Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:34 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
Does anyone have a link to the interpretation of the 4 Noble Truths and 8-fold path, according to the Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini?

I was reading the wikipedia article on the Aro Gter lineage, and they mentioned this sutra - although I couldn't find any additional info on-line.

If anyone could provide a link - perhaps even a full translation of this Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini, that would be incredible!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aro_gTér


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 486
dakini_boi wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the interpretation of the 4 Noble Truths and 8-fold path, according to the Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini?

I was reading the wikipedia article on the Aro Gter lineage, and they mentioned this sutra - although I couldn't find any additional info on-line.

If anyone could provide a link - perhaps even a full translation of this Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini, that would be incredible!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aro_gTér


It's well known in Tibetan buddhist circles that Aro-Ter is a totally fake lineage. If you want to study Dzogchen do so with an authentic Nyingma lama.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Tilopa wrote:
It's well known in Tibetan buddhist circles that Aro-Ter is a totally fake lineage. If you want to study Dzogchen do so with an authentic Nyingma lama.


^This

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm
Posts: 483
I don't think anyone ever saw any tibetan version of this "Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini", precisely because it does not exist. The guys in Aro even give a "sanskrit" title to it but it's nowhere attested.

At best, it's been written directly in English, but like everything Aro related, it's a fake. The text is said to belong to the terma of khyungchen aro lingma, but since this personage never existed, you can deduce that her termas (and existence) are simply the invention of the british founder of the Aro "lineage".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 359
Can anyone briefly describe the objective facts about the 'fakeness' of aro gter?
like which lama said anything about it etc.

Since e sangha shut, what I can find from google is mostly their explanation; it's a bit strange to read all those 'replies' without seeing the original accuses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
Yes, I'd also like some more info, in particular if anyone knows of Tibetan lamas saying anything about Aro. It does seem odd, but if Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche recognized Ngakpa Chogyam as a tulku, I assume there would be people in the Tibetan community who could verify this. . . and if not, there might be evidence of that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
I've never heard of Dilgo Khyentse recognizing Aro Gter outside of what Aro Gter has said. Nor have I heard of any major lineage holder recognizing the Aro Gter teachings as legitimate. If someone could point out otherwise, please do so.

:namaste:

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm
Posts: 483
dakini_boi wrote:
but if Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche recognized Ngakpa Chogyam as a tulku


Khyentse Rinpoche never recognized Chogyam as a Tulku. In the early legends that Chogyam liked to spread about his being a tulku, the recognition is presented as coming from Chime Rigdzin Rinpoche (CR Lama). But CR Lama is not there anymore to confirm that.

Statements, such as Chogyam's, about recognition always come from the one who wants to be recognized. I don't think anybody (in the hierarchy) of Tibetan Buddhism recognizes any validity to Chogyam's claim as a tulku, or to the authenticity of Khyungchen Aro Lingma since nobody has ever heard of her either in exile or in Tibet. The whole issue is fake and made up by Chogyam. The fact that they can't produce a single original text from that Aro Lingma is pretty telling in itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 359
Traditionally a new terma has to be checked and recognised by high lama, who's high enough to do this job. Khyentse wangpo did lots of this kind of works I have heard.

If aro gter was not in Tibetan, then it's hard for great master to check it I guess.
They said Dudjom Rinpoche recognised the terma but asked him to keep secret for 15 years. I am wondering what kind of text he showed to Rinpoche, if there was such a thing.

Usually the master who confirms the text needs to sign for the authenity, just like recognising a tulku needs a formal letter and a ceremony.

what I don't understand is: there must be a lot of people asked some qualified masters, but there's no comment from them at all?

About CR lama, I am a bit confused. didn't CR lama openly recognised him as a qualified teacher? (of course it's not totally related the authenity of terma, but....)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am
Posts: 1069
a student wants clarity, not confusion.

a teacher that adds confusion, is no teacher at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am
Posts: 1069
narraboth wrote:
what I don't understand is: there must be a lot of people asked some qualified masters, but there's no comment from them at all?




the treasures of the A saying corpses have to establish the history of their teachings so that no confusion arises. its pretty simple really. there are many ways to sniff out authentic tertons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:20 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
narraboth wrote:
Traditionally a new terma has to be checked and recognised by high lama, who's high enough to do this job. Khyentse wangpo did lots of this kind of works I have heard.

If aro gter was not in Tibetan, then it's hard for great master to check it I guess.
They said Dudjom Rinpoche recognised the terma but asked him to keep secret for 15 years. I am wondering what kind of text he showed to Rinpoche, if there was such a thing.

Usually the master who confirms the text needs to sign for the authenity, just like recognising a tulku needs a formal letter and a ceremony.

what I don't understand is: there must be a lot of people asked some qualified masters, but there's no comment from them at all?

About CR lama, I am a bit confused. didn't CR lama openly recognised him as a qualified teacher? (of course it's not totally related the authenity of terma, but....)


Everything about CR Lama was a bit confusing actually. :smile: I never asked him about this subject but those that did all, to my knowledge, heard him say that Chogyam wasn't a tulku. Many people also heard Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje, Chogyams first teacher, say this and other things.

/magnus

_________________
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 359
Heruka wrote:
a student wants clarity, not confusion.
a teacher that adds confusion, is no teacher at all.


eh, it's not my intention to question CR lama.
I personally didn't know him (obviously because I lived in Taiwan), but I have seen their sangha in Poland, I will say they have remarkable devotion. Some people feel some of them are 'strange', but they are not much stranger than some other western sangha I think. Also great master Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche shows his great care to CR lama's sangha: he went to Poland every year even he is in his 80s. I think CR lama must have been a good lama.

About clarity and confusion... yes, students want clarity, but probably western students or logic-style students like me want clarity more. I don't think Tibetan people emphasize 'clarity' that much :tongue:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm
Posts: 630
Concerning Ngakpa Chogyam, also called Ngakchang Rinpoche,
there are many people who have opinions. I don't think many of
these people actually ever met him. Yet they "know." They certainly
haven't met any of the Tibetan Lamas who speak highly of him.

Suffice it to say that in some circles there seems to be some
controversy. Any Lama who accomplishes much, or seems eccentric
has his or her detractors. In the Vajrayana, we have to hold Pure
View and acknowledge that unusual teachings may be suitable for
some people. At the very least we can adopt an agnostic position. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 486
ngodrup wrote:
Concerning Ngakpa Chogyam, also called Ngakchang Rinpoche,
there are many people who have opinions. I don't think many of
these people actually ever met him. Yet they "know." They certainly
haven't met any of the Tibetan Lamas who speak highly of him.


It sounds as if you have met some Tibetan Lamas who speak highly of him. Who are they and what have they said?

Quote:
Suffice it to say that in some circles there seems to be some
controversy. Any Lama who accomplishes much, or seems eccentric
has his or her detractors. In the Vajrayana, we have to hold Pure
View and acknowledge that unusual teachings may be suitable for
some people. At the very least we can adopt an agnostic position.


I disagree. At the very least we should be deeply suspicious of people who claim to have high spiritual accomplishments, especially when they are surrounded by controversy. A true Vajrayana guru can lead his students to enlightenment but a false teacher can create endless lifetimes of confusion and suffering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm
Posts: 483
It is well-known throughout the tibetan buddhist world that the so-called Termas of Khyungchen Aro Lingma are fakes because Aro Lingma herself has never existed. The entire Aro thing is based on Chogyam's imagination. The Aro people are unable to show a single tibetan text of these so-called Termas, precisely because they don't exist or have been elaborated in English by Chogyam himself. Their entire "lineage" is fake. And lineage is the key in Vajrayana/Dzogchen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 359
It would be quite strange if they can't offer any Tibetan text of the 'terma.'

The definition of 'gter ma' is something made a period ago, and hidden as treasure, and then been discovered. gter ma doesn't need to be written in Tibetan, it can be in Orgyen language etc, but it would be weird if it's written in modern English. Even when it's a mind gter ma, it should still be like how it was originally made.

If it's 'translated' by dakini or what, there still should be a Tibetan original; and it's easy enough for Tibetan masters to see if the Tibetan one is really good or just badly written.

If it's a pure vision, it's another story. Surely Dieties can give teaching in English. But not everyone can have pure vision, most people have only illusion or day dream. 'Pure vision' needs to be carefully checked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm
Posts: 483
I perfectly know what termas are. You did not understand what I wrote. I said that they can't show any text in tibetan belonging to the termas of Aro Lingma. Their lineage is supposedly based on these Termas. Since Aro Lingma is presented as being Tibetan, we can expect that her termas are in Tibetan. However they don't exist because she never existed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm
Posts: 630
mutsuk wrote:
I perfectly know what termas are. You did not understand what I wrote. I said that they can't show any text in tibetan belonging to the termas of Aro Lingma. Their lineage is supposedly based on these Termas. Since Aro Lingma is presented as being Tibetan, we can expect that her termas are in Tibetan. However they don't exist because she never existed.

Ah yes, of course.
Tibetans had a census. We know the names and dates of every village ngakpa.
On top of that, every text was preserved, nothing was lost during the peaceful
liberation. ;)

Seriously. Have you not heard that less than 20% of Tibetans were literate?
And those were typically monastics? That's why "village ngakpa" was in some
circles pejorative. I'm not surprised in the existence an oral tradition. Tibetans
often say "each village has its own tradition." Family lineages are not unusual.

I say this only to raise doubt in the face of detractor's certainty.
Let people have their opinion. But who can say for sure? Everybody
is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.
The jury is out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
The jury is out.[/quote]

I'm afraid that in this case "the jury" is very much in.
The Aro folks dont hold any of the commitments of a legitimate lineage.
They are not ngakpa either if you ask me. Since the very foundation of their samaya has been grossly breached (by using lineage masters inappropriately in an attempt to validate their claims) they can lay no claim to being ngakpa.


Last edited by Josef on Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group