Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
kalden yungdrung wrote:Recently was i also astonished about the fact that the Tulku Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche who belongs to Kagyu tradition (and Nyingma?), is a Rigdzin in the lineage of the Bon Dzogchen cycle named Zhang Zhung Nyengyud.
kalden yungdrung wrote: In another words, once the pupil receives a teaching from a master he or she is empowered to pass it on to another.
At about the time of finishing my work, The Little Luminous Boy, two prominent figures who received the teachings of ZZNG were Menri Tridzin and Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. The latter was a first Buddhist master who went to Menri Monastery to seek the ZZNG teachings. He is therefore a lineage holder of ZZNG teachings to his pupils whoever they are.
Understand, that these are not my words but given by Samten la
Moreover, his position against Bon vinaya, termas, etc., certainly do not qualify him for being the lineage holder of a Bonpo tradition.
Gyalpo wrote:According to my information, ChNN recieved transmisions from Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche and became lineage holder of ShangShung Nyen Gyud. There is also a thanka with lineage tree of ShShNG and he is there at the bottom of lineage masters. This I have heard when I participated on Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche teachings in Poland in around 2003.
Gyalpo wrote:ok, it could be, i am sorry.
narraboth wrote:NN rinpoche gave a talk earlier this year in SOAS, London.
I didn't go there, but base on my friend who was there, rinpoche made a claim:
'people said that I am a Bon teacher, actually I am not, I just researched on Bon.'
(I think he has claimed this many times)
he even said that he recommand people who interest to practice Buddhism instead because nowadays Bon is basically 'buddhism's copy', the special part of Bon has mostly lost.
That what I have heard, I don't know if anyone was there and heard it too.
narraboth wrote:I don't know how much he knows, I guess quite a lot?
I think in general he didn't mainly say it about Bon Dzogchen. He just said Bon as a religion, nowaday it's mostly a copy, which can be true. Bon might be forced to accept some idea, but I think Bon was willingly copying Prajaparamita Sutra etc to make their own texts far before Gelug time?
Again I have to say I was not in London then, so I don't know what's the exact sentence he said.
narraboth wrote:hi, I do repect your post, but I can't reply you as long as you did.
I can only qoute what you have said: the claim that Bon Prajaparamita text is NOT copy from Buddhism, is historically strange.
To convince anyone who is not a Bonpo (including Buddhists and non-Buddhists), your argue is not strong enough.
Anyway, Bonpos got to believe what they believe unless they want to become Buddhists, so I will stop to challenge the authenity of Bon texts.
narraboth wrote:hi, I said I am gonna to stop to question the authenity of Bon, but after quickly reviewing your post, I got to clarify two things:
1. I am not saying Bon is later than Buddhism, I am saying Prajaparamita sutra was taught and then spreaded in India, then translated into Tibetan and Chinese, those are all with reliable historical evidence. What's the historical evidence of Bon texts' origin? It's nothing to do with who is before whom, it's about who copied whom. You don't agree that Bonpo copy Buddhist texts, fine, but please don't mess up two different things.
2. HH Dalai Lama DID NOT say Bon is a fifth school of BUDDHISM. please check Wikipedia. Quite some of your argue is again base on false thing.
Users browsing this forum: Lhasa and 16 guests