Community Conversation: Decision-making

by Mark Douglass

Thirteen of us gathered at noon on Sunday, March 31, to discuss our community decision-making process. A brief summary follows.

1. What decisions need to be made as a community? Three categories of decisions:
   • Our existence as a community. We have undergone some significant changes in the past year, with many people leaving/pulling back, with the dissolution of the Kalapa Council and the indefinite stepping back of the Sakyong. Specific decisions around the following questions:
     • Do we need to close our doors? Have we concluded our work as the Portland Shambhala Center and need to disband to make way for something new?
     • If we choose to continue existing, how do we respond to our new situation? What space(s) would be appropriate to our current needs (i.e. could we practice in someone’s living room? a provisional space? do we need to pay as much as we’re paying in rent given how empty our facility is most of the week?)
   • Our relationships as a community – to one another, to other Portland meditation groups and sanghas, to our regional Shambhala sanghas, to the international Shambhala organization. Specific decisions around the following questions:
     • Does our community feel the need to leave Shambhala and become independent? If so, how do we do that? Costs vs benefits?
     • If we choose to remain, what is the nature of our relationship to the mission of Shambhala, i.e. the lineage of teachers including the Sakyong, the teachings as we’ve received them? Do we experience these teachings (and the hierarchy that curates them) as true expressions of dharma, or are there aspects of Shambhala’s mission that need to change to better clarify the dharma as it has been passed down?
     • What ethical foundation governs our relationship to one another? What are the expected norms for behavior in our sangha? What are the consequences for breaking any agreed-upon norms for behavior?
   • “Everything else” – more specific questions around lineage photos, chants, culture/decorum, governance structures that flow from the first two categories.
2. How do we make these decisions?
   • There is a sense of agreement among those at the conversation that we trust one another as individuals. We have a sense of our basic goodness and the basic goodness of others. However, there is a lack of trust in the decision-making institutions as a whole – at the local level (council and committees) as well as a the regional/international level (process team, Kasung, governing board, etc). Decision-making processes have been opaque and unclear, without clear pathways to providing feedback to the council or receiving information from them.
   • Decision-making processes should be as transparent as possible, with demonstrable efforts to gain feedback from all stakeholders in a decision. There should be a sense of seeking to minimize harm and respect differences/diversity of opinions.

There was recognition among the group that, for as much focus as we have put on the international sangha and the Sakyong’s behavior specifically, there is a need to focus on our own community and tend to our local situation. There was an acknowledgement that many people have left or pulled back, and that being able to manifest the heritage of our lineage – the teachings on enlightened society and basic goodness – begins with the relationships nearest to us.

There was general agreement that this conversation was helpful for all who attended, and that further conversations will be necessary to clarify the many issues we have yet to sort out as the Portland Shambhala Meditation Center.

We welcome your additional feedback and comments to this post. Thank you!