A dangerous cult

“Karma Gedun” was one of the harshest critics of Aro from 2005-2007. In mid-2008, he publicly retracted and apologized for his criticism. He wrote that:

I think that I have made a grave error of judgement concerning the Aro gTer . . . I was poorly informed and hasty and jumped to some inexcusable conclusions. I regret this.

And also:

I bought into what everybody "knows " about the Aro. The fact is though that what everybody ( or at least those who are critical ) " knows " is largely wrong, or partial. Speaking personally I overreacted to what I saw as harm done to a family member. The reality was far more complex, and simply amounted to a mismatch between a seeker and a particular teacher. There was no blame attached actually . However it set me off on a mission , a mission which led to me seizing on the negative reaction to the Aro that exists on the web, and using it to reinforce my own prejudices. As I have said, I regret this and intend doing what I can to repair any damage I have caused. Not least to my own sense of what is honourable.

I applaud Karma Gedun’s intelligence, courage and integrity for this. To recognize that you have been wrong, admit it, and seek to make amends is a sign of heroism, I think. Heroism is perhaps the highest value of Vajrayana.

Karma Gedun attacked Aro mainly on the e-Sangha forum. He has asked the managers of the forum to remove his posts concerning Aro. They have not done so, despite his request, and the fact that (as I will show here) many of them are plainly factually false.

Although Karma Gedun has retracted his e-Sangha postings, it seems necessary to explain here why they were wrong, until they are removed.

Where he was coming from

The things Karma Gedun said might appear crazy at first. However, they make sense if you keep in mind that:

• His knowledge of Aro was derived almost solely from what he read on e-Sangha.
• He knew almost nothing about what Aro actually teaches.
• He believed that Aro is a destructive cult. This was based mainly on misinformation from e-Sangha, and partly on an exaggerated reaction to a negative experience a family member had.
• He sometimes “trolled,” making extreme statements to gain sympathy or attention, rather than to contribute to a rational discussion.

Topics and typos

Karma Gedun wrote dozens of posts about Aro, some covering several topics. I address many of his claims elsewhere on this site. This page covers miscellaneous claims that don’t deserve pages of their own. Since you may not want to read the whole lot, here is a hyperlinked list of the main topics:

Quotes from Karma Gedun’s postings are in green. I have left spelling and grammatical errors as they were.

Personal experience of abuse by Aro

Karma Gedun wrote in several places about someone close to him having been “harmed” by Aro. He never said anything specific about what was supposed to have been done to her. That let the reader’s imagination run wild.

I used to have a separate page describing in detail what actually happened. Since Karma Gedun has publicly retracted the assertion of harm, that no longer seems necessary. I would be happy to email the former page to anyone who wants to read it.

The short version is that his sister-in-law used to be an Aro apprentice. She was severely freaked out by a visiting teacher from a different Buddhist tradition. Her reaction seems to have been based on yana shock, plus a dramatic personality display by the teacher. No harm was done to her by that teacher, nor anyone from Aro. She left on friendly terms and maintained contact with the Aro lamas and sangha for a couple of years. She sent Ngak’chang Rinpoche a birthday present a year after leaving apprenticeship, with thanks for the teachings she had received. Karma Gedun did not discuss with her what actually happened in any detail. He took her strong emotional reaction as evidence of harm, and then researched Aro on e-Sangha rather than by discussing it with her or anyone else who had actual knowledge.

(My page explaining these events in detail had a significant error in it. I identified the former Aro apprentice as Karma Gedun’s wife. She actually is his sister-in-law. My mistake was due to the fact that he and a close relative (her husband) have the same name. I did not know that. I apologize for this past misinformation.)

Another e-Sangha poster, Karma Dechen, sometimes chimed in to confirm what Karma Gedun said. Karma Gedun has told me that she is another member of the same family. She was similarly misinformed.

Aro is a cult

Karma Gedun often referred to Aro as a “cult.” There is no clear definition of the word “cult,” and Karma Gedun did not say clearly what he means by it. He seems to have had two main points. The first concerns the nature of the lama/student relationship in Tibetan Buddhism. The second was an attempt to explain why, despite being obviously wrong in so many ways, Aro has students.

The traditional Tibetan model of the relationship between Lamas and their students is authentically controversial in the West. Some Western Buddhists see it as unacceptably authoritarian. Other Western Buddhists, and almost all Tibetan lamas, see it as essential for Vajrayana. I won’t discuss this in any detail, because it has been argued to death already.

less cult-like than most

Traditionally, to receive any substantial teachings on Vajrayana, you first had to take samaya vows. These vows, among other things, bind you permanently to a particular lama. This is a great leap. The Aro path includes intermediate stages, including “apprenticeship.” Apprenticeship was created by Ngak’chang Rinpoche to make it possible to learn about Vajrayana without taking permanent vows. This is non-traditional. It also makes Aro significantly less “cult-like” or “authoritarian” than most Tibetan Buddhist lineages.

Aro does take a traditional view of the Lama-student relationship for ordained students, and could be criticized for that. However, this is not a basis for attacking Aro specifically, but only traditional Tibetan Buddhism in general. Instead, Karma Gedun claimed that Aro is not traditional Tibetan Buddhism, but a non-Buddhist cult.

cultic mind control

His other “cult” allegation was that Aro keeps students only by using “cultic techniques.” Critics have to claim something like this, because if Aro were what they describe, everyone would leave.

Mostly I have addressed these claims in my page on “Aro students must be clueless.” You can test some of them for yourself just by checking on the web, and you will see that they are untrue.

“The dedication of the Aro apprentices that you mention is zombie-like, they are not allowed to discuss or question and if they do Chogyam mutters stuff about "Vajra Hell", they have no contact with anyone outside their own circle ( for Dharma purposes) . . . The dedication of some Aro students is commendable, unfortunetaly it is the result of cultic techniques being cleverly applied.”

Aro apprentices are encouraged to be open to discussing Buddhism with anyone.

Aro students are among the least zombie-like groups I’ve come across. Getting the sangha to do anything is often like trying to herd cats. I sometimes wish we all paid slightly more attention to our lamas’ suggestions.

“Questioning is discouraged, or rather they are told that they can ask any question they want, but must accept the first answer they are given.”

This is untrue. Aro students are encouraged to continue asking questions until understanding is reached—which might take years. Accepting a statement one does not understand, or disagrees with, is counter-productive. The Aro lamas do not want to convince anyone of anything. Buddhism is a religion of methods, not truth, so belief is irrelevant.

What is true is that when learning a skill, there is no point in actively arguing with your teacher. Suppose you are learning to ski, and your teacher tells you that you need to put more weight on the inside edge of your foot. You might say “well, you are wrong, that won’t work, I tried it and I fell over, so I am going to keep doing what I know works. I like hanging out with you, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.” I have heard beginning skiers say things like this.

If you think your teacher has a wrong understanding of the practice you are learning, you should get a new teacher. Sticking with a teacher because you enjoy their company wastes everyone’s time. Arguing with them about their field of expertise is pointless. To make progress, you have to be willing to take the teacher’s advice, even if it results in your falling over repeatedly. If they are competent, you discover with practice that you can make sharp ski turns that were previously impossible—and you stop falling over.

Leaving the cult

“someome close joined and I watched a sincere student become increasingly confused and then increasingly alarmed . . . The person I know stayed four years and knows what they are talking about, when she left after months of heart searching("Traktung Rinpoches" arrival on the scene was the last straw) she was threatened and abused, which she expected having seen others receive the same treatment when they left or even questioned.”

“the Aro for example firstly bombard leavers with letters, Emails and phone calls of a pleading or hostile nature, and if that fails they send treat exmembers as being dead to them, walk by them in the street etc.”

“The person I know” was Karma Gedun’s sister-in-law, discussed above. She was not in fact “threatened” or “abused” (before or after she left).

However, some of her Aro friends felt awkward in their relationship with her after she left apprenticeship. She left with some strong negative feelings. A person we believed to be her husband ranted in public about Aro being a harmful cult. It would not be surprising if some of her Aro friends tried to contact her after she left to understand what was going on and to offer support if possible. It would not be surprising if some felt that it was better to leave her alone, and maintained polite distance. Whenever someone leaves a social group with strong negative feelings, it is hard to know how best to relate. Some Aro students may not have done the best thing possible; but I do not think this reflects particularly badly on Aro. I would think that some difficulties of this sort are inevitable with any religious group.

“They [Aro students] are also threatened with Vajra Hell if they leave for ANY reason, even if they wish to study with another Nyingma teacher.”

This is entirely false, speaking of Aro students in general. Non-ordained Aro apprentices are welcome to leave at any time, for any reason. Many who leave remain on good terms with the Aro lamas and sangha. Aro actually has a specific program for ex-apprentices who wish to maintain contact. It is similar to our “Friends” program, but allows direct communication with the lamas.

“Chogyam teaches that anyone who becomes "ordained" in the Aro and then leaves for ANY reason will go to "Vajra Hell".”

This is almost true. (Below, I explain that there are exceptions to “any reason.”) It is also completely traditional within Tibetan Buddhism. Tantric ordination involves taking “samaya vows” that bind one permanently to a lama. This is true in every Tibetan lineage. “Vajra hell” is the consequence of breaking samaya. Here is Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche’s discussion:

The only way to arrive there [Vajra Hell] is to break your samayas. Ordinary evil deeds, even very negative ones, will not suffice. You cannot go there unless you violate the samayas. This is the uncompromising fact of the samayas. So if you want to take a sight-seeing tour to Vajra Hell, first you must diligently break your samayas, because ordinary misdeeds and obscurations will not suffice to get you there! [Rinpoche laughs] Then you’ll get to see the Vajra Hell, with the other 18 hell realms thrown in for free. If you want to visit the dharmadhatu buddhafield [heaven] of Akanishtha, you have to keep your samayas pure. This is the serious truth involving the keeping and breaking of samaya. Rainbow Painting, pp. 74-75.

Most commonly, Buddhist hells are described as literal places one goes to after death. A more sophisticated view (taught by many contemporary Tibetans as well as Westerners) is that hell is a state of mind.

Here is how vajra hell is explained by the Aro lamas. It is the psychological state in which one has totally dedicated one’s life to Vajrayana by taking permanent vows, and then made it impossible to practice Vajrayana by deliberately breaking them. If you take permanent vows to one lama and then deliberately break them, you cannot meaningfully take them again with any other lama. You know from experience that you cannot keep vows permanently.

As I mentioned, there are exceptions to “any reason.” Some ordained Aro students have left with the blessings of the Aro lamas. They remain on good terms with the Aro lamas and sangha. Some now study with other Nyingma lamas.

Aro makes grandiose, false claims

Karma Gedun said that Ngak’chang Rinpoche has made some grand claims. Karma Gedun then pointed out that these claims are false. However, Karma Gedun simply invented them—Ngak’chang Rinpoche never said anything remotely similar.

“Chogyams story is that . . . he was commisioned in private by Dudjom to be his Dharma heir in the West, but that it had to stay secret until after Dudjoms death.”

Ngakpa Chögyam (now known as Ngak’chang Rinpoche) never said anything like this. Kyabjé Düdjom Rinpoche gave him permission to teach, and the instruction to help establish the ngak’phang sangha in the West. Ngak’chang Rinpoche has never claimed anything more than that.

“Dharma heir” is a Zen term. As far as I can determine, it is never used in Tibetan Buddhism (except by confused Westerners).

“they [Aro] say that they are being persecuted because only they are authentic, at least in the west.”

The Aro lineage has never said that it is the only authentic anything, in the West or anywhere else. There are numerous authentic Vajrayana organizations in the West. The Aro Encyclopædia links page has pointers to many of them. This was one of the first pages on our old aroter.org web site. We have always been glad to point web visitors and Aro students to other Buddhist organizations.

“The "Links" on the Aro website are not actually links at all, if you contact them they either do not know Chogyam or reject him.”

This was a strange misunderstanding—of the web, not of Buddhism. A “links page” is simply a list of web hyperlinks to other sites the author thinks readers may find interesting. In the early days of the web, when aroter.org was created, practically every web site had one. Web search engines like Google didn’t exist, so links pages were the best way to find your way around the web. They are much less common now, but you can find other Tibetan Buddhist organizations that have links pages here and here and here and here and here and here, for example. Putting a web site on your links page does not imply that there is an institutional link between the two organizations. Most of the organizations on most of these links pages have probably never heard of the linker.

Aro does not teach Buddhism

More fundamentally there is little evidence that Chogyams currently teaching is Buddhism at all. It certainly makes no mention of the Buddha Dharma Sangha. It seems more like a kind of D.I.Y. creed.

The main Aro web site, as of June 2008, has 204 pages that mention “Buddha,” 133 that mention “Dharma,” and 392 that mention “Sangha.” There are 13 pages that refer to all three.

Karma Gedun presumably mentioned the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha because they are the “Three Jewels,” which are the “objects of refuge” in Sutric Buddhism. The most extensive teaching on refuge on the Aro web site is here. It explains that there are four levels of refuge, one of which (“outer refuge”) is in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. These four levels of refuge are a completely traditional Dzogchen teaching. You can read a Longchen Nyingthig (non-Aro Dzogchen) explanation here.

All Aro apprentices take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, as well as the other levels. If a new apprentice has not already formally taken refuge, a refuge ceremony is held at their first apprentices-only retreat.

“THe main focus is on unquestioning adherence to the Lamas words, and not cutting your hair, and saving your nail clippings (?!)., and not wearing yellow because that is the color of morality and the Sutra Path which are Jolly Bad Things.”

The main focus of Aro teaching is Dzogchen.

The Aro Lamas do not expect, want, or ask for unquestioning adherence from anyone. This was part of Karma Gedun’s idea that Aro is a cult. It was probably also based on a misunderstanding of the tantric samaya vows. These vows do not require “unquestioning adherence,” and they are only taken by ordained tantrikas, not ordinary students.

In many lineages, including Aro, ordained tantrikas never cut their hair. (Analogously, monks shave their heads regularly.) This is not a “main focus” of Aro teaching; it is a minor point.

There is nothing in Aro (or any other lineage I know of) about nail clippings.

Needless to say, Aro is not opposed to morality, nor to the Sutric path. Although this was basically just trolling, it probably resonates with vague accounts he heard of what Aro teaches. Aro teachers try to be very clear in identifying which yana each teaching comes from. They commonly say things like “according to Sutra, you should renounce sense pleasures, but according to Tantra, you should enjoy them.” If you did not understand the yana principle, you might think this meant that the Aro teacher was disparaging or contradicting the Sutric teaching. In fact, disparaging Sutra is a “root downfall” (violation of tantric samaya), and no Aro teacher would do that.

“I am no prude, nor do I see anything wrong with the human form, I do think however that a situation where female disciples are encouraged to dance bare-breasted for the Guru as part of pujas is a little, well inadvisable shall we say? If a good deal of potential misunderstanding is to be avoided.”

This showed a good deal of actual misunderstanding.

As part of the Aro tsok (puja), both men and women—typically senior students—dance in sambhogakaya ornaments (which do not cover much). These dances are not “for the Guru.” Dakinis (women) perform a dance as they bring the feast offering to each member of the sangha. Dakas (men) perform a different dance during the offering to the pretas. I would describe both of these dances as “stately.” They have specific steps and are not meant to be erotic. The insinuation that the dances are intended for the sexual gratification of the lamas was entirely incorrect.

“IMO The Aro have more in common with neo -vedantins like Papji, Gangaji, Adyashanti etc , than with Buddhism, despite the Tibetan robes and other trappings.”

I had never heard of these people before. I had to look in the Wikipedia to find out that they are Hindus. I know little about Hinduism, but what Aro teaches is mainstream Nyingma Buddhism, and so presumably it has nothing to do with “neo-vedantins.” However, Karma Gedun was (probably unintentionally) continuing a tradition here. Tibetan conservatives have used “it’s really Hinduism” as a weapon against Dzogchen for centuries.

All Nyingma lamas condemn Aro

Karma Gedun wrote that Aro is “proscribed” by “all of the seniormost Nyingma teachers.” On another occasion, he wrote:

“A list of Nyingma Dzogchen teachers who have publically distanced themselves from the Aro gTer/Flaming jewel Sanghs reads like a whose who of such teachers”

This is certainly untrue. I have found rumors of only four Nyingma teachers saying anything negative about Aro; that is not “all” or “a who’s who” of them.

With one exception, Karma Gedun had nothing new to say about these rumors. He had no contact with the lamas in question. He merely repeated the claims of other web critics. Sometimes he exaggerated the claims they originally made.

His original contribution was this:

“I have a pen and ink letter from the office of Mindrolling Rinpoche stating that “it is well known in Buddhist circles that Mr. Chogyam and Mr. Kirkpatrick are not authentic Tertons”. This was in response of one of mine concerning a claimed link to Mindrolling Rinpoche , the head of the Nyingmapa.”

Karma Gedun and I have corresponded at length after he recognized he had made a mistake about Aro. I was skeptical about this letter, and suggested that it referenced only Traktung Rinpoche, born Stuart Kirkpatrick, who is the terton of an entirely different terma lineage. Karma Gedun has confirmed this in email:

Neither my query nor the response from his office mentioned the Aro gTer. I, as you suggest , drew an over generalised conclusion about that. My mindset at that time inclined me to see the Aro and Flaming Jewel as virtually the same body.

That brings the number of Nyingma lamas alleged to have said anything negative about Aro down to three. I am currently (June 2008) trying to contact the original sources of the remaining rumors. Some reports may well be true. In any case, I will address these claims elsewhere.