Is the Aro gTer valid?

A terma is, roughly, a “revelation.” As in most Nyingma lineages, the Aro teachings are based mainly on a terma: the Aro gTér. (gTér is an unusual spelling of “terma”. The g is silent, so it is pronounced “aro ter,” rhyming with “hair.” Sometimes you also see “Aroter.”)

The person who discovers a terma is called a terton. Aro Lingma (illustrated above) was the terton of the Aro gTer.

In Tibet, wealth, power, fame, and women were often showered on tertons. So, for the clever, it was often tempting to invent some plausible-sounding religious nonsense and call it a terma. And so there was a serious problem of knowing which terma were genuine revelations, and which were well-crafted fakes.

It would be convenient if there were a good way to test terma, or a central authority that could put its stamp of approval on the real ones. Unfortunately, there isn’t. This is a problem for anyone who wishes to follow any Nyingma lineage. As an alternative, one could join a Tibetan School that isn’t based on terma. That might seem safer. However, those lineages are based on other scriptures that are also rejected by almost all Buddhists outside Tibet. So it doesn’t really help. There are no uncontroversial branches of Buddhism. There is no safety in Buddhism.

The next several pages of this site are devoted to the question “Is the Aro gTer valid?” The answer depends partly on “according to what standard?”

There are several standards according to which the answer is “obviously not.” For example, from point of view of Islam, the Aro gTer is definitely invalid. But so is the rest of Buddhism, so that is not interesting. Similarly, some Tibetans reject all terma. However, most accept at least some.

The most reasonable standard is that of the Nyingma tradition. The Aro lineage belongs to that tradition. I will explain the Nyingma theory of terma validation. Unfortunately, it turns out to be less helpful than we would like. It cannot give a definitive, yes/no answer.

Another reasonable standard is that of comparative scholarship. That perspective cannot answer the question “is the Aro gTer magically effective.” However, it can answer the question “is the Aro gTer consistent with broadly-accepted Nyingma texts.” The answer, in short, is “yes.”

By the way, it is important to separate two questions that have sometimes been run together: “Is the terma valid?” and “Is the lineage history true?” Either could be valid without the other, or both or neither might be. The Aro gTer makes almost no reference to its history. I’ll discuss the lineage history elsewhere.

Given that it is impossible to reliably authenticate termas in theory, what have Tibetans done in practice? The answer is disappointing and unhelpful.

So, finally, I ask, what should we do, as Westerners approaching lineages based on terma?

Terma overview

Terma are “revelations” in approximately the same sense as in Western religions. However, there is a specifically Nyingma theory of how they come about. This theory is quite complex—and, as with all aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, for every rule there are many exceptions. I will give only a simplified summary here. If you would like to learn more, I recommend highly Tulku Thondup Rinpoche’s Hidden Teachings of Tibet. It is clear, short, interesting, and recognized as an authoritative work on the subject.

In the Eighth Century, the Second Buddha Padmasambhava established Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet. It reached its high point during his lifetime. He recognized that it would repeatedly degenerate after his death. Buddhist teachings would be “adulterated like milk in the marketplace.” This is rather like the game of “telephone,” in which a message is whispered ear to ear: the meaning is gradually garbled by being passed along. Accordingly, he—and other great practitioners of the time, such as Yeshe Tsogyal—concealed teachings to be discovered freshly in the future. These have been revealed as thousands of termas throughout the centuries that followed. Due to their value and concealment, “terma” is often translated “treasure.”

All termas say the same things. They never conflict in essential meaning. However, they present the same material in radically different styles. Particular presentations are useful in particular times and places, due to varying social and cultural conditions. So each terma has a particular historical role and must be revealed in the right circumstances.

Padmasambhava recognized that if he concealed his treasures in any ordinary way, they might be lost or degraded. So he hid them within the enlightened minds of his disciples. These disciples are the tertons. They have been reborn repeatedly, and the enlightened nature of their minds retains the teachings. This enlightened nature is not fully accessible to their ordinary minds. At appointed times, they receive a “key” which unlocks the terma hidden within.

In some cases, called earth terma, the key is a physical object that the terton physically discovers. Typically the object is a short scroll containing some key words of the terma. These words remind the terton of the whole terma. In other cases, called mind terma, the key is non-physical. It might, for example, be a dream, vision, or a memory from a previous life.

It was commonly misunderstood in Tibet that the physical object was itself the terma, at least in the case of earth terma. Hidden Teachings of Tibet repeatedly emphasizes that this is never true. Terma are always hidden only in enlightened mind.

The discovery of terma is often accompanied by miracles, of bewildering variety.

After discovery, the terton practices the terma in secret for a period of several years. Eventually he or she teaches it to disciples, who practice and accomplish it, and propagate it to their own students.

Commonly, a terma is re-concealed and re-discovered. For example, one of the most widely-practiced termas currently is the Longchen Nyingthik. Originally this was transmitted by the Dharmakaya Buddha Kuntuzangpo to the Sambhogakaya Buddha Dorje Sempa, who transmitted it to Padmasambhava. Padmasambhava concealed the Longchen Nyingthik in the mind of Longchenpa (1308-1363), who discovered it there. However, he did not make it public at that time. Instead, he appeared to Jigme Lingpa (1730-1798) in a series of three visions, and transmitted the terma to him then.

Similarly, the Aro gTer originated with the Dharmakaya Buddha Kuntuzangmo (consort of Kuntuzangpo), who transmitted it to the Sambhogakaya Buddha Seng-ge Dong-ma, who transmitted it to Yeshe Tsogyel (consort of Padmasambhava). Yeshe Tsogyel revealed it in a pure vision to the terton Aro Lingma (1886-1923). Aro Lingma transmitted it to her son Aro Yeshe (1915-1951), who was reborn as Ngak’chang Rinpoche in 1952.

Terma validation in Nyingma theory

The discovery of terma has always been controversial. There have always been suspicions that many, most, or all termas are fake. The need for a method of validating them is recognized. An authoritative work on terma is the Third Dodrupchen Rinpoche’s Wonder Ocean. Tulku Thondup Rinpoche’s book Hidden Teachings of Tibet contains a full translation of this book, together with commentary. Below, I quote the sections on terma validation, pages 92 and 157-160.

If you are a Buddha, it is simple to decide whether a terma is valid. A terma is an explanation of the enlightened and unenlightened states. A Buddha can compare these descriptions with his or her own experience to see whether they are accurate.

If you are not a Buddha, there are two ways to evaluate a supposed terma. The first is that a god can appear in a vision and tell you the answer. Unfortunately, “nowadays, however, it is rare for someone to have the capacity” to have such visions. Also, demons can send deceptive visions, and only a Buddha can know for sure whether a vision comes from a god or demon.

Alternatively, one can “examine by means of proofs from scripture and reasoning.” But “it is difficult for no error to be made in an examination just by people who regard themselves as scholars.” To quote Padmasambhava himself, “in the future, sophists, verbally skilled, anchorites and others who are biased, inflated with prejudice, will promote themselves and dispute my treasures.”

both of these methods are of little help

Tulku Thondup Rinpoche concludes: “both of these methods are of little help.”

In short, if you are not a Buddha, there is no reliable way, according to Nyingma theory, to determine whether a terma is valid. To say “I know for sure that terma X is valid” (or invalid) is to say “I am a fully-enlightened Buddha.”

This is disappointing. Certainty is unavailable. Later, I will suggest ways we can learn to live with uncertainty about terma.

Wonder Ocean mentions one method by which a terma should definitely never be evaluated. “One cannot judge tertons as inauthentic because of their imperfect and mercurial character, even to the slightest extent. . . . Among the false tertons there are many who are harmonious with people, who seem to have disciplined conduct, and are fortunate and charismatic. At the same time, among the authentic tertons there are many who are loose in speech and behavior and who, without the least hesitation, get involved in many activities that people will condemn.”

The duck test

Only one of the three traditional ways to evaluate termas seems to have any practical value. That is to rationally compare it with other Buddhist doctrines and practices to see if it is consistent with them. This is called “authentication by scholarship” in the Tibetan tradition.

This method is traditionally considered unreliable. The problem is that termas describe enlightened non-conceptual mind. No matter how learned you are, you cannot reliably evaluate enlightened non-conceptual mind using ordinary conceptual mind.

Worse, famous scholars often come to different conclusions. In fact, the main sport of Tibetan intellectuals was denouncing the scriptures of other Tibetan sects as inauthentic. Dudjom Rinpoche, the greatest Nyingma scholar of the last century, warned that

If all the doctrines refuted by learned and accomplished Tibetans were false, no authentic doctrines would be found . . . As long as we have not acquired the pure eye of the doctrine, whereby the truth about doctrines and individuals is seen, it is an unbearably terrible deed to analyze things through exaggeration and depreciation, saying this is perverse, this is impure, and that artificial.

Still, because the other two traditional methods of evaluating terma seem entirely impractical, scholarship is the best tool we have. It seems better than nothing. Even if it is unreliable in theory, it gives me confidence in practice.

Apparently a false terma

There is a remarkable thing called the 7:7:7:7 Telektonon Revelation: Radial Matrix-Plasma Universe Model Nying-Thig Terma of Mayan Galactic Time. This is unlike anything else I have ever seen. I have no idea what it is. “Nying-thig” is a branch of Dzogchen. However, nothing in the Telektonon seems to have anything to do with the Dzogchen I have read about or been taught. The Telektonon has a scattering of technical terms from Dzogchen, but used in ways that make no sense to me. It also uses technical terms from several other esoteric religions.

it might be a demon duck of doom

Altogether, the Telektonon does not walk like a duck, and does not quack like a duck. I can’t be sure it is not a duck. It might be a Demon Duck of Doom. Padmasambhava might appear in person and tell me “Yeah, I know it is weird. But that’s because it is by far the most direct and powerful of all my teachings. Practice the Telektonon for two weeks and you’ll become a Buddha. I guarantee it, or your money back.” I would sure follow that advice. Until then, I figure that, whatever the Telektonon is, it is not an authentic Nyingma terma.

The duck test

So what about the Aro gTer? With terma, not ducks, we’d like to know:

• Does it include the sorts of things that other termas include?
• Is what it says about those things consistent with widely-accepted Nyingma texts?

Since one of the functions of a terma is innovation, each should be somewhat different from others. However, we should expect this to be modest:

• Are the innovative features of the terma consistent with general Nyingma principles? Are they similar in character to other Nyingma doctrines and practices?

I have limited qualifications to answer these questions. I am not a trained Tibetan scholar. However, I have read more than a hundred books on Tibetan Buddhism, concentrating on Dzogchen and Nyingma doctrine. Based on that, I am confident that the answers to all these questions is “yes.” It is possible that I am wrong. But if I am wrong, it must be about a subtle detail.

I know enough to say that the Aro gTer is not obviously not an authentic Nyingma terma. I know enough to say that the Telektonon is pretty obviously not an authentic Nyingma terma.

There are people who say the Aro gTer is obviously not a Nyingma terma. None of them seem to know much at all about its content, so I don’t know how they can have come to that conclusion. Most critics also appear to have large gaps in their knowledge of basic Vajrayana (although one or two do have thorough understanding of Nyingma doctrine).

What does the Aro gTer include?

There are no standards for what a terma must include. A terma can cover any Buddhist subject, or many subjects. (The only minimum requirement is that to count as a “great terton,” one’s terma must include material on Dzogchen, Padmasambhava, and Chenrezik. Most tertons apparently do not meet that standard. The Aro gTer does include all those, so maybe the Aro terton was “great.” I don’t actually know how or why that would matter.)

Most of what is taught in Aro could be called “the usual stuff.” A standard Nyingma reference work, like Dudjom Rinpoche’s Fundamentals of the Nyingma School, could almost work as an Aro textbook. (That book’s style is elegant but hard for beginners to follow, which is why I say “almost.”)

So I won’t go into the usual stuff. Instead, I’ll describe what is unusual.

The Aro gTer mainly concerns Dzogchen. It has some material from Anuyoga and almost nothing from Mahayoga. This is unusual in recent centuries. Most tertons have concentrated on Mahayoga. However, this doesn’t seem to pose a problem. Minor termas can be on any topic, and Dzogchen-only revelations were common earlier in Tibetan history.

The Aro gTér contains material from all three Dé (branches) of Dzogchen. This is unusual but not unprecedented. The other well-known instance is the Désum (“three Dé”) terma of Chokgyür Lingpa.

Unlike the Telektonon, the Aro Dzogchen teachings cover the usual topics: rigpa and the nature of mind; the self-liberation of phenomena; the Three Statements of Garab Dorje; the three Dé; the four naljors and four ting-ngé-dzin of Semdé; trekchöd and tögal; the four Da; the twenty-one Sem-dzin; dark retreat; and so on.

The Aro gTer Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini covers the main topics of Sutrayana (basic Buddhism) from point of view of Dzogchen: the Four Noble Truths, the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind to Practice, the Five Precepts, the nature of Refuge, Bodhicitta, and so forth. Dzogchen interpretations of Sutric topics are standard in the Nyingma School. The Owl-Headed Sutra is unusually comprehensive; but that does not seem a problem.

Is Aro’s treatment of the usual stuff consistent with Nyingma doctrine?

Yes.

No one has said it isn’t, so I won’t say more about this.

Are its innovative additions plausible?

There is nothing in the Aro gTer that seems obviously out of place. The Telektonon discusses the Mayan calendar. This seems peculiar, since that is part of a Central American Indian religion. There’s nothing like that in the Aro gTer.

The Aro terma’s main innovation is a shift in emphasis from Mahayoga to Dzogchen. That would tend to reverse the general trend of recent centuries. I don’t see that it raises a question of authenticity.

In terms of doctrine, there is little new in the Aro gTér. I have discussed its nine bardos elsewhere. The Owl-Headed material might be seen as innovative, but it is all straight-forward applications of Dzogchen logic to Sutric subjects. Similarly, the Nyida Mélong Gyüd teachings on vajra romance are an elaboration of a standard Tantric topic in Dzogchen terms. All these cases seem plausible as small additions that are consistent with existing Nyingma teachings in topic and logic.

In terms of practice, the main innovation is the Aro sKu-mNyé. There are systems of sKu-mNyé in many Tibetan lineages. I gather that they are all very different, but I don’t know any of them. I’m not competent to evaluate whether the Aro one is a plausible innovation as a practice. Its conceptual explanation seems consistent with what I have read of Dzogchen long-dé in non-Aro texts.

Test results

The Aro gTér walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck. Since scholarship is unreliable, it might not be a duck.

It might be a fat platypus that has learned to use a hunter’s duck call. It might be a sophisticated robot in a duck suit. It might be an evil shape-changing alien from Planet X.

Most likely, it is a duck.

Prophecy and terma

In aggressive gossip about the Aro gTér, it was sometimes said that all termas must have been prophesied in writing by Padmasambhava, and that since there was no prophecy of Aro it must be fake. This is a myth. I have never read the claim that all termas must be prophesied anywhere other than in attacks on Aro.

Many termas are prophesied, but it is not a requirement. It is not mentioned as a criterion for evaluating terma in the standard book on the subject, Wonder Ocean, discussed on the previous page. Wonder Ocean explains how a terton should proceed when a prophecy is unavailable.

The nature of Tibetan prophecy can be misunderstood by analogy to Biblical prophecy. From a Buddhist point of view, the future can never be certain, due to the empty nature of all things. The idea that the future is fully determined is a form of eternalism, the denial of emptiness—one of the four non-Buddhist “philosophical extremes.”

A Lama can make a prophecy based on superior insight into the interrelatedness of phenomena, and the way events tend to evolve. But the fulfillment of this prophecy always depends on circumstances. (This is discussed in Wonder Ocean, pages 68 and 154-155, and in Dudjom Rinpoche’s encyclopedic The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism, pages 934-935.) If things do not go as expected, the prophecy will not come to pass.

Tibetan prophecy also always has the force of command. Prophecy is not only prediction—this will happen—but instruction: make this happen! Padmasambhava left lists of termas that ought to be discovered, by particular tertons, with notes on how. In many cases, the terton was unable to carry out the prophecy, due to various practical obstacles.

The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism contains the biographies of many tertons. Dudjom Rinpoche introduces the list by noting that “Included . . . are those treasure-finders who have been roughly prophesied . . . in the Injunctions of Padma[sambhava] . . . as well as those who have appeared without being clearly referred to therein, but are none the less universally renowned as valid.” “Roughly prophesied” means that the terton and terma do not completely fit the description, due to unfortunate circumstances that Padmasambhava did not foresee. There can be unexpected positive developments too. Sometimes a terton may discover terma that Padmasambhava originally intended for someone else.

The prophecies of termas and tertons are often extremely vague. For example, the prophecy of the Longchen Nyingthik, perhaps the most widely-practiced Dzogchen terma nowadays, is:

In Chongye my emanation will come to serve the world.
Though no one will know who it is,
He will teach in a forthright manner.
At Chingwardo, or to the south of the Red Mausoleum,
He may found a monastery at the Lhabap Stupa.

If you had doubts about this terma, you might wish that Padmasambhava had been a little more precise. On the other hand, his intention was not to put his “VALID” stamp on someone. His intention was to say roughly what ought to happen.

The vagueness of prophecies mean that they need to be interpreted. This is an uncertain business. Dudjom Rinpoche observes (page 934) that:

prophecies must be ascertained by those who know their intentional basis and reason, and who will not misrepresent them. Otherwise, one must not one-sidedly grasp as true the meaning of a prophecy, having taken only the words at face value, without distinguishing provisional from definitive meaning. This is because even if one knows those things, a prophecy about future good or evil times and so forth may be transformed owing to circumstantial causes, conditions, and coincidences, so that it seems the prophecy is not precisely fulfilled. As the meanings of prophecies have rarely been completely fulfilled, . . . it seems to be extremely difficult for perfectly auspicious circumstances to occur.

The great terton Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo Rinpoche (1820-1892) had a particularly low opinion of prophecy. He growled that “Too much prattle about them is an ingress for demons!”

Prophecy and Aro

Aro Lingma’s discovery of the Aro gTér was prophesied by her mother, Jomo Pema ’ö-Zér. I do not know whether there were any other, earlier prophecies—for example by Yeshe Tsogyel. It may be that one was known when the terma was discovered in Tibet a century ago. Given the historical uncertainties, it would not be surprising if it were lost.

There was a rumor at one point that there is a prophecy somewhere in the Dudjom Tersar that denounces the Aro gTer as a false terma. This rumor was at the level of “I heard that someone said they heard that . . . ” So it is difficult to say much more about it. It seems unlikely that the supposed text will actually be produced.

It would certainly be interesting if it were. My guess is that if it exists, it is so vague that only by heroic feats of interpretation can it be seen to refer to the Aro gTér. But what would we do if it turned out that, somewhere in the standard edition of the Dudjom Tersar, there is an unambiguous statement like “in the future dark age, there shall in the West arise a demonic sorcerer named Chögyam, who shall teach perverted doctrines of nine bardos and vajra romance from the pernicious and false Aro gTer, and shall lead legions of frenzied followers into Vajra Hell”? A fascinating thought experiment.

I know what I would do. What would you do? Leave a comment below.

Where are the Tibetan texts?

The earliest Buddhist scriptures were written in an Indian language called Pali.^* Two thousand years ago, a new approach to Buddhism appeared, Mahayana, whose scriptures were written in another Indian language, Sanskrit. There was—and remains—a heated debate about whether the Mahayana scriptures are valid. A large fraction of modern Buddhists do not accept the Sanskrit scriptures, and regard the doctrines they contain as heretical fakes.

One thousand years ago, new scriptures appeared in Tibet in the form of terma. These were written in the Tibetan language, rather than Sanskrit or Pali. There was—and remains—a heated debate about whether these Tibetan scriptures are valid. Some Tibetans do not accept Tibetan-language scriptures, and regard the doctrines they contain as heretical fakes. Only Sanskrit will do.

Get ready for round three . . .

“Where are the Tibetan texts of the Aro gTér?” some skeptics demand. The implication is that anything not written in Tibetan is a heretical fake.

This is a bit rude; terma texts are often kept secret. However, I can reveal all of them here immediately:

There aren’t any.

I expect there were Tibetan-language texts in the time of Aro Lingma, the Aro terton. However, if so, they have been lost.

This is not a problem.

The specific words in which Aro Lingma conveyed her terma are lost. The meaning of her words has been recovered by Ngak’chang Rinpoche from visions, dreams, and past-life memories. He conveys the same meaning in English.

The Tibetan language has no special status. As I mentioned, some Tibetans actually regard any scripture written in Tibetan as fake. They think Sanskrit has a special status; but this is not the view of the Nyingma tradition to which Aro belongs. In the words of Dudjom Rinpoche, Head of the Nyingma tradition, “. . . jealous persons created discord by, for example, declaring that certain of the [Nyingma] tantras had been composed in Tibet because they did not exist in India [so Sanskrit versions were unknown]. However, the non-existence of those tantras in India did not prove them to be unauthentic. Even the tantras which did exist in India did not originate there: they were brought forth by great accomplished masters from the domains of the gods . . .” The great scholar Sakya Chokden observed that “with Vajrasattva’s consent, the compilers of [the ancient scriptures] were themselves permitted to teach them in the language of each different country.”

Although Tibetan is not a sacred language, it does have a practical advantage. When Vajrayana was brought to Tibet in the Eighth Century, hundreds of new Tibetan words were invented to express Buddhist ideas. These translate Sanskrit words for concepts that previously had no words in Tibetan. While we wait for the same to happen in English, the Aro Lamas use Tibetan words as needed.

^*What I wrote about Pali was apparently not exactly accurate. See the helpful reader comment below.

Can white people have authentic visions?

There is a controversy about whether white people can sing the blues. Some say that all white blues are inauthentic. Others reply that no one could tell Jo Ann Kelly was white by listening to her sing. The first group would say her blues were inauthentic anyway. It doesn’t matter how they sound; if you are white, it’s not real blues. It’s just a rip-off. It’s a fake imitation.

From what it says, the Aro gTer sounds just like a Nyingma terma. But is it authentic? And is it a Tibetan terma?

According to its visionary history, the Aro gTer originated with Kuntuzangmo, who gave it to Seng-ge Dong-ma, who gave it to Yeshé Tsogyel, who gave it to Aro Lingma, who gave it to Ngak’chang Rinpoche. As a matter of objective truth, it is likely that only the last of those people existed.

This is the usual pattern for termas. They originate with gods, pass through the hands of mythical people, and are finally delivered in visions to the living lama who writes them down.

So there is nothing odd there. What is unusual is that Ngak’chang Rinpoche is a white guy. So, the Aro gTer appears to me to be an authentic Nyingma terma, but maybe not a Tibetan terma.

Most termas have been delivered to Tibetans, but not all. There are Bhutanese termas. The Bhutanese are quick to tell you they are not Tibetans. There is at least one Mongolian terma system. Mongolians are completely different from Tibetans ethnically, linguistically, and culturally. But to Western eyes, they look pretty similar.

white people are too ordinary

I suspect that many students believe white people can’t have authentic religious visions, and can’t receive terma. White people are just too . . . ordinary for that. Maybe I am wrong; I have never heard anyone say this explicitly. Certainly, there seems to be nothing in Tibetan Buddhist doctrine that supports that kind of racism.

Western students of Tibetan Buddhism often seem to me to accept anything that comes from Tibet as “authentic.” This is convenient, but it is not the Tibetan view. In fact, the majority Tibetan view is that anything that originates in Tibet is inauthentic! For most Tibetans, only scriptures from India are valid. And there is violent disagreement among Tibetans about which texts are authentic. Uncritically accepting everything from Tibet makes no sense in Tibetan terms.

If the Aro gTer were taught by a Tibetan guy, would anyone in the West question it?

Terma validation in Tibetan practice

Termas (Tibetan Buddhist revelations) may be authentic, or fake. According to theory, there is no good way to tell which is which (unless you are a Buddha). Two methods are available: to have a vision, or to apply scholarship. However, both are so unreliable that they “are of little help.”

This is a practical problem for anyone in the Nyingma tradition, which is based mainly on termas. How did Tibetans deal with this in practice?

Let me start with a quote from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche’s wonderful memoir, Blazing Splendor, concerning the terton Chokgyur Lingpa.

[The important Lama] Situ didn't believe in just any terton [revealer of termas] who happened to pass by. Indeed, Situ had been decidedly unimpressed by another recently visiting terton, about whom he had remarked, “Well, well! That guy claims to be a treasure [terma] revealer, but his posturing seems to me merely an excuse to keep a woman. All he really succeeds in doing is defaming the Lotus-Born master.” But Situ had some confidence in Chokgyur Lingpa, and so was prepared to meet him. Nevertheless, he called for Lama Ngaktrin, saying to him, “I hear that you have clear dreams due to your practice of Naropa's Six Doctrines. This Terton claims to be an emissary of Padmasambhava and has declared himself a major revealer of treasures. But I don't trust just anyone who claims to be a terton. Since our monastery has arranged to welcome him as a dignitary tomorrow, you should watch your dreams tonight for signs that might verify his claims. Report back to me any experiences or visions you have.” Ngaktrin was quite a remarkable practitioner and had accomplished much in his retreat. During his dreams that night, he received a prophecy confirming that Chokgyur Lingpa was indeed an authentic terton. Upon hearing this dream, Situ was delighted and amused. “Ha ha! Ha ha!” he joked, “Chokgyur Lingpa must be a true terton—assuming of course that we can trust your dreams.”

In Tibet around 1900 there were huge numbers of supposed tertons. One had to choose which to take seriously. This passage describes Situ applying one official method, that of visions. He recognized that it was not necessarily reliable. Whose visions count as evidence? Based on his knowledge of Lama Ngaktrin, he had partial confidence in Ngaktrin’s dreams. Others might have disagreed.

There are also stories of tertons being quizzed on doctrine to ensure that their views were orthodox. This is an application of the second official (but officially unreliable) method.

The most successful tertons were great showmen. Their reputation was based largely on the miracles they performed while revealing buried (“earth”) terma. According to Blazing Splendor,

It had to be this way, because Tibetans . . . were known to be extremely skeptical. They didn't blindly believe everyone who claimed to be a terton . . . it was no simple feat to convince people that Chokgyur Lingpa was in fact an emissary of Padmasambhava. [He did so by miraculous uncoverings.]

Although this was a major way of authenticating terma in practice, it has no value in theory. The Tibetan view is that enlightened Lamas can perform miracles—but so can unenlightened, evil sorcerers. A powerful black magician might might duplicate the magical appearances that accompanied an earth terma unveiling. (And the possibility of sleight of hand and other mundane trickery was understood.) Even so, although ordinary Tibetans were skeptical about religious poseurs, they were eager when it came to the fancier class of miracles. Those were rarely seen, and outstanding entertainment.

In practice, there was little agreement about which termas were authentic. The conservative position was that they were all better avoided. Even if some were valid, who could know which?

Still, many people recognized that some termas were of great value. Termas addressed current conditions and concerns in ways the ancient Indian scriptures could not. But which to accept?

Opinions about particular termas evolved over decades and centuries. Many—perhaps most—termas that are widely accepted now were initially met with general hostility and skepticism. For example, the usual view in 1100 was that Aro Yeshé Jungné had personally invented Dzogchen. It was considered some sort of Zen/Shaivite fake, because it has no Sanskrit texts, and is quite different in principles from accepted Indian Tantra. Dzogchen is now accepted by most (but not all) Tibetan Lamas.

It seems that the situation was rather like that in the Western avant garde art world. It is extremely difficult to know which innovative contemporary painters are any good. Most painters who are now considered the greatest were initially scorned as producers of perverse, crude, incomprehensible, ugly rubbish.

The field of art criticism tries to explain why some art is good and some is bad. Much of this is interesting and can be helpful in learning to appreciate art. However, it does not produce agreement among experts, and seems not to offer much help in predicting which new artists will succeed. This is analogous to the “scholarship” method of terma validation.

In practice, success for a painter, rock group, or terton depends heavily on assembling supporters. Art and music critics have enormous power to sway mass opinion. Powerful Lamas had the same function in Tibet. According to Blazing Splendor,

if one of the Karmapas shows respect for a terton, then the Karmapa’s influence and blessings will make everyone accept the terton and his teachings without doubt or dispute . . . otherwise, the terton is at risk of being called crazy or a charlatan.

Money is power. For a painter, wealthy patrons provide not only a living, but also credibility. Signing with a major record label, and the support of music company executives, is critical for a band. It is also necessary to sell prints, records, or concert tickets. Similarly, Tibetan histories frequently speak admiringly of the power of successful tertons to raise vast quantities of money in donations from both rich patrons and the masses of poor peasants.

It is helpful for artists—and tertons—to be innovative enough to be interesting, but not so innovative as to be alienating. It helps to be charismatic, articulate, and intimidating.

Opinions of art, like terma, shift over time. A poet or painter can repeatedly alternate between famous and forgotten over centuries.

The art establishment considered Pre-Raphaelite paintings scandalous, bizarre, blasphemous and ugly when they first appeared around 1850. By the end of that century, they were widely admired and mainstream. (The Lady of Shalott, at the top of this page, is one of the best-known Pre-Raphaelite works.) But then for most of the 20^th century, the art world regarded the Pre-Raphaelites as kitsch. Kitsch is “fake art” that panders to vulgar taste by conventional prettiness and suppression of negativity.

I have always loved the Pre-Raphaelites, and I do not believe they are kitsch. One reason is that I am violently allergic to kitsch in general. I greatly admire the nightmarish paintings of Francis Bacon. (One of his “screaming popes” appears above.) He is the opposite of kitsch. My positive opinion of Bacon is shared by most art critics—although there are probably few who like him as much as I do. The paintings of Thomas Kinkade, on the other hand, I loathe as authentic kitsch—despite their superficial similarity to the Pre-Raphaelites. This is the opinion also of most art critics. However, he is enormously popular.

The Pre-Raphaelites were rehabilitated late in the 20^th century. They were accepted as high art again. How will they be viewed in a hundred years? I have no idea. I also have no idea concerning Bacon and Kinkade. It would not surprise me if future art critics overwhelmingly consider Bacon the vilest trash produced by a nihilistic and depraved century—and regard Kinkade as the great classical master who redeemed it. This might depend in part on trends in religious politics. Kinkade appeals primarily to evangelical Christians. Bacon, I presume, does not.

Opinions about art, and terma, are not altogether arbitrary. It certainly helps for a painting, or terma, to communicate a great and novel truth. It helps for the artist, or terton, to possess genius, insight, talent, and technical skill. I would not deny that Kinkade has all those. I only believe that he is a minion of Satan, because what he communicates is profoundly false. Doubtless Kinkade’s admirers think the same of Bacon.

In practice, termas are validated by history and by political power. If they survive for a century or two, and have a decent number of adherents, they come to be viewed as authentic by many Tibetans.

What does “valid terma” mean?

Nyingma Lamas agree that some termas (revelations) are true, valid, authentic, or legitimate. Other supposed termas are false, invalid, inauthentic, illegitimate, fake, forged, or bogus.

But what do these words mean? Why should we care about this? What is it that is good about a valid terma and bad about an invalid one?

The answer is not obvious. For example, termas are called “true” or “false,” but this has nothing to do with ordinary true and false statements. Termas are concerned with visionary truth, not ordinary or objective truth. No terma is either true or false in the ordinary sense.

All Buddhist doctrines can be understood at many levels. Often, these levels correspond to the major yanas: Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen. These are sometimes called the “outer,” “inner,” and “secret” interpretations. They also may correspond to the three “kayas” or modes of existence. Those are nirmanakaya or physical existence; sambhogakaya or visionary existence; and dharmakaya or enlightened potential existence.

Each of these views is more accurate than the previous one. The Dzogchen view is that anything that is the product of enlightened mind is terma. This matters because only products of enlightened mind are likely to be effective as tools for realizing enlightenment ourselves.

The outer meaning of terma

The “outer” interpretation of terma is that Padmasambhava and Yeshe Tsogyel wrote sacred texts on bits of paper 1250 years ago. They hid these under rocks. Tertons dig up the pieces of paper and read the texts. This is an understanding in terms of nirmanakaya—physical reality. According to this view, termas are validated by physical evidence.

There is a common Tibetan view that any Buddhist text that came from India must be valid. Any scripture that originated in Tibet is automatically inauthentic. According to the outer understanding, the importance of terma is that Padmasambhava brought all the terma texts with him from India. Therefore they are valid.

There are several good reasons to reject the “outer” meaning of terma:

• It is explicitly rejected by the authoritative Nyingma books on the subject. Tulku Thondup’s Hidden Teachings of Tibet is one. He writes that this outer meaning is a useful approximation for “common people,” but actually mistaken.

• The idea that everything Indian is valid, and nothing Tibetan is, is silly. It is just a Tibetan cultural neurosis. Tibetans are not spiritually inferior to Indians. (Similarly, the Western idea that everything Tibetan is valid, and nothing Western is, is also silly.)

• Western historical scholarship shows that Padmasambhava and Yeshe Tsogyal almost certainly did not physically write most termas.

The inner meaning of terma

The inner interpretation is that, by magical power, Padmasambhava hid termas in the minds of his disciples. These disciples are reborn as tertons. The enlightened nature of their minds retains the teachings. The physical objects that tertons uncover are not themselves the termas. These objects are only “keys” to remind tertons of teachings they received in earlier lives. The physical objects are hidden miraculously and not merely buried in an ordinary way. They are actually pulled from non-physical realms, rather than rocks.

This is the view of Tantra. It describes the visionary, magical reality of the sambhogakaya, rather than ordinary reality. Termas are validated by miracles because both arise from the sambhogakaya.

According to this understanding, true termas are valid because they come from the realm of the gods. They were written by sambhogakaya deities. False termas are those written by humans. Humans are not capable of writing authentic scripture.

This view is accurate. But it is also metaphorical. As with all of Tantra, it is complicated, colorful, and exciting.

The secret meaning of terma

The secret interpretation is that Padmasambhava is nothing other than the enlightened mind of the terton, whose primorial understanding is awoken by all phenomena. Enlightened mind is ultimately not personal. The minds of the sambhogakaya deities, of Padmasambhava, and of the terton are not separate. All enlightened mind arises from the dharmakaya—undifferentiated enlightened potential. Everything that arises from the dharmakaya is terma. According to this view, all Dharma is terma, regardless of whether it was written in India, Tibet, or America.

This is the view of Dzogchen. As with all of Dzogchen, it is simple, clear, and vast. Because of its vastness, it may be difficult to understand. (The Tibetan word sang, “secret,” is better translated “non-obvious” in the outer/inner/secret hierarchy. No one intends this meaning to be hidden. It is just hard to get your head around.) The inner meaning is given as a helpful metaphor, that is more complex but less mind-stopping.

Andreas Doctor’s Tibetan Treasure Literature describes the history of this view. It was first presented by Guru Chöwang (1212-1270), one of the earliest and most important tertons. Since then it has been the view of numerous Dzogchen masters, such as Ratna Lingpa (1403-1478). It was the view of Kyabjé Dudjom Rinpoche, perhaps the greatest Dzogchen teacher of the 20th Century, in his The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism (pp. 747-748 concerning pure vision terma and treasures of intention).

I have seen the words “outer” and “inner” used in terma theory only by Tulku Thondup. His book concentrates on the inner meaning. He spends less time on the secret meaning, and he does not use the word “secret.” However, it seems reasonable to use it due to the common association of outer, inner, and secret with Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen.

Why does terma validity matter?

According to the outer view, physical evidence validates terma. According to the inner view, visionary evidence validates terma. According to the secret view, nothing external can validate terma. That is because the dharmakaya is empty. According to the outer and inner views, the history of a terma is critical to its authenticity. According to the secret view, history is irrelevant. There is no time in the dharmakaya.

According to the inner view, termas are magically effective on account of Tantric transmission through Padmasambhava to the terton. This involves three special kinds of transmission that tertons receive, in addition to usual kinds.

According to the Dzogchen view, the dharmakaya is simply the empty creative nature of the terton’s mind. The sambhogakaya is simply the brilliant communicative energy of the terton’s mind.

So, a valid terma is one that comes from enlightened mind; an invalid terma is one that comes from ordinary mind.

The reason this matters is that a terma is a vehicle that takes us from ordinary mind to enlightened mind. A valid terma explains the nature of ordinary mind and enlightened mind, and the path from one to the other. A terma must also be innovative. That is one of the essential functions of termas. By imitation, it is possible that an unenlightened person could produce an accurate description of the way to enlightenment. It is extremely unlikely that an unenlightened person could produce a guide that was both innovative and accurate.

This does not help answer the question “how do we know whether a purported terma is valid.” But at least it explains what the question is.

And, it explains why only a Buddha (a person with enlightened mind) can give a reliable answer.

More on the “secret” meaning of terma

Tulku Thondup writes:

From the philosophical point of view, in the ultimate nature, or absolute truth, there is no difference between teacher and disciple, or between the effects of teaching and listening . . . The Dharma appears in the manner that accords with the perceptions of beings and with their karmic causation and circumstantial conditions. Dharma . . . comes from realized or ordinary beings, trees, water, sky, mountains, earth, rocks, or mind, according to the karma and conditions of the receiver. For a highly realized person all phenomena can be a source of Dharma, for many people only limited sources, and for some only the scriptures and the aural instructions. And for many nothing is a source of Dharma. (pp. 57-58)

There is no difference between teacher and disciple. This is the essence of “mind transmission” in Dzogchen. The enlightened mind of the teacher is not separate from the enlightened mind of the student. Transmission occurs when this non-separateness becomes obvious. “Transmission” may be misunderstood to be a ritual, which might be exciting or boring. Actually, the ritual only creates conditions in which non-separateness is more likely to be recognized.

Enlightened mind is non-personal. The gods (dharmakaya and sambhogakaya) are not separate from Padmasambhava. Padmasambhava is not separate from the terton—because the terton recognizes his or her own enlightened mind. When we practice yidam, we attempt to recognize the non-separateness of our minds from the yidam. When we practice Lama’i Naljor (Guru Yoga), we attempt to recognize the non-separateness of our minds from the Lama. Our Lama, the terton of our lineage, Padmasambhava (or Yeshe Tsogyal), and the gods—all have the same nature.

The Dharma appears in the manner that accords with the perceptions of beings. The Nyingma tradition regards Padmasambhava and Yeshe Tsogyel as the origin of Vajrayana. For that reason, anything we recognize as the origin of Vajrayana, we call Padmasambhava or Yeshe Tsogyel. When a Lama is the source of Vajrayana—she is Yeshe Tsogyel. When a mountain is the source of Vajrayana—that is Padmasambhava. When the sun glinting on river ripples is the source of Vajrayana—that is Yeshe Tsogyel. When the roar of a motorcycle engine is the source of Vajrayana—that is Padmasambhava.

The dakinis’ warm breath

“Why practice a dubious new terma when you can choose a safe, generally-accepted one?”

A good question. A terma is a Tibetan Buddhist “revelation.” In all religions, new revelations are suspicious. Maybe they are just some nonsense someone made up. Why not stick to the ancient, tried-and-true scriptures?

In the Nyingma tradition, there is an ancient, tried-and-true answer: new termas are inherently better. They are better for three reasons:

• New termas are less likely to have been distorted by human error.
• New termas spring from a living source of inspiration.
• New termas address current social conditions; old ones address obsolete conditions.

Straight outta tha dharmakaya

The ancient scriptures originated more than a thousand years ago in India. They have been passed from teacher to student over and over. That is called the “long lineage of transmission.” Although the ancient scriptures are considered very holy, few are actually read or practiced by the Nyingma.

The risk in a long lineage is that, at any link in the chain, errors may creep in. A teacher may incompetent; a student may misunderstand. Even if there is only a tiny misunderstanding at each link, after centuries the original meaning may be lost.

Termas have a “short lineage of transmission.” According to the Dzogchen theory of terma, they come to the terton (revealer) straight outta tha dharmakaya. According to the tantric theory of terma, they came from the gods to Padmasambhava and Yeshé Tsogyal. They gave them for safekeeping to dakinis (minor goddesses). At the appointed time, the dakinis deliver them to a terton.

Either way, when a terma is taught by the terton him or herself, there is no possibility of error.

fresh and miraculous

A new terma is said to be “still warm with the breath of the dakinis.” In other words, it is fresh and miraculous. A living terton is a continuing source of new inspiration and new teachings. Along with the dakinis, a terton breathes new life into the unchanging essence of Buddhism.

A terton can pass some of the new inspiration and insight to his or her students; and they may pass some to their students. But it often does not take very many years before vital new teachings turn into musty old texts—venerated in theory and practiced by rote.

A possible contemporary example

In the 1990s, I practiced Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s Shambhala Training terma. About fifteen years after his death, his successor made changes to the programs based on the terma. Some Shambhala practitioners, including some senior teachers, regard these changes as distortions. The Wikipedia describes this as “controversial.” I don’t have an opinion about this, having moved on from the Shambhala organization before the changes were made. However, it shows how, just a few years after a terton’s death, changes can be made in his teachings—for better or worse.

A time for all things

According to Nyingma theory, each terma must be revealed at its proper time. That is because a main function of termas is to address specific historical circumstances. Each terma contains innovations that are relevant to particular social conditions.

For this reason, older termas may be less relevant for contemporary Buddhists. This is particularly true for Western Buddhists, who live in a very different social and political world than the Tibetan feudal theocracy.

During the past few hundred years, Dzogchen has been under intense political pressure. It is regarded as illegitimate and dangerous by Tibetan religious conservatives. In this environment, it was usually best to present Dzogchen as though it were anuttara tantra. Tantra is less controversial. Disguising Dzogchen as tantra was socially necessary—but arguably it obscured the essence of Dzogchen.

Dzogchen
straight-up

The Shambhala terma might be described as “Dzogchen straight-up,” without the lower yanas. That is not how Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche described it, but I think it’s reasonably accurate. I do not think he could have taught Shambhala Training in Tibet. It would have been politically impossible, because he described it as non-Buddhist.

The Aro perspective is that Dzogchen is particularly relevant to contemporary Western social conditions. The complex style of tantra common in Tibet in recent centuries is really only feasible for full-time practitioners: primarily monks. Dzogchen is simple and practical for people with jobs and families.

Western guarantees of religious freedom mean that we can ignore Tibetan political imperatives. The Aro gTer presents Dzogchen as Dzogchen, not as tantra. “As Dzogchen” means “as simple, non-conceptual methods for instantaneous self-liberation.” I think that makes Aro particularly appropriate for our time.

Asking the wrong question

According to Nyingma theory, there is no reliable way to determine which termas are valid. As a result, Tibetans have been quarrelling about termas’ validity for a thousand years. The arguments, often vicious, convince no one. They go around in circles, because they have nothing to new to say. The dispute has rarely gone beyond “You faked it yourself!” “No, I got it from a Buddha!” “Did not!” “Did too!” “You are possessed by a demon!” “No, you are!” This level of argument should be left on the children’s playground.

On this page and the next, I suggest a way out of this deadlock. What I have to say is not traditional. However, I think you may find it sensible.

We need to go back and ask: “Why did we want to know which termas were valid in the first place?”

In Tibet, only a tiny religious elite actually practiced any termas. A main religious activity of lay people was to donate money to holy men. That is supposed to produce merit, resulting in better future lives. For most Tibetans, a key practical question is: which are the holiest men? Giving money to an authentic tertön (revealer of termas) would be the most effective use of funds. Giving money to a false tertön might be worse than useless. As a result, questions of terma validation are intimately tied up with money and power in Tibetan culture. These considerations are irrelevant to most Westerners.

For those who actually practice, the question is “which termas work?” For this, the Tibetan debate is framed wrong. It starts from the assumption that a terma is either true, or false. Apparently, if it is true, practicing it is a sure, quick way to enlightenment. If it is false, practicing it is a sure, quick way to hell. This extreme polarization is unhelpful and silly. It leads to scriptures that are full of advertising hype. They get titles like The Innermost Utterly Unsurpassable Ultra-Double-Top-Secret Essence of Life, The Universe, And Everything. It also leads to the demonization and political persecution of religious competitors.

Termas are never either true, or false. Essentially none of Buddhism is. Buddhism is concerned with methods, not truths. Termas are not factual statements that can be objectively tested. They are practices that can only be evaluated experientially, to see what happens.

In the words of Andreas Doctor, a Western expert on termas:

Recognizing that the final authenticating measure for Treasure [terma] revelation lies beyond what can be objectively verified, it appears a less rewarding exercise to perpetuate a debate of the Treasure along a simplified framework of true or false. Instead, looking beyond the traditional saint-charlatan paradigm may allow for other, more rewarding perspectives . . . (The Tibetan Treasure Literature, p. 50.)

On the next page, I suggest that the right question to ask is “which termas, or other practices, will be most useful for me?” The answer may be different for each of us.