Diversity and Accessibility Working Group
Appendix: Personal experiences regarding diversity and accessibility at Shambhala Centers
We thought it would be useful to share some examples and personal points of view regarding how issues of diversity and accessibility affect individuals who are part of our community. The following are lightly edited excerpts of pieces written by people who have personal experience with working with the challenges we discuss in the main text.
Verónica Guzmán
First, Verónica Guzmán wrote this brilliant essay after participating in one of the conference calls that discussed diversity and accessibility. She brings up vital point about the basic assumptions that define who is diverse and who is disabled, as well as an international perspective.
I was the director of the Shambhala Center in Chile for the last 3 years and twice before. During all that time I had to deal with many issues that now I can name as diversity and accessibility. It makes things easier when we can name them somehow! Thanks for that! I had never thought before about a Shambhala view of diversity and accessibility. As I said, we were just trying to be part of the larger mandala and had been wondering why such issues were so difficult, but had no name for them. I realized last night, once again, that the language barrier is more than just being able to speak and understand another language. It is the difficulty in figuring out what the other persons "means to say" by what he or she is saying, particularly when they are speaking rapidly in a foreign language --even if you know the language! That makes it difficult for me to participate in a conversation like the one we had last night. So....... you´ll have to have some patience with me because questions come up to my mind later after I try to figure out what was going on.
One of the things that came to my mind after the conference call was the difference between the concepts of diversity and disability. Of what I understand both are defined by a reference point. Disability is defined in relation to ability. Shambhala Mountain Center, as many other places, is built with the supposition that the people who are going to use it are able to move around on their two legs and they need stairs to move upward. So, people who move around on wheelchairs and need ramps are called disabled. Until now I had thought that speaking a different language was called diversity, but if I use the same reasoning for programs instead of buildings, our sangha programs are "built" with the supposition that people are able to understand and speak English and need good speakers and sound systems so that they can hear well. So, could people who are not able to understand English and need a translator be called "disabled" too? Is it a matter of the underlying supposition that defines the needs which defines ability and disability? I guess the language we speak is more into the category of something "natural" or "normal", so speaking a different language is considered diversity more than disability. Would that be correct? But, if we share the vision that one of our basic truths is birth, old age, sickness and death, isn't sickness part of our "natural" condition some time in our life (unless we die before that happens)? If we dissolve the reference point, isn’t the ability to move around on two legs and the ability to move around in a wheelchair just different conditions that have different needs, the same as speaking different languages? Thinking about the issue of "ego", if somebody in a wheelchair asks for help and a "two-legged moving around" person asks if she or he feels special, wouldn’t a simple answer be something like "I’m different than you, or you are different than me, so we have different needs". I realize this may sound too simple but it has to do with recognizing different "conditions" rather than accepting the reference point of calling someone able or disabled.
Also I have another question: What is the difference between unable and disabled? I´m not just playing with words here—I don´t mean to hurt anybody’s feelings, but one of the characteristics of the US government is to see itself as the reference point for the rest of the world regarding what is good and correct, so it feels many other countries are "unable or disabled" to decide by themselves what type of government they want, how do they want to live, what religion is best for them. North Americans (or their governments?) have a strong sense of being the main reference point and defining "diversity and/or disability" from their point of view. Being Shambhalians, knowing there is really no reference point, could we do something different among us? Can we accept each person's reality and condition as it is, recognizing each person's needs, and make our primary reference point being willing to serve others? I think it is helpful to know what the basic ground is that we are assuming as the basis of our conversation. Maybe I'm just resisting the idea of being considered disabled or diverse because I am different: I don´t speak the same language, have a different cultural background, have a different rhythm, schedules and so on. Maybe in some sense we are all diverse, and none of us is disabled!
Yours in the vison of the Great Eastern Sun, Verónica Guzmán
Maria P Vargas
This piece discusses the importance of inner attitude and lifelong training in creating an attitude of acceptance and hospitality, as well as how to use difficulty a path.
The problem I see with trying to pave the way is that tolerance, acceptance, being non judgmental, etc. all have to come from within each and every one of us—it is not something someone can package and present for ensured consumption. So much of our attitude and behavior comes from our upbringing, and let's face it, there are more folks than not that did (do) not even go through a decent socialization process, much less have tolerance included as part of their home training.
Strength and confidence is something that is learned through difficult learning experiences. Difficult learning situations, like not being accepted, serve a purpose and we can learn from them if we pay attention. I have learned to keep my eye on my objective - to get as many teaching as possible, and basically acknowledge others' poor behavior as unwise decisions on their behalf and let it go because I cannot change others' attitudes and behaviors (unless it's karmic - I taught 5 years and positively impact a few students).
Just a few years ago I heard the Sakyong reprimand the Boulder group because of all the complaints he had received from so many people around the world. He told them that everyone raved about the Halifax group's gentleness and openness, but that the Boulder group was down right unfriendly and that they needed to change that. If the Sakyong's command cannot change someone's poor behavior, what or who can? I don't know how or if the situation in Boulder has changed - I would image that it has since there is a new generation. I do know a handful of old timers whom I find to be living the teachings but beyond that I don't know.
Perhaps what needs to happen at each center is that those who live the dharma are identified and asked to oversee community-building committees and how newcomers are being treated. They could also be contacts for complaints. Maybe each center could prominently post a message welcoming newcomers and list the names of those identified as living examples of being good dharma practitioners (friendly).
Sarah Littlefeather
Sarah, who uses a wheelchair, shares a personal, powerful and heartfelt perspective on issues of accessibility and access to the teachings and her local center.
I can't get this song out of my mind. It relates directly to the heart of what I think of when I think of the vision relative to diversity and accessibility. So at the risk of sounding completely silly. ...these are just a couple of phrases. The gist of the song is a man who has died. His wish was that life had been easier rather than longer.
When I think of what happens when we DON'T make the effort toward diversity or accessibility this is what comes to mind:
"...there's a whole lot of people who just want to be heard, disappearing everyday without so much as a word..."
and
..."think I broke the wings off a little songbird. She's never gonna make it to the top of the world..."
Vajrayana Buddhism is not for everyone. But whose place is it to decide for whom this is true? Is it the karma of individuals who to have the "misfortune" of being different or of Maria P Vargas experiencing difficult circumstances relative to what has been set up as "free and well favored". Is it the karma of those of us who have been well favored to open the doors further for others? Both, I think. But, as always, I must come from my own heart and let the other fellow be the "principle judge" for himself. As a Shambhala Warrior, I must make Shambhala as accessible as possible. Others will discover their own obstacles and inspirations.
In this group we obviously feel the importance of our Shambhala community opening wide the doors to others. I feel strongly that whatever our treatise states, it should be very clear that we stand for this openness to diversity. No wiggle room any more as they say.
Do the barriers we have erected arise because we have decided who should enter and who should not? Should we keep the centers inaccessible and free of too much diversity so only those who can break down the door can enter? After all, Tilopa had to do so to get the teachings directly from the dakinis,
I am sometimes saddened at how far we yet have to go. As a person in a wheelchair, it is sometimes obvious that those who have not experienced these things on a personal level do not get it. In my center, our leadership is not particularly diverse—they are all white, all financially comfortable, and all relatively able bodied. They decided they want to get an accessible space someday, but the next question for the executive council was of course how to come up with the money to do so. I thought it was interesting that when they wanted to beautify the existing space, no one had any trouble coming up with creative ideas to raise money, and they did...lots of it. On a pragmatic level, these are some of the things that occur.
Our job, as I see it, is to describe the ideal situation relative to diversity and accessibility and not get ourselves bogged down by how much it will cost. We know the ideal situation will take time to arrive but we must not flinch at the description of the ultimate vision. Let us be as straightforward and unflinching as possible knowing full well that it will take time. Think bigger.
Love and such appreciation for you all, Sarah
River Wolfe
River Wolfe shares the frustration and isolation that results when our centers are not accessible.
I was looking at the Shambhala website and came across the Shambhala congress notes for the 2004-05 congress. I read with interest your notes from the first meeting on accessibility. I use a wheelchair and have been practicing Buddhism for a number of years. Unfortunately, because I use a wheelchair, my practice has been limited to reading, tapes, and now some online groups.
There is a Shambhala center here in Columbus Ohio, and the meetings are not accessible as they are held on the second floor of a building. I e-mailed and called the group's contact person. He stated on my voicemail that they would be happy to carry me up the narrow staircase for the meetings.
I wrote him back and told him that carrying was simply not an option. I understand the financial limitations of small organizations. However, I don't feel that people take time to understand that to be carried upstairs to a meeting is just not an option. Perhaps it was 20-30 yrs ago. Today, it is a bit out of sync with the rest of our culture.
I would be very open to speaking with folks at the Shambhala center, but they never returned my email. Why are people afraid of this topic? I would be delighted to discuss the issue of access for people with disabilities with anyone. Now I am seeking a center/teacher where I can take my refuge vows. I have been offered to do it over the phone, but I feel I need physical contact.
I am so distraught about this issue, I wrote a letter to Pema Chodron for some guidance. That was only a month or so ago. Please consider my offer of assistance.
Peace and lovingkindness, River Wolfe www.hodohio.com
Mary Whetsell
Mary Whetsell shares her experience and insight regarding the challenges that differently-abled individuals face at dharma centers, and especially the unfortunate results of lack of awareness on the part of others.
Hi Cortez - I enjoyed your comments and thoughts at tonight's meeting. You expressed that your group is collecting stories about diversity issues, so I will share an experience I had. I have muscular dystrophy, which leaves me with very poor balance, chronic pain, problems standing for prolonged periods, and the frequent need to use a cane. I was at a very large dathun four years ago where the rush for the shoes in the mudroom at the end of the day was a nightmare. At one point, towards the middle of dathun, I was trying to leave the building and was knocked to the ground by people jostling to get out the door. Then, and this is the worst part, people just continued to step over me! (At least I wasn't trampled). I just kind of sat there on the ground until the crowd cleared enough to get myself up. I was stunned, and felt so hurt at that level of insensitivity, especially when we were all supposedly operating at the height of mindfulness.
There are many, many issues related to physical disabilities which arise at larger dharma programs. For example, many, many people are unable to stand for prolonged periods of time, even people who otherwise do not seem differently-abled. We're doing a better job regarding chairs in the shrine room, but there are still a lot of difficult situations where one has to sort of fight for oneself. These situations include: how to work with orioke if one is in a chair, how to work with stroke practice if one is in a chair, how to work with feast practices if one is in a chair, where to put your practice materials when you are in a chair, how to deal with the prolonged standing at lhasangs, how to relate to rota assignments, and how to relate to physical fatigue and pain during intensive practice. I am sure there are many other examples that others could give. At the very least, coordinators of large practice programs should be sensitized to these issues, and trained to help differently-abled folks deal with the types of things listed above. At the same time, those of us who are differently-abled need to speak up for ourselves and not expect others to be mind-readers.
Best wishes, Mary Whetsell
Hamish Maclaren
The following is a discussion of accessibility issues that is part of a longer study Hamish prepared after a stay at Shambhala Mountain Center.
First I would like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude towards the staff of SMC for their kindness and the many occasions they have gone to great lengths to help and accommodate me and other disabled participants on the land. This isn’t just some polite nonsense that I am trotting out for the sake of good manners; I have been very touched on many occasions by the efforts made.
I do have to point out however that my recent experience at the winter dathün made it clear how many unworkable obstacles to accessibility still exist that, as far as I can tell, are not being recognized or considered in the planned development. These obstacles very significantly impact a great many people including the disabled and many elderly. I fear that if we miss the opportunity to incorporate genuine accessibility now we will find it much more difficult and expensive (perhaps even prohibitive) to do so later.
I recognize that, given the terrain and weather at SMC, easy accessibility to every part of every structure on the land is not possible. Obvious examples include the Kami shrine and the second and third floors of the Great Stupa. But I do think we need to make every effort to insure that as much of SMC is accessible to as many practitioners as is possible and reasonable. Just what “possible and reasonable” means needs to be very carefully explored with a representative group including experts and people who live with significant physical disabilities. Their recommendations need to be incorporated into the plans, given that what we are all trying to achieve is accessibility to the dharma.
It is inspiring to me that SMC is becoming a showcase for what Shambhala society aspires to be. That such a facility would unintentionally exclude the physically disabled and many elderly because of inadequate consideration in the planning stages would be an unfortunate contradiction of our intention. This irony would not go unnoticed, as this issue is becoming more and more a part of mainstream awareness. I fear it will be perceived as a statement that mainstream Shambhala society is insensitive to the realities of aging and disability. Obviously, if we live long enough, we are all going to be confronting these realities.
From a purely practical and financial point of view, a significant percentage of the senior population is wealthy and has the most flexible personal schedules that allow participation in programs. This is a demographic that we should be cultivating.
Richard Rice (architect for the Shambhala Mountain Center project) has been very helpful and thorough in insuring that the interiors of the planned buildings will indeed be very handicapped-friendly. However the numbers of seniors is rapidly increasing and the distances between buildings remain, as does the heat in the summer and the cold and drifting snow in the winter.
The current plans are wonderful and clearly represent much work and dedication; however, it would be heading in a dangerous direction to disregard these issues. I would like very much to encourage a full and informed investigation to bring up possibilities and creative solutions.
I appreciate that I have an obvious bias that comes from not having the luxury of “normal” mobility. Because of this, perhaps I have a more realistic perspective of the need for, and appropriate priority of, accommodating disability issues. The realties of impermanence, the subsequent limitations coming from aging and sickness, are uncomfortable, intimidating, and frightening to think about, so generally most do not. If we live long enough, however, we will all experience them first hand.
I very much look forward to opportunities to discuss this and explore what options we have and how we can avoid or mitigate excluding so many from full and safe access to the Shambhala Buddhist dharma.
Yours in the Dharma, Hamish Maclaren
Abba McHardy
This is a portion of a longer vivid and witty discussion of racism and its implications in Shambhala.
A West African Proverb: No One Has to Show a Child the Sky. A poor summary of Richard Reoch's clear exposition = Shambhala International is the ORGANISATION/INSTITUTION which exists to support the COMMUNITY of practitioners in their disarming cultivation/celebratory/discovery of enlightened SOCIETY = the vast sacred world. This vision is not a monopoly of our particular lineage or tradition. It is obvious that there are systemic, structural, institutional problems which must be tackled with institutional level interventions [or there would be no need for this exercise]. It characterizes ALL our social/cultural institutions. Why not NAME it clearly = RACISM - rather than hide behind a euphemism - diversity. As to the question of access - it is often overstated. When People of Color perceive something is valuable we are resourceful enough to figure out how to access.
Lewis Woods [multi-ethnic genealogy = African American + Jew] writes "Joining a predominantly 'white' convert buddhist sangha entails a kind of immigration of sorts, a kind of border crossing into an environment that is not supportive of our communities of origin - imagine a GROUP of black men walking into a center rather than a lone individual :-) Fundamentally our centers are disconnected from the communal, public concerns that People of Color virtually cannot help but bring with them, given their reality in a 'white' dominated society - [the 'profiling' 'driving while black' constantly having our presence in SPACE contested, under surveillance in certain neighborhoods, followed in Malls and shopping centers, forced to select some spurious 'identity' in filling out the census, getting a drivers license, a mortgage, a bank loan, filing for jury duty, etc]. Most of the POC I know, practitioners in American Buddhist centers come from acculturated backgrounds with wide social experience of white cultural spaces - school/academe, professions, [including the armed services] middle and upper class work spaces/places.
Would invite ye warriors to reframe the discourse. African American Proverb: Change the Joke and Slip the Yoke. How to be an ally. If the perception arises 'Why is our sangha so White?' It magnifies the issue for white is a color too. People of goodwill active in anti-racism practice recognize this, and question what IS this 'whiteness'? This 'possessive consciousness'? This unexamined 'norm' that 'others' others difference negatively, rather than celebrating appreciating it as richness. Trungpa Rinpoche in an article written in 1961 entitled The New Age spoke to the futility of viewing the world as Eastern and Western. Yet we still use these terms - when what we are involved with is a modern world characterized by scale, and the need for authentic communication.
…….Offered playfully, with tongue in everybody's cheek. Ashe, and Deep Bows Friendly Dragon Hello,
Updated 2004/08/09