Letter to Daniel Gustav Anderson

[I sent this email to Daniel Gustav Anderson on May 26^th, 2008. See “Turnstiles and urban legends” for more explanation.]

Hi,

I have read with interest your recent post on the Aro gTer at For The Turnstiles.

I wanted to draw your attention to some inaccuracies in the details. I imagine that as a scholar you will wish to correct these.

The name of the Aro terton was Aro Lingma, not Aro Lingpa. In Tibetan, -pa is a male suffix and -ma is female.

Ngakpa Chogyam is supposedly the reincarnation of her son, not of Aro Lingma.

As you noted, there is no evidence for the historical existence of Aro Lingma. However, the same thing is true for numerous other important figures in Tibetan history. For example most terma (indigenous Tibetan) lineages trace through Yeshe Tsogyel, who is not historical. The kama (Indian) lineages generally trace back to mythical "mahasiddhas" who also are mostly not historical.

So, the nonexistence of Aro Lingma is no more reason to dismiss the Aro gTer than most other Tibetan lineages. (See http://approachingaro.org/did-aro-lingma-exist for details on this.) Of course, the whole of Tibetan Buddhism can be dismissed as Make Believe (and indeed is regarded that way by pretty much everyone other than Tibetan Buddhists).

There are various bits of evidence that Ngakpa Chogyam was recognized as the rebirth of Aro Yeshe. See for example http://approachingaro.org/gyaltsen-rinpoche-introduction . Of course, this evidence could be contested; but it would not be accurate to say that there is no evidence.

The thing I found most interesting in your post was "Aro gTer attracts folks with more experience in the "archetypal studies and metaphysics" aisle at B&N than those who know from experience what to look for in a Buddhist community." I wonder what led you to that conclusion?

I haven't done any sort of survey, but I'm reasonably sure from personal observation that this is mistaken. I personally have some slight background in comparative religion (although I have never read Jung or Campbell). But my impression is that it is unusual among Aro students to have read anything at all about archetypal studies or metaphysics.

My impression is that many-to-most Aro apprentices arrive after a number of years of study of Buddhism. Many have practiced for a long time in other lineages.

I understand that you have a background with Shambhala Training and Tarthang Tulku. It might be relevant that some Aro teachers are currently also Shambhala Training teachers. Ngakma Zér-mé (http://arobuddhism.org/other-teachers/ngakma-zer-me-drimed.html), for instance, currently teaches Shambhala Levels, deep into the Shambhala curriculum. Naljorpa Ögyen (http://arobuddhism.org/other-teachers/naljorpa-ogyen-dorje.html) has many years of training in Tarthang Tulku's organization.

I hope that you will update your blog posting accordingly. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about Aro.

Best wishes,

David Chapman