Talk:Shambhala Training

Cult labelling

I've removed PastorJennifer's cult labelling: this has been extensively discussed in the Chogyam Trungpa article and discussion, which reference the confirmation of Trunpga's status as a major and authentic teacher of Tibetan Buddhism by heads of all the major lineages of Tibetan Buddhism. szpak 17:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the quotes around confirmation - please don't edit other people's notes in the Discussion section of articles. szpak 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference used by PastorJennifer, Miracle, Mystery and Authority: The Triangle of Cult Indoctrination, is a general discussion of cults and does not reference Shambhala Training at all. Perhaps it belongs in the cult article. szpak 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The refusal of Shambhala to countenance any kind of criticism of their cult only reinforces the impression that Wikipedia is being used as a platform for purely promotional purposes. The observation that Shambhala bears the hall marks of a cult is sufficient grounds for inclusion of the reference to Miracle, Mystery and Authority: The Triangle of Cult Indoctrination.

Please sign your notes. If you check the Chogyam Trungpa article, on the founder of Shambhala Training, you will see referenced there statements by the heads of the major lineages of Tibetan Buddhism (Kagyu, Nyingma, Gelugpa), affirming Chogyam Trungpa as a major and legitimate teacher. This is roughly equivalent to the heads of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian Church, the Church of England, and Billy Graham confirming someone as a legitimate Christian. If you consider Tibetan Buddhism, or Buddhism, to be a cult, that's a different matter, for which you should provide authoritative references in the appropriate articles - and not just your observation. Wikipedia is not a venue for personal opinion. szpak 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing PastorJennifer's analogy of biblical revelation to a comparison with tibetan buddhism. The critique overall is quite valid, that an origin of terma seems to contradict that shambhala training is a solely secular meditation tradition. But a comparison of christian and buddhist revelation would be better made on the terma page itself with citations. --Owlmonkey 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Miracle, Mystery and Authority: The Triangle of Cult Indoctrination defines thought reform as requiring three elements, and then cites counter examples where only one or two elements are established. Since secrecy in the shambhala training curriculum is only one, even that article would not support the claim of thought reform or of a dangerous cult. Otherwise the Freemasons would qualify as thought reformers and cultists since they employ similar secrecy. To retain the edit that shambhala training operates as a thought reform organization (as a basis for defining it as a cult) would I think require linking to the originator of that theory Robert_Jay_Lifton and more specific, enumerated examples and citations for how that theory applies. Owlmonkey 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no response to the discussion, I removed Miracle, Mystery and Authority: The Triangle of Cult Indoctrination and returned the previous Seager citation. I'd like to also ask that any future edits that label this group a cult provide citations and avoid original research in particular because of this discussion. Owlmonkey 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Terma is not a uniquely Buddhist or even Eastern concept (cf also William Butler Yeats, Joseph Smith, revelation and theophany). szpak (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just undid Revision 17661377 by PastorJennifer for lacking neutral point of view. I'm open to discussing that here. Owlmonkey (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Article relies too heavily on primary sources

The article currently relies far too heavily on primary sources written or published by people or organisations closely associated with Shambhala Training. Other than a few secondary sources (Karmay, Kornman, Namkha'i Norbu Newman, ) cited where the article elucidates some Tibetan terms, concepts and ceremonies - there are no secondary sources cited which objectively discuss Shambhala Training (or the associated organisation) itself. While I have a tremendous amount of respect for Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche's teachings and work (and would never consider Shambhala Training a 'cult'), this is not how an encyclopaedia article should be written. Please try to balance all the material from primary sources with views and material from good quality, objective and uninvolved secondary academic sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest spinning off all the secondary material related to the general concepts and see what is left. Do a Google search and perhaps run dup detector to see if it's a copy and paste from the original. Perhaps ask the copyvio checker folks to take a peek. I agree that the first part of the article is a mess, but the later sections are more solid, though arguably not belonging in this article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)