Simon E. wrote:
Yes...naive Lamas , that must be it...Or was it simply Lamas who write forewords to books that they have not read..or is it everyone else that is naive..or are you saying that this is another fake..
In which case do you have proof that the Lama in question has neither read the book or did not write the foreword ?
Otherwise that strikes me as a breach of Right Speech.
prapanca prapanca prapanca..
Its the degree of righteous indignation that has captured my attention and makes me wonder what the problem REALLY is..
I don't know where you've been in the past 25-30 years (nor is it actually important) but it's pretty well-known among translators who have their book prefaced by a lama that these lamas don't read the books they preface. Starting with the fact that they don't read latin alphabet nor English, or French, etc.
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.
BTW, it is clear to all reading your posts that you are not neutral in this debate. What is it that you want to prove by portraying others the way you do? Are we going to torch Chogyam ? No. Surely not. Would it be good if he were to acknowledge the whole hoax behind the Aro lineage ? Yes, for sure.