Lama has also supported The Sakyong in his important role, and visited our retreat center in Colorado to conduct special blessing ceremonies for the memorial to Trungpa Rinpoche there. Personally, I’d rather go with the view of H.H. The Dalai Lama than with those on RFS.
I just asked a specific question about money to Shambhala International, politely. I just did this half an hour ago, and so of course no reply has come yet.
Comments on some of the above points:
Without a personal connection, trust is of course not only difficult but unintelligent. I hope that inquiries are given the respect they need if trust is to be built and warranted.
I neither wholly trust nor mistrust the situation, so far. I’ve experienced a variety of things within Shambhala, so it is hard to summarize.
I do have a great deal of difficulty with the royalty approach. For one thing, it gets in the way of building the relationships, since often centres cannot afford the undertaking of creating a good-enough situation for the Sakyong to be able to visit us. It starts with a wonderful principle of uplifted environments and rulership in our lives, and ends with the need to create perfect environments and actual royalty. The real relationships should be far more important than the forms, I think. Those of us outside Halifax certainly do not get a chance to cultivate the devotion that we are expected to manifest within our roles in our centres.
C writes:
“While a shift in connection can be painful, the antidote to it is not to start a blogsite to complain about the teacher with whom you haven’t connected – esp. when that teacher has been so well-trained, is so well-respected and has been confirmed and supported in his important role by many other important, respected, authentic teachers – but either to make a sincere attempt to connect, or to follow the teachings of another teacher – or just to ask a teacher whom one does respect what to do about one’s feelings of lack of connection! It’s also just the polite and decent thing to do.”
I think questioning the credentials of a teacher is essential to a free society.