Wisdom #2 – 1984

Since the inception of the FPMT in 1975, the directors of its many Dharma centers and other departments have met regularly to share ideas and experiences and to advise and support each other. In the 1983 issue of WISDOM we described briefly the history of the Foundation administration and touched on the value of meeting together.

Here, one of the FPMT directors, Nick Ribush, reports on the two meetings held this year.

As Lama Yeshe said to us: “It is a good idea to come together, to meet together. The reason is that all of us are working together at the same job, directing our energy toward the same goal. Thus it is important that we meet each other. We must be harmonious, and understand and respect each other’s jobs. Then we are unified: one mandala, one job, harmony. If our center directors are disharmonious and do not respect each other, they serve as bad examples; mutual disrespect among our directors becomes the source of bad vibrations, which emanate around the world. Our aim is to spread good vibrations. The only reason we have established centers is for us to give our body, speech and mind to others. Therefore it is really important that center directors regard each other as brothers and sisters and help each other. If one center is experiencing problems, the others must help. We have to share with each other, learn from each other. Until we open our hearts to each other we’ll never learn.”

The first international meeting of the Council for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (CPMT), the executive body of the FPMT, was held at Manjushri Institute in 1978 and attended by about 25 delegates from around the world. The next were at Kopan in 1980 and, in 1981, in Dharamsala. During the First Enlightened Experience Celebration in India in 1982 there were informal meetings as center directors and others attended one part or another of the five-month program. The 1983 meeting was held at Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa (described in last year’s Wisdom) and this year there have been two, in England in January and in Italy in June.

The first of these was an extraordinary general meeting called mainly to discuss serious problems resulting from a dispute between some of the students living at Manjushri Institute and the FPMT administration. It was held at Stratford-upon-Avon, in England, and attended by 23 delegates from 11 countries, representing 20 FPMT centers and departments. For the first time, Lama Yeshe did not attend (he was seriously ill in Delhi).

In many respects this was one of our most constructive meetings ever. We had been brought closer together by a common problem and, being virtually on our own for the first time, we had no choice but to make our own decisions – none of us wanted to impose our administrative problems on Lama Yeshe ever again.

In fact, almost a year before, Lama had prepared the ground for us to take over by creating a board of directors to administer the FPMT “after my death.” Of course, at that meeting last January, none of us could conceive that within two months Lama would be dead; the latest news from Delhi was that he “could live at least two more years,” and there was no way we wanted to believe that he wouldn’t.

The twelve-person board consisted of, as well as Lama Yeshe himself and Lama Zopa Rinpoche, Marcel Bertels, Paul Bourke, Massimo Corona, Trisha Donnelly, Doren Harper, Harvey Horrocks, Jacie Keeley, Yeshe Khadro (Marie Obst), Shan Tate and myself. Seven of us met in London to plan the agenda of the meeting. It was the first time we had come together in this way. Lama Yeshe had not given anything other than very broad guidelines for our role, so it was useful for us to start to get a feel for working together.

Then on January 4 we all met at a large old country house outside Stratford. Discussion of the problems between Manjushri Institute and the FPMT administration occupied most of the meeting. We considered both the specific factors involved and the general way in which FPMT affairs had been conducted over the years, in an attempt to see how gross misunderstandings could arise among people working toward similar goals. What resulted, then, was a spirited and deep analysis of the dynamics of a worldwide Dharma organization, interpersonal relationships and long- and short-range communication.

After several days’ review of such matters, from the point of view of both theory and practical experience, it was clear that many of our problems as an organization resulted from unclear communication – and this was certainly true of the misunderstanding and mistrust that had built up between the FPMT and Manjushri Institute.

Several solutions were proposed and later presented at a meeting of the representatives from Conishead Priory and the FPMT. (This meeting took place in London in February and agreed upon a course of action – being followed at the moment – to resolve the dispute and improve communication.)

Another item discussed in depth – and one highlighted by the discussion of our problems – was the function of not only the board of directors but of all the parts of the FPMT, as well as their relationship to each other. Lama Yeshe had always been clear about how we should work together, the function of the directors, the communities, the Central Office; it was our job, however, to implement his ideas.

The FPMT has been set up to function democratically. Most centers and departments are established as public charities or associations according to the law of their particular lands, with the election or appointment of office-bearers as prescribed by their constitutions, and all active members have a voice in decisions that affect them, as Lama Yeshe explained in his 1983 address to the CPMT. Delegates attending CPMT meetings represent all the members of their centers, and have, as in the best parliamentary tradition, the interests of their constituents at heart.

Lama Zopa Rinpoche is now the spiritual director of the FPMT. The line of authority from Rinpoche to the rest of the FPMT is through the Board, and the CPMT, the Council, comprises the directors and certain other members of the centers and departments (such as the International Mahayana Institute (IMI), the Sangha organization; Universal Education Association (UEA); Wisdom Publications, and so forth), and in general Board members are drawn from here. There needs to be a close and harmonious working relationship between the Council and the Board as it is through the Council that the Board is able to know and satisfactorily carry out the wishes of the people within the FPMT. And open communication between all of us is key to our success in making the Dharma available.

In June, 25 of us met again at Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa in Pomaia, Italy. The feeling of closeness that we had experienced in January was even stronger; in fact, this was by far the most constructive and positive CPMT meeting I have participated in. We had all been devastated by the passing of Lama Yeshe, and this shared adversity seemed to be a powerful unifying force.

Lama was gone, but Lama Zopa had accepted our plea to guide us as Lama had done. We had received so much encouragement from other lamas to continue the work of the FPMT: His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Song Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten and Geshe Sopa. And we found inspiration and encouragement from the words of professor Jeffrey Hopkins, who, during his teaching tour of Australian centers, had said: “Having worked in the Buddhist field for some 20 years and having been involved with various centers since the stone-age of 1963, it’s a tremendous pleasure for me to see this Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. Three of my teachers have died. They were very important teachers and I can no longer ask them questions; more senior holders of the Mahayana tradition are passing away each year. We’re at the time of a sunset – a very beautiful sunset – but it’s the sunset of a tradition, and unless some group of persons takes it upon themselves to transmit this teaching it will not continue to exist. You may think, ‘How could it be up to a lowly person like me,’ but it is. So when a group like the FPMT sees this responsibility and that there is something that even people like us can do and steps forward and forms such an organization, it’s a tremendous pleasure for me to see. The really important thing is for us not to feel that there are some other people to do these things. There is not some unlimited supply of people to carry on this Buddhist tradition, which can be so helpful to the world.”

So, with renewed enthusiasm we plunged into this meeting. Seven of the twelve Board members (Lama Zopa had appointed Lama Lhundrup, headmaster of the Mount Everest Center at Kopan, to replace Lama Yeshe on the Board) met for a few days beforehand to sort out the agenda, then the meeting proper commenced.

We talked about what had happened since we’d last met, successes and failures in our centers and departments, organizational structure, progress in the incorporation of the FPMT, the work of the Central Office, center directors, Lama Zopa’s tours, various financial matters, and several specific projects within the FPMT. After six short days the meeting was over, and the Board met again for three days. During that time some of the delegates went to Switzerland to offer on behalf of the FPMT a long-life puja for Kyabje Song Rinpoche, who was at Rikon at the time; and right after the Board meeting we went to Tharpa Choeling to offer a long-life puja for Geshe Rabten.

I don’t want to go into detail about the meeting here (the minutes of all CPMT meetings are available at any of the centers). I would, however, like to share with you our sharing of Lama Yeshe’s vision. At one point in the meeting Sylvia Wetzel of Aryatara Institut, Germany, suggested that each of us in turn express how we saw Lama’s work, his vision. This, more than any theorizing, expresses the essence of what we should be working toward – and should give us the inspiration and determination to succeed.

Merry Colony (Dorje Pamo Monastery): Words like universal, shared responsibility; working for all centers and all countries. The global mandala is the whole and each center and individual student a part, a limb. Just as the body needs all its limbs to function properly, so too are all the parts of the FPMT mandala equally important – lay people, Sangha, educators, students, etc. Also there should be movement between centers, people changing positions to create stronger bonds between us, to get to know each other better, and to share skills, experience, energy and inspiration.

Franco Piatti (Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa): It’s not different from universal education. Give everybody what you can, even materially if possible. Lama’s vision is Buddha’s vision; Lama’s skill is efficiency, being able to start with confused beings, pull out their qualities and goodness and use this to benefit. Start with the actual reality of the person, not something he or she should be. Lama was like a big fire, which because of its heat draws air into itself so that its flames rise higher and higher into the sky. Now all of us, our organization, are like this fire, attracting more and more air as we grow bigger – but the fire is our wisdom, and the air the other people we attract. This is our universality, how we reach the world.

Lynette Litman (Universal Education Association): Expansive; very difficult to express. Lama’s vision is universal education, meaning use whatever skill you have to reach others. All the work we do should be seen as work on ourselves. It is having trust in so many people and having a very large network of people who are working for a common aim, with all the different applications and practices that individuals naturally bring. This is very special.

Connie Miller (Universal Education Association): The key to the vision is in the title, Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. Everything Lama did was to establish and preserve the pure teachings of Lama Tsongkhapa. The way Lama established this organization was similar to the way Dharma teachings are traditionally given, that is giving the beginning, middle and end of the teaching all at once, even though the students may not be ready for the end or even the middle. We can look at the FPMT like this – all the centers, departments and so on, when they become fully matured, will eventually fill the whole picture, beginning, middle and end, so that it becomes a whole, total vision.

Basili Llorca (Instituto Nagarjuna): The special concern of Lama Thubten Yeshe was to make our lives Dharma, to have us apply all our skills, activities, etc. to Dharma activities. Just as we practice tong-len (taking on others’ suffering and giving them happiness) as individuals, the FPMT can be seen to be doing this worldwide. We are creating the conditions for others to meet Dharma; we give, by putting whatever we do into Dharma practice. It is like having a tantric vision of life, bringing everything into one’s life. It is bringing happiness to people in whatever way we can. Openness is the key to Lama’s vision; this is the most important thing.

Fabrizio Pallotti (Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa): Personally I agree with everything that’s been said so far, but I have no experience of Lama’s vision. The root is not to think of self; it is the vision of a society benefitting others. The way this organization is growing looks very nice to me. It is like a whole society can come to practice tong-len through the FPMT, from what it gives.

Francesco la Rocca (Centro Cenresig): At this meeting I’m beginning to understand what Lama Yeshe’s vision is. It is vast, looking to the future. It is establishing the base upon which Dharma can grow. It is energy for others. Lama had the skillful means establish something that could benefit others.

Rosario Rizzi (Terra Viva, Pomaia): I once asked Lama how long Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa would last. He said until Maitreya Buddha came. That’s when I began to understand his vision; that opened my mind to prepare the ground for this, and this preparation is also our own personal preparation for enlightenment. It is giving others the opportunity to retreat, to hear teachings, to study, and this helps the centers to grow, to give more, to continue. Also it has to do with children, working with them to make “new” men and women for the world. It is sharing responsibility to become fully mature and developed.

Tom Begley (Greenwood Lodge): By having a diversity of people in one organization it gives the opportunity to help others and at the same time to have a large resource of skills and energy available. Interdependence.

Roy Gillett (Dorje Chang Institute): We came to Dharma because we were seeking answers to the problems in our lives. We wouldn’t let go of a rejection of everything until we found something unrejectable, so we could go back into society and activate healing energy. We need to make enlightenment the priority in society, to build a society that reflects this goal. Lama was encouraging us to bring healing energy to society so that the people of the future will be able to see this path to enlightenment in the society, as it was evident in Tibetan society at its height. Lama’s method was to use the experience of this world to take us beyond this world, and Lama himself was the inspiration to do this.

Dyanna Cridelich (Central Office): Working together, to grow as individuals so that the whole mandala grows. To become harmonious so that we bring universal happiness and world peace.

Jan-Paul Kool (Maitreya Instituut): Lama’s vision was to bring enlightenment, happiness, to all beings through the vehicle of us, his students, who were the resource he had to work with. Then, like Samantabhadra offerings, Lama multiplied our inherent goodness and spread it out to all beings.

Kabir Saxena (Root Institute): The vision is not just to bring Dharma to the West but to help all beings however we are able. For example, Root Institute, whose purpose is to repay the kindness of the Indian people. It is to dedicate our lives, all our actions, to enlightenment, to be living embodiments of bodhisattvas, just as Lama was.

Denis Huet (Institut Vajra Yogini): There is a danger in concretizing Lama’s vision because in fact Lama’s vision has no rules, no limitations. There’s no “Lama’s vision” to be found or spoken of. Lama just acted with wisdom every moment and kept the Mahayana spirit in every situation. Lama’s method was to act and check up simultaneously, not wait to act.

Adrian Feldmann (Nalanda Monastery): Bodhichitta – the removal of sentient beings’ suffering. It was the methods that Lama used that sometimes cause us confusion, not his vision. A bodhisattva’s methods are hard to understand. Irrespective of its appearance, even if we understand that whatever method Lama used was valid, sometimes it is still hard to explain a bodhisattva’s method to others because of that appearance. As far as individuals are concerned, Lama’s way was always that method and wisdom had to be integrated in all activities. The vision is the establishment of a system so that all the world can plug into the path of enlightenment, and the centers are the means by which this can be done. We all depend on each other to establish this system, which is like the rungs of a ladder, whose bottom is samsara and top enlightenment.

Paula Koolkin (Maitreya Instituut): When I first met Lama I thought he was very nice; later I thought he was very intelligent; then that he was very perceptive; finally I realized that he was very wise. There are not many wise people in the world; Lama’s wisdom was flexibility, being interested only in benefitting others, and practicality, that is benefiting others at every moment, wherever they are, whatever their life might be like. If we can live with bodhichitta we can live happily and provide happiness for others, and this cycle feels itself; it is a self-perpetuating cycle. Lama could deal with Westerners so well because he dealt according to each person’s needs and situation. That was his skillful means.

Maria Bender (Aryatara Institut): Meeting with Lama gave me hope, a meaning to life. Now our job is to communicate this hope and meaning to others, to show it to them. The way to do this is to apply the teachings to our lives, experience them for ourselves, internalize and then communicate the experience to others.

Sylvia Wetzel (Aryatara Institut): Lama’s vision cuts through culture, religion, nationality, identity, concepts. Every method he used was to help us to do this. Lama was always creating the space in which we would discover our own buddha-nature. Our work in the organization is to give this space to others. Lama chose the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism in which to manifest, and though he did this and was of the lineage of Lama Tsongkhapa, his vision and methods went totally beyond any tradition. Lama was beyond all – monk, nun, culture, concepts, lineage. Lama taught us to listen to our inner wisdom and become perfectly balanced.

Tags: cpmt, fpmt history, nick ribush