johnn34 wrote:I have no idea about domo geshe Ginpoche. Who is she?
Says the last post.Whether or not she has genuine compassion or not isn't the point.
spot dawa wrote: 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. :
I guess I want to know, why are you so much more fascinated with her "really being" or "really not being" Domo Geshe Rinpoche, than a person with a helpful grasp of the dharma?
Jikan wrote:What's preventing you from experiencing, directly, the truth of your situation in terms of practice? (bracketing all these questions about which doctrine is right or what that doctrine means)
For the good student, one who has immersed him or herself in the teachings for a long time, Dharma can appear anywhere and everywhere. The source becomes quite secondary to the experience of Dharma itself. Sometimes a single word from an obscure poem can have me flat and weeping because it provides some insight in the best sense of the word. Why does this happen? Well, for lack of a better way to put it, I would say because I was ripe.
spot dawa wrote:I have been bemused and amused by some venerables I have met, disparaging the quality of their own practice and assuring everyone that their true enlightenment is aeons away...
spot dawa wrote:Still I see no reason to wonder or to test such a ridiculous proposition. She may be living in some kind of fantasy! But this is true of every single one of us. I do not care if she can fool a test, or not, or whether or not that is what she might be doing! There are other ways to learn to speak perfect Tibetan than by incarnating your guru or whatever. Although this whole thing sounds kind of Tantric to me, I am no initiate so my observations along that line are moot.
I guess I want to know, why are you so much more fascinated with her "really being" or "really not being" Domo Geshe Rinpoche, than a person with a helpful grasp of the dharma? Because my first experience with reading her book makes me grateful for her, enough to forgive a bit of craziness even. The true test of whether she is a dharmic teacher or not is not what language she speaks, or what imaginary "self" she claims to be (yours is also imaginary!), but whether or not she teaches the Dharma, and lives a Dharmic life. Besides pretending to be a Tulku, but in the end that may be seen in a playful light by all of them: I think all Tulkus are pretend Tulkus! That doesn't mean I will not listen to them, and examine their teachings in light of my own experience and understanding.
The true test of whether she is a dharmic teacher or not is...whether or not she teaches the Dharma, and lives a Dharmic life.
...if someone came to a have a lot of trust in this woman and open up to her and consider her their guru, and she was then to shatter that trust, it may well shatter their ability to trust in the authenticity of the Vajrayana path and certainly in any sort of spiritual guide after that.
smcj wrote:It is possible to try to help someone and to just make matters worse.
JKhedrup wrote:If she is living in a profound fantasy about this, it is probably more of a deluded fantasy than most of us (though I do agree people have their fantasies). If this is the case, that it is some kind of psychosis, it could be very damaging if fragile people become here students.
We have to hold those who claim to be "dharma teachers"to a higher standard
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests