Submitted by Ngakpa Namgyal (not verified) on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 19:44.
'Did Aro Lingma really exist?' That is an interesting question. That could be addressed by pointing out Ngak'chang Rinpoche's Lamas' own recognition of his past incarnations - so in their words, the answer would be a simple (western) historical 'yes'. Perhaps in the context of what you have written another tack is called for.
If, as you suggest, one might view a lineage history (any lineage history) as method, not truth, then it is a method for realisation. If one practices in a vajrayana tradition and one has samaya, then through the 14 root vows one has taken a commitment not to undermine one's own practice or the practice of others by casting doubt on teachings - either from one's own tradition, or from other traditions and other religions. Skepticism is not necessarily a problem, as long as one expresses that in an appropriate manner. If one is struggling with a particular mantra practice, yogic posture, or form of silent sitting meditation, then guidance is sought from one's Lama or Lamas. Skepticism is voiced in terms of 'I have a problem. . .' with the emphasis being that the problem is 'me' rather than the practice that one is struggling with. There are some methods of practice that an individual may never really engage with, but that doesn't invalidate it as a source of realisation for others. If lineage history is a method, it is a practice. To apply 'western notions of historical truth' to lineage history and voice skepticism if lineage history doesn't conform to 'western notions' is a bit like applying western notions of living room furniture to lotus posture and voicing skepticism about it's validity as a meditation posture because it doesn't conform to a leather sofa. One can be a skeptic, as long as one is skeptical first and foremost about oneself.
If one engages with lineage history, one's perception of time, space, sources of inspiration, value, meaning, context, all shift. If you are open to the tradition's history, you are indeed open to inspiration, and can start to exist within the atmosphere of the lineage's history. History itself starts to extend to mean past, present and future, and one's openness, emptiness, enables the practitioner to transform into an empty chapter in that history book, through which the living lineage can communicate itself.
So, rather that 'Did Aro Lingma really exist?' one might alternatively asked 'Does Aro Lingma really exist?', since if one practices one's lineage invocation, engages openly and wholeheartedly with the tradition in its entirety, embraces the history as a source of teaching and inspiration, then the lineage history can become something one lives - not through the 'living history' of 're-enactment' but the vivid actuality of ongoing enactment.
Comments
Skepticism
'Did Aro Lingma really exist?' That is an interesting question. That could be addressed by pointing out Ngak'chang Rinpoche's Lamas' own recognition of his past incarnations - so in their words, the answer would be a simple (western) historical 'yes'. Perhaps in the context of what you have written another tack is called for.
If, as you suggest, one might view a lineage history (any lineage history) as method, not truth, then it is a method for realisation. If one practices in a vajrayana tradition and one has samaya, then through the 14 root vows one has taken a commitment not to undermine one's own practice or the practice of others by casting doubt on teachings - either from one's own tradition, or from other traditions and other religions. Skepticism is not necessarily a problem, as long as one expresses that in an appropriate manner. If one is struggling with a particular mantra practice, yogic posture, or form of silent sitting meditation, then guidance is sought from one's Lama or Lamas. Skepticism is voiced in terms of 'I have a problem. . .' with the emphasis being that the problem is 'me' rather than the practice that one is struggling with. There are some methods of practice that an individual may never really engage with, but that doesn't invalidate it as a source of realisation for others. If lineage history is a method, it is a practice. To apply 'western notions of historical truth' to lineage history and voice skepticism if lineage history doesn't conform to 'western notions' is a bit like applying western notions of living room furniture to lotus posture and voicing skepticism about it's validity as a meditation posture because it doesn't conform to a leather sofa. One can be a skeptic, as long as one is skeptical first and foremost about oneself.
If one engages with lineage history, one's perception of time, space, sources of inspiration, value, meaning, context, all shift. If you are open to the tradition's history, you are indeed open to inspiration, and can start to exist within the atmosphere of the lineage's history. History itself starts to extend to mean past, present and future, and one's openness, emptiness, enables the practitioner to transform into an empty chapter in that history book, through which the living lineage can communicate itself.
So, rather that 'Did Aro Lingma really exist?' one might alternatively asked 'Does Aro Lingma really exist?', since if one practices one's lineage invocation, engages openly and wholeheartedly with the tradition in its entirety, embraces the history as a source of teaching and inspiration, then the lineage history can become something one lives - not through the 'living history' of 're-enactment' but the vivid actuality of ongoing enactment.