Talk:Vajradhatu

Merge Proposal
This article seems to have been created solely to serve as an advertisement for the unsourced defamatory material on americanbuddha.com. Other than that, it is fleshed out only with redundant material from Shambhala Buddhism. Sylvain1972 17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true the article was originated by someone with a strong bias: that's one issue, and the solution is to restore NPOV. Merging it with Shambhala Buddhism, however, would be a huge misrepresentation: although the Vajradhatu organization, as created by Chogyam Trungpa, eventually got subsumed into his son's Shambhala Buddhist organization (Shambhala International), the visions of the two are distinct. Vajradhatu was a Buddhist expression of Chogyam Trunpga's vision (and it continues to be an influence, though no longer the primary one, on Shambhala Buddhism), while Shambhala was a secular, sacred, and non-sectarian vision of enlightened society (whereas for Sakyong Mipham Shambhala is ultimately contained within Tibetan Buddhism, and requires taking Buddhist vows - therefore the term Shambhala Buddhism (cf Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche on Shambhala Buddhism)). Both views have their followers and organizations. szpak 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But in the big scheme of things, this is a pretty fine distinction. As the author of most of this material has taken pains to highlight in great detail, Vajradhatu was also a legal entity that now is called Shambhala International. People who don't like the way Shambhala International has evolved may have their organizations, but Vajradhatu is not one of them. Vajradhatu's history is detailed at Shambhala Buddhism, and Chogyam Trungpa's vision is detailed at Chogyam Trungpa, so this article still feels redundant to me. Perhaps the article Shambhala Buddhism article could be retitled to be more encompassing. Sylvain1972 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of liking or not liking, but of what's happening, which is the classic pattern of a root founder having many students, some of whom establish lineages. From the Buddhist side of Chogyam Trungpa, Vajradhatu is that part of the trunk from which arise Osel Tendzin, Patrick Sweeney, and Satdharma; Sakyong Mipham and Shambhala International; Reginald Ray and Dharma Ocean; Pema Chodron; and many others. From the Shambhala side, although in most cases not exclusively, you have some of the above (Shambhala International), as well as Naropa University, the Shambhala Institute for Authentic Leadership, and many arts and cultural entities. The "fine distinction" issue of Shambhala being exclusively Buddhist is seen by some as analogous to that of early Christianity being exclusively Jewish; in both cases the founder's vision, and that of some followers, transcended his roots (cf Chögyam Trungpa: His Life and Vision, Ch 11), although in the former case Wikipedia is observing it in real time. I think the Shambhala Buddhism article should stay, but needs this context, some of which is provided by the Vajradhatu article.


 * Sure, other organizations have been founded by students of Chogyam Trungpa, but I don't think that answers the question of why there needs to be an article called "Vajradhatu." That organization is now Shambhala International. Consider the convention wikipedia has followed in other cases such as baseball teams that have moved. If you search for the "St. Louis Browns", for instance, you get redirected to the Baltimore Orioles. Does that mean the two teams are the same thing? Of course not. But the one evolved directly into the other. I think I might be more easily persuaded if you made some changes to the article, which in any case cannot remain as it is. Sylvain1972 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. When I first started exploring the Trungpa-related material on Wikipedia, I found almost no reference to Vajradhatu at all. Not only was this formal structure of Chogyam Trungpa's heyday omitted, but much of the signature character of his teachings, as expressed through the vehicle of Vajradhatu, were omitted, too. There is no question that Vajradhatu represented a significant period of the history in question. The most straightforward approach to filling in the gap seeemed to me to be the creation of this article. In principle, I don't object to the material being incorporated into the Shambhala Buddhism article, so long as the information is not lost. But I am somewhat wary of what pressures may be exerted to remove the information if it is merged into that article. The decision makers at Shambhala International appear to prefer the name "Vajradhatu", and the history that goes along with it, to be forgotten.

As to the quality of the information itself, I worked hard to restrict it to well-documented facts. It's true that the most accessible online source for the facts is americanbuddha.com, which is hostile. That is unfortunate. I don't know why the basic facts are not available from Shambhala. However, they are well-documented facts, not a matter of opinion. If you think the basic narrative presented in this article is biased, I'd like to hear why you think so, and what correction you think it needs. I'm not interested in "advertising" americanbuddha, which is only mentioned at the bottom of the article because it is the available track to confirmation of the story.Bertport 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clear that Mr. Carreon sees a huge conspiracy, but it is also clear from his article that he has very limited familiarity with the organization, because his central thesis is based upon a glaring falsehood--pure idle supposition, it would seem. As Szpak or any student of Chogyam Trungpa can affirm, it was never intended by Chogyam Trungpa or anyone else that the next Trungpa tulku would take over Vajradhatu one day. Trungpa said very little about his next incarnation, except to say that if he himself came back at all it would be as a Japanese businessman. Carreon suggests otherwise based on absolutely no evidence, because there is none.


 * If it had been the intention of Trungpa to bequeath leadership of Vajradhatu to his next incarnation, his students would never have acquiesced to Sakyong Mipham taking over. There would have been outrage about it right up to the present day--they are not at all shy about voicing objections to initiatives which they feel are not in keeping with Trungpa's intentions.


 * Even aside from that, Carreon's argument is absurd on the face of it. It seems to presume that the phenomenon of tulkus is both a fraud and legitimate, depending on what suits the argument. For instance, if Trungpa was motivated by pure self interest and reincarnation is bunk, wouldn't it make more sense that he would want his own son to inherit the organization rather than a random peasant boy in Tibet? Or alternately, if Carreon accepts that reincarnation is possible and Chogyam Trungpa was enlightened enough to direct his own, then isn't it preposterous to then suggest that he would be so shallow as to care about whether or not he was materially comfortable in his next life?


 * Further on that point, a lot of the factual information from which Mr. Carreon derives his specualtions comes from Konchok.org. He credits the site as a reference, but fails to mention that it is fact the organization set up by Sakyong Mipham to raise money for and publicize the 12th Trungpa tulku, who the Sakyong is supposedly trying to marginalize.


 * He also fails to mention that the Nyingma lineage is highly decentralized and non-heirarchal, especially compared with the Karma Kagyu, so the idea that "the Nyingmapas" are behind a conspiracy to take over Vajradhatu is also laughable. There is a pretty straighforward reason why Sakyong Mipham has more of a Nyingma orientation--his father sent him to study with Nyingma teachers. There's another careful ommission on Carreon's part.


 * So, in the absence of a credible conspiracy theory, I just don't see why it is of interest to the readership who is on the board of directors of this particular nonprofit corporation. I can still be persuaded that an article under this title is called for, and you've echoed things that Szpak has said so perhaps you are right, but I'd like to see the case made in the article itself. Sylvain1972 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so you disagree with Mr. Carreon about Chogyam Trungpa's intentions. But do you dispute any of the content of this Vajradhatu article in Wikipedia?  Or is there other, well-sourced information on Vajradhatu that you think is of more interest to you?  What do you think are the important facts in the history of the formal, legal, international organization founded by Chogyam Trungpa for the dissemination of his teachings? Bertport 23:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not that I disagree with Mr. Carreon about Chogyam Trungpa's intentions, it is that I've highlighted that he has no evidence for his suppositions about them, and in fact all of the evidence shows that he is mistaken. Regarding what this article should encompass, I'm not really sure, which is why I suggested the merge. Szpak disagrees, so perhaps he will have some suggestions. I think probably the best thing would be to move the content on Shambhala Buddhism about Vajradhatu to here, and just have a "see Vajradhatu" over there. I don't dispute the facts on this page as it now stands, I just dispute the notability of who is or isn't on the board of directors, in the absence of a credible conspiracy around it. Sylvain1972 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised article
I've done my best to contruct a reasonable article, with new souces. I've removed the AB material, which (in addition to being flat out wrong) doesn't come close to passing muster at WP:LIVING. Sylvain1972 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What does WP:LIVING have to do with this? ??? And the material you removed was all completely documented, fact.  Nevertheless, I think the new article is completely reasonable, and I'm content with it. Bertport 14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the composition of the board was documented fact, but it is not notable in the absence of the spurious allegations of scandal, which did not comply with WP:LIVING. That's why I removed it and the american buddha link. Sylvain1972 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:LIVING is a policy for biographies of living persons. This article is not a biography, and the primary actors involved are deceased. Bertport 12:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The American Buddha article obviously slanders Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, the main subject of the article, who is living. That is why it is not appropriate.Sylvain1972 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not editing the American Buddha article, we are editing the Wikipedia Vajradhatu article. The main subject of the Vajradhatu article is Vajradhatu.  The Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche is not the main subject of the Vajradhatu article.  The only mention of the Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche in the Vajradhatu article was the final sentence, "It is widely presumed that the new Sole Director of the First Class is the Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche."  This sentence, and the entire Vajradhatu article as it stood, were not slanderous. Bertport 13:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the Vajradhatu article was slanderous. The American Buddha article is. And yes, we are not editing that article, but it is not appropriate as an external link or reference. That is the point.Sylvain1972 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the goal is to allow for a clear history. The Vajradhatu article could include the organizational history from 1970 to 1987 (Trungpa Rinpoche's death), or to 1990 (Vajra Regent's death), or to 2000 (announcement of Shambhala Buddhism, which was a definitive branching out to Sakyong Mipham's style of teaching and organization). That could complement histories and details in the half dozen or so related articles, as well as in possible new articles. szpak 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming procedure
Are there any explanations by Chögyam Trungpa about why is it that he has chosen Vajradhatu instead of Dharmadhatu?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.76 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)