Talk:Chögyam Trungpa/Archive 1

Cult
I was the one who initiated this article, so I take a special interest in it's content. Recently, someone has posted a link to the 'cult' article and a link to a blog from a dissatisfied customer (so to speak). I read the links and after some consideration, and although the party who added the links obviously has an agenda, I have no problem with the links per se.

As far as Shambhala being a cult, well, I know nothing about Shambhala in its early days. I do, however, know many practitioners of Shambhala (I practice Kyudo with them), and I have to say one thing. They do not proselytize. Not at all. None. It is in their teachings, I think. Proselytization is a hallmark of cults, but I have NEVER seen it or experienced it in the four or so years I have associted with Shambhalans.


 * From http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/vctr/ctrbio.html: Throughout [Trungpa's] life, he sought to bring the teachings he had received to the largest possible audience. Matt Stan 10:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My only reason for not joining them in their teachings is my general distrust and avoidance of all organized religion. That, and because my investigations into things metaphysical go well beyond what they teach. True wisdom, the way I view it, is beyond all constructs and organizations (e.g.. "the Tao that can be described is not the Tao") and that includes ALL codified systems, religions and philosophies.

Yes, they are quite a bunch. No, they are not a cult, in my experience and observation. Marteau 05:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I have a particular problem with the cult wikilink, because there is no discussion in the article as to whether or not the group is a cult, or anyone making such assertions. Without some context for this "see also" wikilink, it's like WP has branded the group a cult without need for any discussion; this runs along the lines of my concerns over POV of WP categorization. I propose that unless someone adds some cult discussion to the article body within a few days, this wikilink be removed. --Gary D 19:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * By all means. I've just grown so weary of edit battles and flame wars and such for the decade plus I've been on line and dealing with things of substance, but by all means, have at it.  As far as cultishness, there is nothing Shambhala does or did which is any more 'cultish' than what Christians do.  Who was it that said, a cult is just a religious group that doesn't have much money?  Anyway, after some thought, given that the term 'cult' is highly-charged, I would like to see at least one instance of a cult authority, or some other respected scholar, labeling Shambhala a cult.  As it stands, all there is is the link to some blog from someone who obviously has some unresolved issues.  So, yes, I agree with you. Marteau 20:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is about Trungpa, not Shambhala. That people wish to censor the truth about him (which I have verified from other sources, including my own grandmother) speaks of a cult of the personality, revering a man who had greatness thrust upon him (as a tulku) and who was, like many great men, flawed. For those who wish to know the truth, what is the harm in reporting that Trungpa smoked, was an alcoholic, and reputedly had great ability in stimulating women's sweet spots? HIs involvement with several woman followers shortly preceded his departure from Scotland to the USA. Unsavory in some eyes, perhaps, though the Buddhist teaching on morality does not ask us to judge people. It is interesting that the Samye Ling web site makes no mention of Trungpa, though the wikipedia entry does, and it was he who was the prime mover, not Akong Rinpoche (who is not a tulku), in setting the place up in the late 1960s. The story of Tendzin's confession about knowingly infecting other disciples with AIDs was told me independently several years ago by an old friend in California, and shocked many. Was this an example of Trungpa's crazy wisdom in practice? Trungpa was a controversial character. There is no reason to censor this, unless you want to be part of the cult of revering him. Matt Stan 23:57, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, a cult does not have to be evangelical. Think of the cult of Kali in India and the thuggee, which was a secret cult of worshippers who went round murdering people by breaking their necks, stealing their possessions, and breaking their bones so they could be buried with minimal effort. The full Oxford English Dictionary definition for cult is:

†1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).

2. a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.

b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the archæology of primitive cults.

3. transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.

Nothing about evangelism, and the last entry seems to fit with Trungpa's organisation quite well. I am not suggesting that Shambhala is a cult like the Moonies, just that it is cultish about Trungpa, and they don't seem to have quietly forgotten about him as the Scottish Buddhists seem to have done. Presumably his books make a lot of money for them. Cults seem to have a bad reputation, so it is hardly surprising that Shambhala adherents would not wish to be associated with such a term. And presumably their livelihoods partly depend on maintaning an illusory reputation for Trungpa himself. As the man himself (whom I knew briefly when I was a teenager) put it in his teachings (though I doubt he intended it to be used in this way): the illusion that is life itself.

It is perhaps ironical that the OED entry that cites Trungpa is for the definition of the word ego, as in egoless! Matt Stan 09:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It is appears that the definition Matt gives for "cult" applies to any religion, most political movements, celebrities, etc. The wikipedia article on cults is about something else.  I agree with Gary and Jordan that the cult link as it stands should not be included. - Nat Krause 07:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, the definition I gave only came from a primary source, the Oxford English dictionary. Obcviously, after a term has been re-defined in wikipedia, we don't have to rely on primary sources any more, and we can carry on creating our own little world. Never mind that someone else might have missed the point. Let's be constrained by our own limited horizons and onanistically apply our contraints to others who impertinently try to extend our horizons. Removing the link in the vacuum in which it was placed is fair enough, I suppose, though I thought the point of wikipedia was to add things not take them away. I have provided plenty of evidence on this talk pacge of the cultistness of the Trungpa phenomenon. This evidence is evidently being amplified by the behaviour of others who would not wish their cult called called a cult. QED. Matt Stan 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Oy, calm down, buddy. You and I both know what the word "cult" means in common parlance.  It's a term of abuse.  The page we were linking to was cult specifically.  Wikipedia also also has entries on cult (religion) and cult (disambiguation).  If you want to move those around, be my guest, but that is beside the point of the Trungpa page.  It nevertheless seems that, if we use your definition above, we should be adding cult links to every article about any religious group, most political groups, Orlando Bloom, etc.


 * By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by: "This evidence is evidently being amplified by the behaviour of others who would not wish their cult called called a cult. QED." Which others?  As far as I know, no one here is a Trungpa cultist.  Personally, I can vouch that I have never had anything to do with them whatsoever. - Nat Krause 09:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cult?
From wikipedia's cult:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group with a religious or philosophical identity, often existing on the margins of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream. The unusual practices of early Mormons (1850's) in the USA, and their subsequent migration to the isolated deserts of Utah is a classic example.

So there's nothing novel about Shambhala and Trungpa's interpretation of Buddhist texts? It does not have an identity? It's treated as mainstream by mainstream American protestant evangelical Christian culture? The isolation of most meditation centres from their surrounding communities makes them totally dissimilar from Mormons?

From http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/vctr/ctrbio.html: ''Late in the 1970s, Chögyam Trungpa expressed his long-held desire to present contemplative practice to those who were not necessarilly interested in studying Buddhism. He developed a program called Shambhala Training, based on the legendary enlightened kingdom of that name.'' If Shambhala is not mainstream Buddhism and not a cult then what is it?

I knew Trungpa before he went to America. I can contribute some of that knowledge here, but I suppose I have to contend with some of my fellow wikipedians who prefer to subtract from the sum total of human knowledge - as if that were possible!


 * Okay, so now you've got a new definition of "cult". I do not argue that, by this definition, Trungpa's people are not a cult, although, once again, it is a very broad definition that includes pretty much everyone but some Christians and Jews, i.e. it could potentially include Mormons, Hasidim, Muslims, Buddhists, existentialists, etc.  Even so, the main problem is that the word "cult" is derisory, with strong negative connotations (the cult article itself is graced with the picture of a man who led a mass suicide).  We can have the link, but we need to give some context for it to be NPOV.


 * I had not intended particularly to use cult in a derogatory sense (only in its dictionary sense), and would ask by what token the terms's usage should necessarily be restricted to a derisory context. If we're saying, though, that a cult, by definition, must involve some form of mind control that can cause people to engage in anti-social activity, what about the case of Trungpa's protege, Tendzin, who it is attested knowingly infected fellow acolytes with AIDS. Surely that type of behaviour places this group on the borderline. OK, so they don't tell their followers to go out and infect the world with AIDS, but they do question the bases of generally accepted morality - at least Trungpa did - in a big way.Matt Stan 13:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For possible inclusion in the Trungpa article:

When Trungpa arrived in England in <-- unsure of exact date, but can probably find out --> the 60s, having escaped from Chinese oppression in Tibet, he caused a stir among western groups interested in Eastern religion, including theosophists and Buddhists. Trungpa obtained a reputation as a scholar and studied English at Oxford for a while. It soon becams apparent that his brand of Buddhism was something quite different, and he did not get on with Christmas Humphries, who ran the Buddhist Society at that time. Trungpa was the first living embodment of a reincarnated lama who had mastered western ideas and language, and he soon obtained a cult following. His embrace of Western culture was not all to his own advantage, however. He started smoking Gaulloises cigarettes, drinking alcohol and taking drugs. Although celibacy was usual for Tibetan monks, Trungpa, in the guise of practising the tantra, engaged in sexual relations with several of his followers. He was involved in a car accident that left him partially paralysed. He desparately wanted to start a monastery modelled on those he had left behind in Tibet. Johnstone House in the Scottish Lowlands allowed him to do this, and Samye Ling was born. Later he came closer to his ideal when he settled in Vermont, USA, whose mountains were almost as impressive as the Himalayas. Matt Stan 07:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This looks to me like a good contribution for the most part, although I haven't checked the facts. One thing, was Trungpa actually a monk?  Certainly, Tibetan monks should be celibate, but not all lamas are monks, and many have been married.  If you post the above text to the article, in addition to editing it slightly for encyclopedia style, I would still remove the cult link as it appears above.  Simply to state that Trungpa's group was a cult will never be NPOV.  Wikipedia describes, for example, the Branch Davidians as a "religious group", and adds this in the body of the article: "[Koresh's] sect was said by some to be a cult for its authoritarian structure".  That's NPOV.  For Trungpa article, what we need is some concise explanation of who thinks it was a cult?  In what way?  At what point (i.e. your text says that the following was a cult in the 60s, but what is the documentation for that)? - Nat Krause 09:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Trungpa was an ordained monk, who gave up his vows after certain events took place in his life. Lamas can get married via an institution known as a Nyingmapa marriage (I think that's what it's called), which has quite strict rules intended to ensure that the monk's devotional activities are not adversely affected by his family life. Akong Rinpoche, who used to run Samye Ling in Scotland, I believe had a dispensation from the head of his sect (Karmapa) to be married in this way. Matt Stan 13:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article makes the guy seem more of a con-artist. Could anyone tell whether he was meditating or in an alcohol-induced state? 81.154.203.55 (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Read one of the many biographies about him. Very interesting fellow. You make it sound like meditation precludes different states of mind? I've been consumed by various emotional states while meditating: jealously, pride, anger. Nothing about meditation in the Tibetan tradition precludes different states of mind or pushing them away particularly. Rather tantric forms of buddhism use the richness of situations (including emotional and mental states) as part of the practice, while discouraging acting out on the various emotions or mental states. So instead of wholesale rejection of behavior, in my opinion, it's more of an inner rejection of unhelpful views and motivations and turning any experience into a way to deepen inner awareness and insight. That can include drinking alcohol, a practice that goes back in time in Buddhism to India over a thousand years ago. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory material
I'm happy if the anonymous user removes the external link again because I shall only put it back. I'm sure many wikipedians and others would be interested in the fantastic stories about Trungpa and the effects that his amoralistic teachings have, as well as the fact that there are some 'contributors' to wikipedia who think that they make the best contribution by deleting things. Go ahead - start an edit war, and I'll take it to the village pump and elsewhere. I'm sure you know best! Thanks Matt Stan 08:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is hamstrung by an either/or argument as to whether or not Trungpa's organization was indeed a cult, and a lack of understanding as to vajrayana, or Tibetan, style Buddhism. Here devotion to the teacher as a mirror to one's own sanity is central, beyond conventional notions of morality, while remaining dedicated to the benefit of all sentient beings. This is a technique that inspires spritual progress in many, but can lead to a cultish mentality in some, leading to a devasting arrogance by his Regent (he thought he was spiritually protected against giving AIDS to his lovers. Vajrayana Buddhism is considered a quick, yet potentially dangerous path.) It is a fact that Trungpa was respected by many other spiritual teachers from many traditions; in spite of or because of his style of teaching, by design shocking and unconventional.  This was designed to question what he termed "spirtual materialism", or the attempt by ego to turn spirituality into an escape from the real, the earthy, the mundane or messy.  He never tried to hide any of his behaviors. John Doyle 19 Nov 2004

Perils of the Path
Wikipedia, in order to maintain NPOV, surely needs not to censor expression of views about facts surrounding Trungpa. OK, he never hid the fact that he smoked and drank, and it was well-known that his drinking affected his health. Some might have trouble with this, as it was not overtly part of his teaching, and is certainly not promulgated by the Shambala Institute. Trungpa also reputedly had great gifts at satisfying women sexually, being adept at finding the "sweet spot". This might all be a bit hard to take for the uninitiated, who may - contrary to the Teaching - be judgmental of these facts. But this is an encyclopedia - for people to find out information. Trungpa was a fantastic character, and I don't wish to besmirch his reputation, just to point out that, whilst reverence for one's guru is an important aspect of the Path, being non-judgmental about other people is also, and therefore concentrating exclusively on the 'holy' in this article whilst supressing information about the 'worldly' would not represent a neutral point of view - in fact it is more akin to a judeo-christian outlook, a perspective that Trungpa was himself an adept at debunking. Matt Stan 1 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)

More about Trungpa
No doubt, a fascinating guy. It's a pity that there seem to be vested interests in keeping this wikipedia article "pure". For instance, the link http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/trungpa.asp recently taken out of the article, ostensibly because it was self-promotional, itself is a very well put together article and cites sources from the Amazon,com full text search resource, which are very useful. There's also a link from there to an interview with Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, who was Trunga's first child, conceived in Tibet, whilst Trungpa was living under a chastity vow. If all this is true knowledge about the man and his associates/progeny, then why not allow it in the main article? Matt Stan 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the link. Take a look at the editor's contributions. If we don't remove spam, Wikipedia will become a garbage dump. Feel free to add any truthful or documentable information to the article. I have read portions of Stripping the Gurus. It is very sloppily written and agenda-laden. So I would prefer that different sources are used. --goethean &#2384; 20:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a good example of the sloppiness:


 * Yet, in spite of that, and well after all of those serious problems in behavior had become widely known, we still have this untenable belief being voiced, by none other than Ken Wilber (1996):
 * “Crazy wisdom” occurs in a very strict ethical atmosphere.
 * If all of the above was occurring within a “very strict ethical atmosphere,” however, one shudders to think of what horrors an unethical atmosphere might unleash.

If you follow the link to Wilber's book, however, it's obvious that Wilber was referring to "Crazy Wisdom" in the context of the Buddhist tradition, as it should occur. The author implies that Wilber is saying that Naropa was a very strict ethical atmosphere, when Wilber is in fact saying the opposite. The author should not be trusted. Each reference should be checked. Unfortunately, this is impossible because he doesn't offer page numbers, only books. Thus I find "stripping the gurus" basically useless as a source. --goethean &#2384; 21:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There are many criticisms that one can make of Wilber's book, as indeed one can criticise many books. He definitely comes to his subject matter with a point of view, i.e. he has not himself written an NPOV encyclopedic book. However, he also has done a lot of research and there are passages which make very good points. I am saying let wikipedia readers judge for themselves, and make it easy to find the references, rather than deleting them on the basis of ad hominem judgments which are themselves POV, if you take my drift. I myself take a neutral line on Trungpa's life. He might have been like a dethroned king abusing what little power he had left. He might have been a great teacher able to allow his followers to transcend their conditioning and reach elevated states of consciousness. It's quite likely that he was both. So why just give a one-sided picture. The current article here looks like it was entirely written by devotees for devotees or would-be devotees. It shouldn't be like that, particularly when a lot is known about the excesses that Trungpa indulged in. Wilber himself seems to take a judgmental stance, assuming we will be shocked at some of the things Trungpa did. Whether they are shocking or not shouldn't concern us, simply that they are true, and they are. Matt Stan 18:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Strange chronology
Trungpa's chronology ends with "1989: Reborn in Derge, Tibet; recognized two years later." I find this strange, particularly in an encyclopaedia-oriented article. And from a Buddhist POV, how can a specific person be reborn, if the self does not really exist? At most, it is one aggregate that has been reborn, but that aggregate is not the former person, because that person did not exist as such. --Jdemarcos 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See the article on Tulkus. Csbodine 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section
I am surprised there is not a controversy section on trungpa.... I am going to start one. Feel free to contribute, but be sure to cite your sources. Sethie 15:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the source cited for the line " and drank so heavily during lectures, that he often times had to be carried off stage at the end of the lecture. (Meeting the Shadow: The hidden power of the dark side of human nature, Edited by Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams. p. 141-142)" actually says "In Boulder, he lectured brilliantly, yet sometimes so drunk that he had to be carried off-stage or held upright in his chair." (I did an amazon search to find this). Changing "sometimes" to "often times" does not reflect NPOV. Beyond this, citing myself as a source present at several hundred talks, his talks were often brilliant, often drunk; he needed assistance walking (usually a supporting arm) mainly due to his being crippled; I have heard that on rare occasions he was carried out (but can't cite a specific talk or source). - szpak 05:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, sometimes works for me. Sethie 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

MarkSzpakowski edited the account of the Merwin incident in ways characteristic of the official work of Shambhala International - limiting the discussion to relatively innocuous statements, masking the deeper gravity of the controversy. This is a violation of NPOV.

1. He removed "nasty and abusive" – that passage could be argued as overly provocative, but counterpoint is needed to defenders' previously mentioned claim that he could still be brilliant, precise, and compassionate when drunk. I have reformulated this to outline the stances of Trungpa's defenders and detractors.

2. "Cause celebre among some poets and artists" bears the trademark filter of innocuousness. I have elaborated the meaning of this phrase to give it more grounding in detail.

3. Merwin and Naone did not stay to the end of the seminary – they wanted to hear the Vajrayana teachings, but they left before the end, when confronted with the prospect of another party.

4. MarkSzpakowski claims that Merwin never criticized Trungpa for the incident – what is the source for this statement? The apparent intent of this edit is to suggest that Merwin found Trungpa's behavior in and after the incident acceptable. This is completely contrary to the impression given in listed sources Miles, Clark, and Marin.

Bertport 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 0. My words are my own, not those of Shambhala International.


 * 1. From Crooked Cucumber, The Life and Zen Teachings of Shunryu Suzuki (ISBN 0-7679-0104-5), p 374: "Suzuki [Roshi] asked Trungpa to give a talk to the students in the zendo the next night. Trungpa walked in tipsy and sat on the edge of the altar platform with his feed dangling. But he delivered a crystal-clear talk, which some felt had a quality - like Suzuki's talks - of not only being about the dharma but being itself the dharma." I myself attended several hundred talks by Trungpa, many of them given while drunk, and "nasty and abusive" does not fairly characterize these. I was also present at the 1975 Seminary Halloween party in question (I DJ'd it), and it was definitely unusual and extreme, including violence by a number of people (yes, I saw Trungpa sock Bob King in the nose). 'Nuff said, Wikipedia is not a venue for original research.


 * 2. I used Cause celebre as defined in Wikipedia, and feel it fits this incident to a T.


 * 3. Merwin did stay on; in fact some claim the presentation of Vajrayana was toned down as a result of his presence (an opinion I don't share). Stripping the Gurus (cf also http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/trungpa.asp), not the most NPOV of sources, nevertheless says on page 111: "And incredibly, even after enduring the above reported abuse, Merwin and Dana chose to remain at the seminary for Trungpa’s subsequent Vajrayana lectures." Merwin had asked for special permission to attend the seminary, even though he had not done the usual preliminaries.


 * 4. So things are not simplistically black and white, especially for a poet. Merwin does recount what happened at the event, but can you cite critical statements by him similar to those by Marin, Rexroth, et al? (By the way, it's hard to prove a negative statement). And speaking of Rexroth and NPOV, check out the Recalling Chogyam Trungpa book, and the reviews of Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism on amazon.com, for other evaluations of Trungpa's place in western Buddhism.


 * szpak 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Merwin and Naone did not leave Seminary immediately. I recently read that they left before the end of Seminary, though, to avoid the next party.  But I can't find the reference any more, so if you were there and know for a fact that they stayed to the end, I'll accept that.  But, again, the point of bringing this up, along with the bit about criticism, seems to be to suggest that  Merwin and Naone found Trungpa's actions acceptable.  That is clearly incorrect.  Beyond that, it seems intended to render the story innocuous.  The incident is disturbing, and Wikipedia readers deserve a narrative that gives them a true taste.  It is, indeed, very interesting that Merwin and Naone did not call the police afterwards, and even continued to attend for at least some time.  However, if we are going to mention this, then I would advocate a reference to Zimbardo's work,  via the  "Stripping the Gurus" chapter on Gurus and Prisoners  -- again, because I think it's important to avoid giving the impression that Merwin and Naone were happy with the incident.


 * Yes, I understand from (Miles, 1989) that Merwin and Naone had sought special permission to attend the Seminary, and that Trungpa had granted it somewhat reluctantly. To me, that is part of the story of Merwin and Naone retaining the independent spirit which was a prerequisite to the conflict ever occurring.  But why do you bring it up here?    Are you suggesting that Merwin and Naone "asked for it" (the humiliation) because they "asked to come" to Seminary?  I doubt that they anticipated this kind of treatment when they sought permission to attend.


 * I don't have sources citing critical statements directly from Merwin, but I don't write claims that he made such statements, either. If you want to insert a claim that he never made any critical statements, I'd like to see that backed up.


 * I agree, too, that this is no simple, black and white story. Do you think I am trying to present it as such?  It's a rich, complex, powerful, and disturbing story, and anyone who wants to take Trungpa seriously must take it, and the roles of alcohol and power  in his life, his teachings, and his organization, head on.  For many years, people have mostly asked either/or questions – was he  a genuine teacher, or an alcoholic?  Were his actions beneficial, or harmful?  Maybe the answers are something along the lines of yes, and yes, and yes, and yes.  There are loyal students who regard him as an extraordinary teacher, and we can understand why; there are also some who regard him as another guru gone bad, and we can understand why.  There may be an intersection of the two camps, too.   A biography of Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche that fails to suggest all of this, fails to properly honor the man and his legacy.  It would have been a lesser man, a lesser teacher, and a less interesting one, who had not generated such controversy.


 * Bertport 17:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The controversies section, most of which is on the Halloween party, is almost equal in size to the main bio section, which seems way overinflated; for perspective, check out the chronology of Trungpa's activities. I edited it to make it more concise while also adding some significant details. I removed the Kenneth Rexroth quotation because it's an opinion stated as an absolute ("Trungpa has unquestionably done more harm..."), taken from the back cover of an out-of-print book, by a relatively minor figure when it comes to Buddhism in America. I could quote dozens if not hundreds of opinions by far more notable and knowledgeable figures. Let's take it out. Or, if you want, start a "Notable Commentaries on Chogyam Trungpa" page and move it there :-). szpak 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversies section is actually pretty limited for a figure who made controversy his trademark. Recall that the account of the Merwin incident became more detailed when someone added statements which were meant to either justify Trungpa or soften the impact of the story.  That prompted me to add balancing details, to put into perspective such comments as "Merwin and Naone continued to participate in the seminary."  That suggested, contrary to the record, that Merwin and Naone accepted such treatment.  Yes, they stayed, but not without trying to establish some boundaries to protect themselves from further abouse.  Etc.  As for the Rexroth quote, it succinctly gives readers an impression of the outrage generated by the incident.  I think the section would be weakened by its removal.  But if you remove just that quote, I won't fight you on it. Bertport 13:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For a good example of a Criticisms section, see the John F. Kennedy article. szpak 13:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Ricard quote, taken from a tabloid-ish article, which in its full form was "Trungpa was extremely unconventional, as you suggest. He never tried to hide his behaviour. I never met him. I would not take him as my teacher." All these points have already been made in the article. There's lots of people you or I would not take as teachers: doesn't mean we pepper Wikipedia with our opinions. szpak 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Although for a long time I thought this controversy section was overly large, I think it has now become a rich narrative, a story worth studying re Chogyam Trungpa and how he taught. The Jeffrey Paine quote previously reverted is accurate (you can search the Amazon copy of the book). szpak (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I came across the Jeffrey Paine comments and view while researching something for the Pema Chödrön article and it struck me that 1) he was not a shambalian, he genuinely was commenting on different forms of buddhism coming to the west and 2) he offered a different perspective on the event than the one presented currently in this article. Since it's a central part of the section, and since we're trying to write a neutral article with relevant views, having an alternative view is valuable and provides balance. Putting it back now. You can read the referenced page and those before and after it on google books directly by clicking this link. But you might want to back up a few pages first. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it was already restored and I like the new version even better. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that Merwin and Naone made a request to stay, the day after the party. "The Party", the most authoritative and complete publication available on the incident, on page 56, quotes a letter written by Merwin, in which he states clearly that Trungpa invited him and Naone to stay on, either as students or guests. ("He urged her to please stay.")


 * After the Mahayana section, every single Seminary participant, including Merwin and Naone, had to explicitly request to attend the Vajrayana portion of the Seminary - that's how it worked. Trungpa at least was willing to grant Merwin's requests. BTW, re "The Party", as far as I can tell this is not a publication available in any form, so can it really serve as a reference? szpak (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I guess your assertion (that everyone had to explicitly request ...) is based on a general policy that was in place - otherwise, I doubt you would make the claim.  However, Merwin is quoted clearly, at least twice, as saying that Trungpa invited, nay, persuaded him and Naone to stay.  ("The day after the happenings, as his letter was tacked up, a verbal message came to us through the officers of the seminary, inviting us (yes) to stay on, 'either as students or as guests.'  We sent back another, saying that we needed to know what he meant by those terms, and asking to see him.  Several days later we were granted an interview.  Quiet and polite.... He asked us to stay on.  I said the decision must be Dana's, since I thought she had had much the worst of it.  He urged her to please stay....")  "The Party" is hard to find, but it is real and can be tracked down.  I actually wound up with two copies (one from alibris, and the other from Ed Sanders' store in NY) when I got interested in this topic a couple years ago.  It's not in print; you won't find it on Amazon; but Wikipedia policy does not exclude references on that basis. Bertport (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Paine is better characterized as an author than as a scholar. He has published a few non-academic books, and "Re-enchantment" is certainly not a scholarly work. He gives no justification for his assertion that Trungpa "decided it was kinder to shock him out of his aloofness." How could Paine know what Trungpa's thinking process was? If we are going to include this toss-off remark of Paine's, then we might as well also include Rexroth's famous assessment, quoted in fact by Paine as well as many other accounts. Rexroth is a much more significant figure than Paine, and he does not cloak his opinion in an assertion about what Trungpa must have been thinking.Bertport (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In general I like your changes there. Changing scholar to author is fine, but leaving his name without some qualification lacks some sort of explanation for who he is. I'll add "Author" then. And Rexroth's reaction to the incident and assertion that Trungpa was a fascist sounds equally relevant. These kind of differing opinions help convey to me that the incident was notable and talked about and people weighed in on it in different ways. I think that adds to the conversation about it and makes it richer, yet we haven't outweighed the description of what happened itself. One critique though, "the outrage that many felt" introduces a weasel word and is non-specific. I'll change that to be specifically about those two poets. - Owlmonkey (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article
This article has a slight negative bias. the incident about Merwin and Naone seems very specific to mention here and seems out of place. For such a short article to focus so much on one incident is unbalanced. The controversies surrounding Trungpa were not about this one incident so it does not make sense to single it out. I think there should be a more general comment about his controversial lifestyle and actions. I have edited the controversy section to make it more general. I would suggest adding in some of the other controversial actions of trungpa, such as disrobing, marying a young english woman, choosing a western dharma heir, and so on.

Yes I am involved in the Shambhala sangha, however I also enjoy debunking questional gurus. (see my edits on Lu_Sheng-yen for example, I took a grossly positivly biased article and added in the controversy in a very polarized community). I am aiming for a balanced NPV article here.

Dwenaus 12:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These edits amount to removing material that is most uncomfortable – the usual official Shambhala approach of trying to present the difficult topics in brief, innocuous versions, as if there is nothing juicy to be tasted. On the one hand, Dwenaus says it is misleading to present so much material on the Merwin incident, when little text is included on other controversies in Trungpa's life.  On the other hand, he removes the single-sentence reference to another controversial incident, the drunk-driving accident that partially disabled Trungpa.  The correct solution is not what Dwenaus has done, but what he suggests, which is to include more material on other controversies, so as to put the Merwin into proper context.  In the meantime, Dwenaus' edit does readers the disservice of giving the impression that Trungpa was a rather tame guru who happened to have the usual personal vices of alcohol and sex.  Note that the article as a whole is quite elaborate in some other sections, such as the long list of published works.  Trungpa's impact on Western Buddhism is not accurately reflected by a long, sanitary hagiography with a short, mumbled footnote to the effect of, "oh, yeah, and he, uh, drank and had sex."  To finish the Controversies section with "others have been disturbed by behavior that appeared to be abusive," with no elaboration, is inferior to showing what reports that disturbance is based upon.


 * So I am restoring the text, and extending Dwenaus' list of proposed controversies to be added to the section:
 * 1.fathering a child, with a nun, while both he and the nun are under vows of celibacy
 * 2.disrobing (I'm not sure if Dwenaus is referring to giving up his monastic vows, or the removal of clothing from Trungpa and various others)
 * 3.marrying a 16 year old heiress
 * 4.teaching westerners material which had previously been closely guarded
 * 5.appointing a westerner as dharma heir and regent
 * 6.the whole AIDS saga of that westerner
 * 7.sending his guard to ask young, female Naropa students to join him in bed
 * 8.his creation of the Vajra Guard


 * Bertport 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with what has been said by both of you. I agree that the controversies section is a bit large and detailed in relation to the rest of the article, particularly given the breadth of VCTR's contributions. However, I also agree that the solution is to add additional material rather than delete existing material unless it can be shown to be inaccurate. Sylvain1972 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ! New article on Wikiepdia entitled American Buddha Online Library. Anyone want to take on American Buddha Online ? Tall order there maybe ? Geir Smith 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My invitation to anyone who believes the article is "biased" in terms of "negative" things is to add more positive things. Sethie 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to take a look at Fabrice Midal's biography Chögyam Trungpa: His Life and Vision."

Top Ten Positive Things to say about CTR

 * 1. He really tried to teach that he was a human being, not a diety. I can forgive myself for my vices and foibles, even for my Wikaddiction!
 * 2. With encouragement from Diana Mukpo, he helped to bring Buddhism to the West, specifically Tibetan Buddhism.
 * 3. He encouraged my heart teacher, Reggie Ray, to finish his PhD so he could become a scholar AND a dedicated yogin. Skillful means in the flesh.
 * 4. He spoke to a generation that drank, smoked, and had sex to excess. As a Bodhisattva, he gave his life away to 'minister' to these people, who are now my teachers.
 * 5. He taught the idea of 'spiritual materialism' and 'Crazy Wisdom.'
 * 6. He taught the Vajrayana.
 * 7. He survived a violent childhood in Tibet. He continues to survive the judgment of people from another generation that try to diefy monastics, trying to create a new Jesus. I bet they would be surprised to know that monastics are leaving their robes behind in order to speak to Americans in this millenium. CTR was just a maverick in his time.
 * 8. Dharma Art.
 * 9. Mudra Space Awareness, soon to be taught to chaplains at Naropa University to help them understand the space of grief.
 * 10. Maitri training roots growing a Graduate school of Psychology at Naropa.
 * 11. Dharmakaya ear.Donalds 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Birth Year
I see someone anonymously, and without comment or source listing, changed the birth date from 1939 to Feb 1940. Ta may be right, but some explanation would have been useful. "Born in Tibet" says 1939. Bertport 14:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Death
Re the recent edit/revert/revert cycles on Trungpa's cause of death, the official report was "cardiac arrest and respiratory failure". Re "liver failure", his attending physician was surprised to find no liver damage (yes, need a citation for that). No one disputes the heavy drinking. szpak 00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Several users seem to keep reverting the correction to Trungpa's cause of death. Although noone disputes that his heavy drinking left him physically weakened, he ultimately died of heart failure, not liver failure. Source: _Dragon Thunder_, by his wife Diana J. Mukpo. This change should not be reverted unless someone can provide a reference supporting the claim that he died of liver failure; this often-repeated assertion is not borne out by the facts. [anonymous addition]

I reverted BertPort's edit re cause of death; the source he uses (Zweig p 142) has some anecdotal quotes, but doesn't actually cite a cause of death. szpak 14:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we have some controversy around Trungpa's death. I'm not surprised that the attending physician, a student of Trungpa, gave the official cause of death as "cardiac arrest and respiratory failure". This is a generic cause of death that is given when true causes of death are either unknown or embarrassing, somewhat like a VP announcing that he is leaving his job to spend more time with his family. Let's leave the cause of death out of the brief header, and give it the attention it deserves in either the biography or the controversies section. Bertport 17:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

intro
The intro to this article reads oddly. The mentioning of Reggie Ray seems like a bit of a non sequitur. More of a non sequitur is this: "His wife Diana Mukpo commented often that her husband's only human desire was to be of benefit to others. This took its toll on Trungpa, who died at the age of 47 of alcohol-related liver failure." What does this mean? He got so irritated with his wife's repetitive comments that his liver failed? Or is it simply implying that he had an inhuman desire for alcohol? The intro also describes "taking on many Western practices" as "a trait of a bodhisattva". Is this the case? Should Westernization be included in Category:Bodhisattvas? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC) I agree; it's another pathetic apologist attempt, not NPOV. Maybe the best thing is to just revert. Bertport 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) I am in the process of dismantling the NPOV flub one idea at a time.... any help is appreciated. Sethie 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

External Link Request
Chögyam Trungpa was the founder of Karmê Chöling Meditation Center, which was the first and continues to be a major training and educational Shambhala Center in the State of Vermont, United States. Our website is found at www.karmecholing.org.

As Karmê Chöling is an integral part of Tibetan Spiritual Master Trungpa Rimpoche's ongoing legacy, we would like to request that Wikipedia place Reference and External Links on the following pages directly to our site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chogyam_Trungpa, http://www.mipham.com/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambhala,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambhala_Buddhism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambhala_Training, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigden_kings, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pema_Ch%C3%B6dr%C3%B6n

The only link currently maintained is found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajradhatu.

The new reference/links should read: "Karmê Chöling, Shambhala Buddhist Meditation Center, Founded by Chögyam Trungpa."

Thank you very much.

Signed, 68.114.59.137 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can do that just as easily yourselves. There is no "wikipedia" outside of users.Sylvain1972 17:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

DEATH & Alcohol
I do not understand why the "death" entry includes a speculative cause of death ("classic signs of terminal alcoholism...") or the invasive and irrelevant statement "...spent the final months incontinent in his bedroom."


 * First, do the entries for Einstein or Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche or any other deceased figure detail the final, difficult physical symptoms before death? They may list the diagnosis, but not the physical indignities that inevitably result from a failing body. Perhaps Trungpa was incontinent -- I don't know. But it's irrelevant and indicates an attitudinal violation to NPOV. It seems to be there to buck up the supposition that Trungpa died of terminal alcoholism. Like it or not, the physician's report says it was heart failure. People may doubt the truthfulness of the doctor, if they like, but they should be able to cite equally strong sources before giving alternate causes of death. "Unofficially reported" is a meaningless statement when it comes to a medical fact like the cause of death. (No one is disputing that alcohol physically weakened his body.)


 * Also, I believe Trungpa spent extended time at the Halifax Infirmary in the weeks and months before his death and I believe he died there, not in his bedroom. Thus the "final months" sentence is also inaccurate.
 * Yes, he spent his last few weeks at the Halifax Infirmary, and died there (cf Mukpo pp 380-382). szpak 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying that Chogyam Trungpa was not a very heavy drinker. But this fact seems to be heavily emphasized throughout the entry -- there are seven different sentences referring directly to drinking and alcohol -- including one in the lead paragraph -- and more that refer to it obliquely. Yes, he drank a lot. He also accomplished an enormous amount, founded Naropa, Shambhala Training and many still-thriving Buddhist centers, wrote scores of highly-regarded dharma books and created a foundation and English dharma vocabulary praised -- and used -- by numerous high lamas. While it's valid to include a sentence or two on his drinking, harping on it distorts its importance in his work and legacy.


 * Finally, Diana Pybus, Trungpa's wife, was not an heiress. She was English upper-class but not at all rich. Yes, she was 16, but though that is young for marriage in the West, it was old enough for a Briton to marry legally. Furthermore, the marriage lasted until his death. Thus, I fail to see why the marriage is controversial. Barbaraelizabeths 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion higher in this Talk page. There is controversy over the actual cause of death. The passage in Zweig says, "When Trungpa Rinpoche lay dying in 1986 at the age of 47, only an inner circle knew the symptoms of this final illness. Few could bear to acknowledge that their beloved and brilliant teacher was dying of terminal alcoholism, even when he lay incontinent in his bedroom, belly distended and skin discolored, hallucinating and suffering from varicose veins, gastritis and esophageal varices, a swelling of veins in the esophagus caused almost exclusively by cirrhosis of the liver." --and goes on with a direct quote form Victoria Fitch, "a member of his household staff with years of experience as a nursing attendant", about Trungpa's alcoholic dementia and the surrounding denial. Trungpa's alcoholism is a central element of much of the controversy around him. Bertport 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written much of this section, adding details, and removing the deliberately demeaning incontinence references. I would find such description inappropriate, disrespectful, and not meeting Wikipedia standards in an article on my 15-year old dog, who is dying. szpak (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So Bertport has re-added the demeaning incontinence language, citing "Medical facts are not a personal attack. They show the destructive toll alcohol took. Necessary to offset rationalizations." What rationalizations are you referring to? Once again, no one, that I know of or in this article, denies the heavy drinking or its destructive physical effects. The quote by Diana Mukpo explicitly acknowledges this. Trungpa would have been the last to deny cause-and-effect (karma). You do not present "medical facts", but "informally" Victoria Fitch's impressions - who is not a doctor, and in any case is bound by medical-practitioner/patient confidentiality (for which there is good reason). I've searched Wikipedia for similar final-days dirt in bios (eg, Voltaire), and not found it. If you want to show the destructive toll of alcoholism, you can contribute to the alcoholism article. It is not the physiological details that are at issue here - it's your use of them to demean the dignity of a person. What does that do to your own dignity? szpak (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems hard for any of us here to clarify the underlying conditions that resulting in his cardiac arrest unless there is more to cite. He drank alot, sure, nothing particularly hidden or in denial about that. His wife points to diabetes and high blood pressure as the more likely cause. OK, that's a data point that introduces those two other underlying conditions. Were there others? We don't know. But are we really trying to diagnose here the underlying causes and draw conclusions about that? Seems the added statement is just saying something effectively ridiculous like, "Nonetheless Dr. Zweig concluded his death was alcohol related, even though she never examined him." - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Giving this more thought, I was curious as to how alcohol use, disease, and death is treated generally on the wikipedia so I did a quick random survey of articles for deceased people which link to alcohol abuse. I wanted to survey serious drinkers and I copied that result in my user name space here. None of those articles go into details of symptoms at the time of death. I copied the relevant text from the articles for the first eight people I found. Also, you'll find less than a 100 articles that link to incontinence specifically and only one article about a deceased person, Sean Mann, is described as having suffered from it at end of life. Perhaps we can say then that it's not the cultural norm to describe that condition about people generally on the wikipedia, in spite of there being an appreciable market for Depend diapers. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another tidbit, in Jeremy Hayward's biography "Warrior King of Shambhala: Remembering Chögyam Trungpa" on page 348 he recounts how Rinpoche went into a retreat in 1972 and told two students there with him, "You have to understand - I will only be around for twenty years." He then died fifteen years later. They didn't ask him about that then, but Mr. Hayward offers some conjectures. I wonder if Rinpoche had a congenital or terminal condition, which would explain the prescience in non-mystical terms. But that would probably have been disclosed after his death. Maybe not. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The cause of death has implications on what sort of guru Trungpa was. Was he in control of his alcohol use, or was it in control of him?  To say "he died of cardiac arrest" is an evasion.  Everyone can be said to die, ultimately, of cardiac arrest.  I would actually like to know more, not less, about what was going on.  When Trungpa asked for another tall glass of gin, as he was sinking deeper and deeper, did anyone try to tell him it wasn't such a good idea?  If they did, then what happened?  If no one did, why not?  But people who were there, aren't talking about it.  The Pybus quote is an interpretation.  The Zweig reference is a list of observed symptoms.  It is necessary to list the facts because there is resistance to stating the simple conclusion.  If there were no controversy about the cause of death, there would be no need to examine the facts in any detail.  The continued attempts to deny or miminize the relevance of alcohol to his death, ironically, reinforce a picture of an alcoholic surrounded by enablers.  Bertport (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to know more too, honestly, because I'm curious. But I doubt more details would really answer your question, "was he in control of his alcohol use". It's been twenty years already and I don't see that question answered definitively. Do you think we'll ever have a definitive answer to that question? I don't think its a conspiracy that we don't know, because on many topics people close to him seem unable to pin him down; not just the alcohol use. To say he died of cardiac arrest is just a fact, and when its prefaced that he was a heavy drinker most of his life then it's fairly obvious that it's relevant. The lead paragraph on this article states it pretty clearly. But I'm curious about your 'sort of guru' direction. If he was "not in control" of his drinking what would that say about his quality as a guru? or if he was in control of his drinking, and drank to death anyway, what would that say about his quality as a guru? - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If somebody asks you what kind of car you drive, and you answer, "I drive a car with wheels", you have stated a fact, but it isn't exactly the most informative fact you could have given, is it? Similarly with "he died of cardiac arrest."  What's at stake here, ultimately, is the myth of the bodhisattva as a perfect being who never makes a mistake and never harms anyone.  Was Trungpa such a perfect being?  Or was he, like the rest of us, susceptible to error, big and small?  No, I don't expect definitive answers, but I want people to have access to the available information, so they can see for themselves some of the complexity of the case.  Bertport (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you want him to be "either / or". Either he's a perfect being, or he's fallible and just like the rest of us. Maybe he didn't fit into either extreme? Your question and issue with "the myth of the bodhisattva as a perfect being who never makes a mistake and never harms anyone" seems quite relevant to me about Mahayana Buddhism generally. Seems like a larger question of canon and view. The parts I've studied in the sutra, when referring to a physical person, never equate a bodhisattva with an infallible being until maybe the 11th bhumi and even then it's up for debate and perhaps point of view. But I just don't see how that debate should play out here in this article. Is this article staking the claim that he was a bodhisattva or enlightened or infallible? Some people view him as a tulku and enlightened and perhaps that way, which makes sense then to include in some way, but I don't think there's anyway we could established anything like that as fact. If we tried it would be misleading, because it's POV and would be solidified and he's just too complex a picture and puzzling. After twenty years he's still puzzling. Therefore, we need a reasonable limit as with any article and people can read more if they want using the extensive citations. But back to my question, do you think the article as it stands today stakes the claim that he was a perfect bodhisattva, enlightened, or infallible to someone who reads it for the first time? - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Trungpa said in "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism", "It is impossible for the bodhisattva to destroy or harm other people .... his mind is so precise, so accurate that he never makes mistakes." As for this article, its business is not to prove anything one way or another, but to present both sides of a pertinent controversy.  Some time ago, this article had a one-liner on cause of death, and there was push and pull, back and forth, between cardiac arrest and cirrhosis.  Neither one is satisfactory to present the whole picture.  Bertport (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What page is that quote from? I went looking for it today and skimmed the bodhisattva path sections and couldn't find it. I agree wholeheartedly that balance is needed and all reasonable views included. I think we're already there, just disagreeing over how much detail is needed perhaps? - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the page number may vary from one edition to another. Try page 173.  Bertport (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. These parts are what you refer to yes? "if a bodhisattva is completely selfless, a completely open person, then he will act according to openness, will not have to follow rules; he will simply fall into patterns. It is impossible for the bodhisattva to destroy or harm other people, because he embodies transcendental generosity. He has opened himself completely and so does not discriminate between this and that. He just acts in accordance with what is...." and "his mind is so precise, so accurate that he never makes mistakes. He never runs into unexpected problems, never creates chaos in a destructive way."


 * That's easy to misread, unless you're familiar with the mahayana teachings on emptiness, selflessness, and the concept of transcendental generosity. Not Trungpa's interpretation of them particularly, just the presentations by asanga on the grounds and paths of a bodhisattva - especially the sixth ground. At a certain point, there is no longer any separation between self and other, this or that, all action no longer has an actor nor an action. That's why there are no more rules, never any mistakes, etc. Because there is no more person that exists to make them nor any existent action occurring either. You're completely gone at that point, no more "you". At the same time, there is everything going on. Just everything. From the point of view of ego, there is still people interacting and hurting each other and making mistakes from this point of view or that point view and a bodhisattva at that level is still able to see all of that, but at the same time they realize it's themselves hurting themselves and being hurt by themself - no more separation basically. One might think that makes people callous or indifferent but the teachings by asanga say the opposite, it makes one so empathetic you're a raw piece of meat all the time, completely sensitive. They say instead it was the conceptualization of separateness, of ego-hood, that has been cutting us off from other views - along with trying to defend ourself as joe smith from this and that - which really was causing any callousness. So as a bodhisattva climbing the grounds see through the illusion of separateness, of ego, of being joe smith or whomever, then you can't help but feel everyone's pain. And yet at the same time, you realize it's not individual egos like john smith and jane smith particularly feeling that pain. It's you as well. Something like that. Hard to talk about from an ego point of view - which is all i have to work from - since it transcends a sense of self. We're talking non-duality here. I'm just trying to point at what he was getting at with being "completely selfless". But don't trust his teachings on it if you like, read up on the bhumis from other teachers or the Indian masters. This is not something new particularly. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I sounded flippant, I was just excited to find the quote you were referring to. But to direct that back at your earlier statement, I don't think Trungpa Rinpoche ever claimed to be a perfect being and that quote doesn't really describe a person as perfect particularly - it goes well beyond individualism. I read it as a commentary on the sixth bhumi, prajnaparamita. I just found these similar statements by Suzuki Roshi in "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" about this topic. Around page 34, as part of the chapter titled "No Dualism", he writes "As long as you are concerned with what you do, that is dualistic... If you say 'It doesn't matter', it means that you are making some excuse to do something in your own way with your small mind. It means you are attached to some particular thing or way." - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) No other Wikipedia  who died of alcohol or drug use who died as th includes lists of obvious physical symptoms, like discolored skin and incontinence. The other articles simply state that the person was a drug addict or alcoholic and died of it, or of complications related to the substance abuse. The sole exception is Chogyam Trungpa. The symptom lists therefore appear to be uniquely demeaning and give the impression of attack, of bad will. That is not acceptable in Wikipedia. It is the opposite of NPOV.
 * 2) Anyway, those symptoms occur in other end-stage illnesses, like cancer. Thus, their inclusion does not prove an alcoholic death. (And no, I don't disagree that Trungpa's death was alcohol-related. Only that the invasive symptoms list doesn't prove anything, which was the only reason given for including it.)
 * 3) The article refers to Trungpa's drinking seven times. His wife is quoted saying that alcohol was instrumental in his death. It is certainly not being denied or covered over.
 * 4) To reply to Bertport's question: Was Trungpa a perfect being? I don't know. I do know that that is outside the scope of the Wikipedia biographical entry and thus should not influence its content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaraelizabeths (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Fixed formating of previous comment just for readability: - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Statement on his death
This month an interview with Trungpa Rinpoche's physician Mitchell Levy included a question of what he died from, it's about 37 minutes into the podcast available here on November 1st, 2008. I recommend the whole podcast, but this is what was said about that question specifically:
 * Julia Sagebien: "What did he die of and he obviously died on April 4th, 1987 but he had a process of dying. He was ill for probably two years or rather ill, what was he ill with what happened what did he die of?"
 * Mitchell Levy: "Oh he had chronic liver disease related to his alcohol intake over many years, and that's not a secret, but that sort of... it's like saying when someone is hit by a truck, that there are many factors that lead up to that person walking in front of the truck. You say, what did he die of, you say well he got hit by a truck. Ok. But then how did he get to the street at that time? Well, because he had this appointment. Ok, well why did he have his eyes closed? Well, because it was bright sunlight. I hope I'm being clear. There is no question that his body finally felt the ravage and not just of alcohol of what it took to plant the flag. He came at a time in the west when we were wild, where we as hippies and western students didn't want to listen to anything, and he actually had to live like us for awhile to get us to notice that there was more than just that self-centeredness. So he completely threw his body at us. It's almost like we were this big freight train heading down this path of confusion and he just threw his body in front of us to stop it and he stopped it at the cost of a shortened life, which by the way is a very common lineage story in our tradition of teachers not living a long time because of the amount of work they had to do in their lifetime."