On Aro gTér

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Simon E.
Posts: 3851
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: On Aro gTér

Postby Simon E. » Thu May 29, 2014 10:59 am


Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: On Aro gTér

Postby mutsuk » Thu May 29, 2014 11:07 am

Simon E. wrote:I believe that's known as the " When did you stop beating your wife ? " school of debate.

No it is not. The issue at stake is genuine lineage, implying genuine transmission, genuine practice and therefore genuine fruit. Don't mix thing: the argument which has been wrongly implemented is that of the historicity of Aro Lingma.

But clearly actual debate is not on the agenda.

Yes it is.

You have your firm opinion.

You don't know that. You like to put people into little boxes apparently. You yourself have your own opinion. I'm not twisting your words against you for that.

It will of course change nothing .

Yes it will change something. At least one poster here in the previous pages found out that the Aro stuff is a hoax (at least in terms of lineage, which implies a lot of other things). This is good to inform others. I don't know what you have to gain in keeping this childish attitude at despising other people's opinion.

The Aro has a small and dedicated Sangha who do not spend their time castigating other groups.

You have not understood an inch of the problem in this debate.

That will continue.

Good for them. If we can inform others that there are some serious issues in the Aro system, this will be good for these other people too.

Each of its members is aquainted with all of the critiques both informed and otherwise aimed at them, and have decided to exercise their own judgement on the matter.

Which you have done yourself clearly, right ? Still: show me one single tibetan text that mentions Aro Lingma, her son (Aro Yeshe if i'm not mistaken) and her father Khro-rgyal dpa'-bo. Just one single occurrence would be good enough for me.

From time to time they will be joined by others who have weighed the issue.

And hopefully others will turn to lineages which have not been invented by someone willing to play guru (because the whole problem lies there).

Alex Hubbard
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:03 pm

Re: On Aro gTér

Postby Alex Hubbard » Thu May 29, 2014 11:40 am

Interestingly there are some memes that seem to keep appearing even though there are pretty good reasons not to believe them. They also tend to get believed uncritically by some folks who would otherwise expect evidence for claims. By way of example,

dzoki wrote:it would be best to let his "lineage" of made up people (Aro Lingma and Khalden (sic!) Lingpa) die like a small fire in the wet grass.
By the way some years ago I pointed out in the discussion (probably here on DW) that Rangrig Dorje could not have been father of Aro lingma (the dates did not fit) and lo now they changed it to him being guru of her mother.

Khalden Lingpa, for example, is the gtérma name of the previous incarnation of Chhi'méd Rig'dzin Rinpoche, as can be attested to here on this non-Aro website: http://www.khordong-byangter.org/lineage.html"

Ngak'chang Rinpoche was recognised by CRR to be the incarnation of the Padma Legden, Khalden Lingpa's gtér scribe. CRR mentions this in this Long-Life Wish Path: http://approachingaro.org/images/CR_lon ... r%20nr.jpg"

The idea that the lineage history of the aro tradition has been changed many times over the years (especially in relation to observations of critics online) is very popular. The thing is, the Way Back Machine has independent archives of the Aro website going back to 1998, showing that it's not changed at all. Aside from that the written Aro publication 'Hidden Word' goes back to the eighties and also has the same info as today's account of the lineage history. They all have ISBN numbers and are archived somewhere or other if people really would like to verify claims of alterations over the years. The one change in there is the misspelling of 'Khalden' Lingpa as 'Khalding'.

yegyal wrote:Well, what isn't surprising is that he would need a new intro to one of his books, since he got into trouble for previous forwards that he apparently wrote himself, but claimed were written by Chime Rigdzin and Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje, which were later removed from subsequent editions. It seems he is quite adept at attaching himself to lamas in this way and using their esteemed reputations to bolster his own.

mutsuk wrote:Please Simon E. as requested by another poster, stop twisting other people's words and acknowledge the fact that Chogyam manipulated some lamas and had to remove their "preface". This is telling.

This is also a very popular meme, but from what I can tell isn't the case. This forward (for Rainbow of Liberated Energy), for example, is not written by Ngak'chang Rinpoche: http://approachingaro.org/images/826x56 ... uction.jpg" The next edition of that book did indeed have a different foreward, this time by CRR, which to my knowledge has never been removed, its inclusion however was because of a rather sad story which is told here: http://approachingaro.org/ngakpa-chogyam-lamas-overview" in the section on Lama Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche and CRR.

'Wearing the Body of Visions' also has a foreward from Ngak'chang Rinpoche's friend Lama Gyaltsen which never gets mentioned perhaps because it lacks scandal: http://approachingaro.org/gyaltsen-rinp ... troduction"

Anyhow, there's that information for those who are interested.


Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: On Aro gTér

Postby mutsuk » Thu May 29, 2014 12:24 pm

Thanks Alex for these clarifications and my apologies if I have conveyed wrong info on the prefaces...
Anyway, some questions remain :

1. Can anyone from the Aro group mention a reference to Aro Lingma outside of what Chogyam has written ? A tibetan source would be good.
2. Can anyone give the tibetan title of the gter-ma she supposedly handed over to her son ? And some titles of the contents ?
3. Wasn't there some confusion between Khanding Lingpa (mkha' lding gling pa, which I vaguely remember having seen on one Aro page) and Kalden Lingpa?

One ought to keep in mind that Lingpa (gling-pa) refers to gter-son who have supposedly gone to mkha'-'gro gling and are thus named in this way. The fact is that there have been female gter-ston, some have been to Dakinis' paradise too but even if they received various names on this occasion, not a single of them got a "lingma" title. Right now, at this stage I am convinced that Chogyam, lacking knowledge of Tibetan, coined the Lingma name, out of a lack of familiarization with the gter-ston milieu.

David Chapman's argument regarding the historicity of Aro Lingma being as valid as that of Yeshe Tsogyel does not hold analysis:
1. Of course we have no trace of Yeshe Tsogyel before quite late in the tibetan history and there is not a single mention of her in the Dunhuang documents if I'm not mistaken.
2. Aro Lingma is not mentioned in any work in original language (tibetan).

But :
1. Yeshe Tsogyel is mentioned in works by various tibetan authors (even if she did not exist) which implies a tacit recognition of a (maybe legendary) figure. For instance, Bonpos do not really like Yeshe Tsogyel but they do not question her historicity (which is funny if she actually never existed...).
2. Aro Lingma is not mentioned by anybody else than Chogyam himself and her name seems to have been awkwardly coined. The problem is thus different:
On one side we have a figure which is probably legendary but anyway widely acknowledged (like King Arthur maybe did not exist but to refer to him we don't call him King Bob or whatever, there is a concensus to refer to him in a certain way, no matter his real name or historicity);
And on the other side we have a figure, which is certainly not historical, associated with other names, most of whom nobody has ever heard or read about, with pretty weird names (obviously coined by someone who does not know tibetan).

I read that some Aro people do question Aro Lingma's historicity but don't mind practicing Aro. Well, there is here something illogical :
— If Aro lingma existed and had gter-ma, then we should be able to have titles and since Chogyam has received transmission he should provide or show some xerox of these originals ;
— If Aro lingma never existed, which is more likely, then there were no gter-ma of hers; then there were no transmission of hers; then were were no original practice to perform from her non-existing gter-ma. Since the lineage is crucial in Dzogchen in general (and in particular in the Nyingma tradition), if the lineage is fake, then the rest of it is fake. Now Simon E. is probably going to say that Aro people are nice and happy (which I don't doubt), but I know of Krishna people who are nice and happy (and sometime much more than fellow buddhists), but they are nevertheless engaged on a wrong path according to Buddhist standards. This looks to me the same for Aro. If the lineage is fake, the rest is fake, no?

User avatar
Former staff member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: On Aro gTér

Postby Adamantine » Thu May 29, 2014 1:53 pm

Time out for moderator review
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests