Norbu House & Domo Geshe Rinpoche

[johnn34]

I have no idea about domo geshe Ginpoche. Who is she?

[Caz]

I have no idea about domo geshe Ginpoche. Who is she?

Not who she says she is. All Tulkus require official recognition there are already two officially recognized Domo Rinpoche reincarnations one via Trijang Chocktrul who is also recognized by the previous Domo Geshe Rinpoches Dungkar Gonpa society and another one recognized by HH Dalai lama ( May well be another emanation enlightened beings like to benefit all sides) The Problem is her lack of credentials and unorthodox methods a quick bit of back ground checking on anyone claiming to be a Tulku is enough to find out whether they are genuine or not using such a status as a basis of teaching without correct recognition is a serious misconduct and its advisable not to involve ones self with such a person who builds their career such a foundation. Whether or not she has genuine compassion or not isn't the point.

[spot dawa]

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!

[JKhedrup]

If she is who she says she is, and that affectation of a Tibetan accent while speaking Englush is not an affectation, she will be able to speak and read Tibetan perfectly. This would be an easy way to test her lofty and unusual claims. If she cannot speak Tibetan, she is a fake.
Skype interview, anyone?

[spot dawa]

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.

[simhanada]

lives a Dharmic life

Deceiving people is not living a dharmic life, no matter how pretty the words that spill out of ones mouth are.

[Jikan]

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 don't see how this is a contradiction or even a tension in the teachings. It's entirely possible for someone to fit into both categories at once: 1. directly experienced the truth of the teachings through practice 2. have done so in the context of a traditional training regimen, had set foot in a Tibetan exile community, &c.

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)

[JKhedrup]

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?

I am not fascinated at all, I merely want her to put her money where her mouth is in terms of the claims she makes. In terms of a person with a helpful grasp of the dharma- that is exactly my point, why isn't that enough? Why try to inflate your credentials with claims that have been repeatedly rebuked?

This is one of the problems with the tulku system actually. It opens the door to unscrupulous people who don't want to the work of training, studying and doing retreats, but do want all the perks that come with being a guru. It is unfortunate. I wouldn't compare the situation with Trungpa because he did do the work, and still answered to teachers. Who does this Domo Lama answer to?

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.

If she knows she is not Domo Geshe, then she is willingly misleading people and is a deceiver. We have to hold dharma teachers to a higher level of expectations than ordinary people. If we don't use our discernment, the whole thing could become a big joke. That is my concern. How many people trust the Catholic Church these days? Too much dishonesty and lack of oversight can turn people off the dharma.

We have to hold those who claim to be "dharma teachers"to a higher standard

[spot dawa]

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)

Jikan, I experience directly the truth of my situation. Practicing the Dharma has changed my life completely, and continues to draw me in.

What has caused me to post here is not problems with my practice, but trying to come to terms with yet another teacher who has given me insights I did not have before, but who turns out to be the subject of several discussions like this one. I do not substantially disagree with the points that are made against her here; however, it simply troubles me that there is no discussion of what she is actually teaching.

I can see the point that if she is deceptive about lineage and personhood, there can be no basis for good teaching on finer points of the Dharma, and I acknowledge that for others on this board, that renders any further questions moot. Any teacher who is not living an ethical life, has no qualification to be a teacher; it is a good point, and in terms of investigating a teacher, certainly there is no purpose to looking further once this has been uncovered. It just happens in my case that I had already looked into her teaching before her personal background.

I want to thank you all for responding to my posts on this topic. I would like to emphasize that I do respect and honor your lineages and teachers, and all of you for guarding their dharma so carefully.

[MalaBeads]

Spot dawa,

You wrote:

"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."

Before i read this thread i had no idea who this Domo Geshe aka Tara-somebody person is. And I still don't. Don't really care either. My comments are not about that controversy.

May I suggest something else here?

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.

I started my practice life in zen where you sit for long hours staring at a wall. Here's a little poem for you:

Sitting quietly, doing nothing
Grass grows by itself
The plum is ripe with motion

[spot dawa]

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.

Malabeads, that is a wonderful thought. I have never proceeded past this "investigative" stage with a teacher, because I have never been satisfied with what turns up. This person is just one more rather colorful example.

It used to bother me that this is apparently my karma with gurus. At this point, I have forged ahead on my own, and given my life over the most dharmic path I can manage without the cultural trappings of religion. So your words are very encouraging to me; if the Dharma does not come out of my experience, then I will have no experience of it at all.

[MalaBeads]

Spot Dawa,

Even if you were following a traditional path, where else would the Dharma emerge? Out of your experience, of course. As HHDL says, "Never give up".

All the best to you.

[MalaBeads]

Here is the entire quote as I have sitting on my desk with a picture of His Holiness next to it. It seems worth quoting in full.

"Never give up
No matter what is going on
Never give up
Develop the heart
Too much energy in your country
is spent developing the mind
instead of the heart
Be compassionate
Not just to your friends
but to everyone
Be compassionate
Work for peace
In your heart and in the world
Work for peace
and I say again
Never give up
No matter what is happening
No matter what is going on around you
Never give up"

[spot dawa]

Malabeads, thank you for your encouragement! I have had this impression of the Dharma of the Pali Canon, the Middle Length Discourses -- you can do it! The Dharma is precisely based on an understanding of things as they are, discovered by direct experience. 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...perhaps this is a kind of humility, but I much prefer the confidence I hear in the Lion's roar. If you cannot imagine approaching cessation in this lifetime, being a monk must seem like a kind of punishment or something...or a savings account maybe. Saving up karma for a rainy lifetime. I truly hope that they have more confidence in their own Buddha nature than that, especially these devoted souls that do take vows. Proceed directly to full awareness!

"Let no sentiments of home detain us" as Hermann Hesse wrote.

[kirtu]

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...

Of course in today's world we can take a person who refuses to kill another human as being essentially enlightened in some circumstances and certainly a person who holds just the five precepts pretty purely.

The problem is that after one has practiced a while they realize that the problem is worse, in fact much worse, than they had realized.

OTOH, over the weekend a Drikung Kagyu lama told us, quoting Milarepa, that once we had master concentration, enlightenment was certainly close if we practiced.

Kirt

[Pema Rigdzin]

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.

Spot, the reason for concern is that Vajrayana is a very powerful and swift path, and its karmic weightiness reflects that power. One can be profoundly led astray by a false teacher on the path of Vajrayana and one's path ruined for this and many lifetimes. Even in an ordinary sense, 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]

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.

Uh, no. I've known many good, intelligent people that have great 'Dharma raps' and live ethical lives. They are not Dharma teachers. There's a bit more to it than that.

...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.

There is betrayal of trust, and there is failure of trust. Betrayal is clear; one person uses the trust that has been established for their own selfish ends. Failure of trust is just as devastating, but more innocent. It is possible to try to help someone and to just make matters worse. As the actor Michael Cain once said about the American involvement in Viet Nam, "The worst damage is done by well intentioned people that don't understand what they are doing."

[spot dawa]

It is possible to try to help someone and to just make matters worse.

Isn't that the truth. I've learned that too much generosity in one direction may cause great resentment, especially where there is a great need. People need to feel as though they are giving something back in return; or like me they are not especially graceful on the receiving end. Even simple things require some skill on the path.

The sutras imply that it is worse for a teacher to fail than for a student, in the same way it is worse to fall from an elephant than a horse.

[mandala]

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

Absolutely. When it comes down to it, if someone wants to run around by themselves claiming to be a self-appointed tulku, then who cares.
The issue is in fraudulent 'teachers' who have the opportunity to derail or destroy the spiritual lives of others. There's so much psychological damage that can be done when people put their trust in those who are unqualified, or even worse, plain psychotic.

[mahabuddha]

If one disregards lineage and makes up their own rules...they should be called out. I've met some of the 'nuns' she's 'ordained', it's sad that they actually think they are ordained.