Steady on, Dave. I'm not saying I don't regard ChNN as a valid source. I already said that I consider him to be a valid source and it is valid and appropriate for realised lamas to introduce novel innovations to lineages. I have never made the point that the tiger is not Ati Muwer, I would simply like more information about it, but there really doesn't seem to be any, only the repetition of the claim without anything at all to add. If this is an innovation from ChNN, and it seems it is, either from dream (as Malcolm suggested) or vision, or historical textual analysis, that's totally fine. I've no problem at all with it. But, it would be good to know.Mantrik wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:06 amMany of us can see a light. Different candles lit at different times in different places by different people.
You seem somehow desperate to conflate and meld them as if it were in some way possible or desirable.
Bon people in this discussion seem desperate to play along, as if you are agreeing with them that there is only one candle to see, and you seem to be asking others to snuff theirs out and admire the Bonpo one.
It's all a very odd conversation and utterly meaningless in the context of termas and dreams. If you don't regard ChNN as a valid source of Adzom Drugpa's teachings then you should also disregard all the other terma sources living today who explain anything in any way, including the Dudjom ones.
You can use one candle to light another, but if you keep prodding at the flame to ensure the candle and wick meet your expectations ............ you end up in the dark.
My only points on this thread strike me as rather uncontentious and I'm surprised (well not really that surprised as I know how dharmawheel works) by the reception they have received. All I was saying was:
Most terma traditions say that the tigress is female and one of the transformed consorts of Guru Rinpoche (usually Tashi Chidren as she has a Bhutan connection, but sometimes Yeshe Tsogyal or Shakyadevi). Visualising a fully enlightened dakini has, to my mind, a different set of meanings to visualising a subjugated Bon god.
Tersar lamas don't teach that Drolo is "the essence of Vajrakilaya", and saying that Drolo practitioners should get dzogchen teachings from Namchak Putri doesn't mean that Drolo is the essence of anything.
Drolo Doesn't mean anything about guts or bellies.
All the Drolo sadhanas and commentaries I've seen never mention "crazy wisdom", sorry, Crazywisdom but they don't. I think it's something that Chogyam Thrungpa came up with. (of course, he's a terton, so it's valid as a teaching but it is uncommon and didn't exist before him.)
I'd be really happy for anyone to correct me with a textual reference - especially more info on Ati Muwer.
I will bail out now. Unless anyone does have more information beyond what has already been shared.
PS. my comment about seeing the light was a joke. I assumed he was joking...