I have enjoyed reading this exchange, and a few others on this same person. I am looking into her after reading the book Mystery of Love and Emptiness
by "Domo Geshe Rinpoche" aka Tara Quinn.
I must first say that I am in an unusually close position to the Dharma, but I am not properly a "Buddhist" in any organizationally sanctioned use of the term. Quite simply, I am unaware by direct experience the truth of the proposition of the First Noble Truth: Life is suffering. While acknowledging the persuasive power of the Shakyamuni's words as reported in the Pali Sutras on this subject, to be convinced by reasoned acceptance of a view is just one of the five things which Buddha taught may turn out in two different ways in this world: Something may be regarded as true while actually being false, and something else may be regarded as untrue while being factually true. For this reason, no reasonable person takes the perspective, "Only this is true, nothing else can be the truth." In other words, your systems of lineage and teaching may or may not be wholly true, just as it may turn out that there is one iota of joy more in the world than suffering. Without direct experience, I would have to put my faith in Buddha, which is a fine thing to do, but not part of my path.
And we are told to put our faith in our gurus, in their lineage, in their dharma. But I can tell you by direct experience, wearing robes and having sat at the foot of a Tibetan exile does not alone qualify one to teach the Dharma, which is to be known and experienced directly.
So what, I have a doctrinal quibble about the basic tenets! I cannot take vows from any legitimate guru, to be sure. But I am still able to devote my life to generosity, tonglen-- although it is a pre-Buddhist tradition described in the Bhagavad-Gita, karma yoga is a close description to how I have spent the past five years. I am a renunciate, but without a lineage. I have read a lot of Chogyam Trungpa -- how is that for a failed llama? I mean, seriously.
And yet, Trungpa's simple words penetrate and soften my heart all the time. Reflecting on his commentary on the Lojong slogans has literally changed my life, my way of earning a living, my relationships. So...qualified to be a guru? Besides being dead, I mean. Honestly, I have no idea. But I have come to realize that the question of devotion to such a person -- as in the performance of guru yoga -- is not really about the guru's perfection as a guru, but about the disciple's cultivation of devotion itself. No, the guru doesn't usually deserve it, quite plainly in the case of the MANY MANY flawed "teachers" in the mode of Trungpa.
Now I come to this case of the lady who most commenting with any air of authority on this thread have pegged for a fraud, based on the status of her recognition as a particular Tulku. I don't wish to insult anyone, but I have a hard time with this idea of a Tulku, I don't really believe it is what it is claimed to be. Chalk it up to ignorance, but that is my thought. So I don't really care about the rules of these lineages in the first place. I want to know about this person. Why do I want to know about this person?
Whether or not she has genuine compassion or not isn't the point.
Says the last post.
See, that is where you are all way off base here, for what I came for: a discussion of what this person is teaching, and whether or not it is based on Right Views. All of this discussion of who she "really is" or isn't is simply crazy coming from people who are supposed to be training to realize the emptiness of the self of any inherent existence. Domo Geshe Rinpoche is a figment, just as you and I are all figments. Our "selves" arise due to conditions, not permanent existence. Get over it already.
But have any of you read the book, Mystery of Love and Emptiness? As you can tell, I am not unfamiliar with the Dharma, and this lady's book totally blew me away. To the point of sitting on the edge of a bathtub, crying tears of joyful release in a new understanding of Chandrakirti's Twenty Emptinesses, which is based on Nagarjuna. Whatever it is or wherever it came from, Tara or Domo Geshe, who or whatever, this person describes a state without foundation, in which even the concept of emptiness is seen to be a dependent arising. As is Nirvana. As is every Dharma, the raft to be left at the opposite side and not shouldered into illimitable bodhisattvahood.
So that is what I am saying. This person made me think about the Dharma in a new way, she helped me through an epiphany. (And no matter what state of conciousness you may attain, however exalted and unlimited, it is not an excellent foundation for your craving, as Domo Geshe repeats often in her book. I find that idea very compelling.) I am not sure beyond that what her mental state or presentation or competencies are, but I am not going to be having her shave my head either.
Views of self are a thicket! Your own, or someone else's.
Om gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!