Düdjom Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche

Düdjom Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche—two of the greatest Nyingma Lamas of the 20th Century, and teachers of Ngak’chang Rinpoche

Düdjom Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche

Kyabjé Düdjom Rinpoche and Kyabjé Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche were Ngakpa Chögyam’s first two Root Lamas. He met them in 1971. He says that both of them told him that his visions of Aro Lingma were part of a terma, and encouraged him to teach it someday. Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche also told him that he was the rebirth of Aro Yeshé.

This section of Approaching Aro is mainly about the question “Is Ngakpa Chögyam formally qualified to teach?” There are no documents and no witnesses to his relationships with Dudjom Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. So, you can choose to believe him, or not. Or, you could decide not to bother forming an opinion, because it makes no difference. There is ample evidence that his teaching was approved by other lamas later.

There is a posting on e-Sangha that implies that the Dilgo Khyentsé Fellowship has said that what Ngakpa Chögyam says about Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche is false:

I actually emailed the Dilgo Khyentse foundation asking them about Chogyam's claims of being recognized as tulku by Dilgo Khyentse (its on the Aro Website)....the response was quick and direct.....Chogyam was a STUDENT of Dilgo Khyentse and nothing more.

I emailed them to ask about this. What they told me was that they cannot confirm what Ngakpa Chögyam has said. They did not say that what he said was untrue.

That is very different from what was implied on e-Sangha. “We do not know this is true” is not at all the same thing as “we know this is false.”

Ngakpa Chögyam says that there were no witnesses to Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche telling him that his visions were a terma, and that he was the rebirth of Aro Yeshé. It was in an informal interview. Rinpoche did not make any big deal of it. There was no public announcement. The same was true for Düdjom Rinpoche’s discussion with him of the terma.

It is difficult to see how anyone could know that these conversations did not happen. Someone might think it unlikely, but since there is apparently no factual evidence one way or the other, no certainty is possible.

obviously extremely unlikely

Maybe we should leave it there. However, a probable reply is “maybe we can’t be sure it didn’t happen—but it is obviously extremely unlikely.” So I will say a little about some reasons one might think that.

  • “It’s just not the sort of thing they would do.”

Both lamas were undoubtedly siddhas. Possibly the only thing all Tibetans agree on is that you can’t predict the behavior of siddhas. They reliably do the unexpectedly unexpected.

It would be highly arrogant to think that you could say what they would or would not do.

  • “Why would Dilgo Khyentse have recognized Chögyam, of all people, as a tulku?”

An interesting question, because it suggests that the person asking doesn’t really believe in rebirth, and thinks that tulku recognition is some sort of political award.

Rinpoche certainly did believe in rebirth. If he said Ngakpa Chögyam was the rebirth of Aro Yeshé, it was probably because he believed Ngakpa Chögyam was the rebirth of Aro Yeshé. I expect that was a quite sufficient reason.

  • “But he’s English!”

I don’t think Rinpoche was a racist.

In any case, there are now quite a number of white tulkus.

  • “He was a truck driver, for god’s sake!”

Someone has actually said this—that Ngakpa Chögyam’s work driving a truck meant he couldn’t be a tulku. It seems he thought that for a white person to be qualified to be a tulku he needs a PhD in Buddhist Studies and to be able to read and write Tibetan fluently.

Rebirth doesn’t work like that.

  • “Why would it be a secret? Isn’t that awfully convenient?”

It is usual for a new terma to be kept secret for many years. That gives the person receiving it time to practice it thoroughly, to make sure they understand how it works, and for the circumstances to come together to teach it effectively.

It would be difficult or impossible to publicly recognize Ngakpa Chögyam as the rebirth of Aro Yeshé without revealing the Aro gTér, since the two are closely connected.

Public recognition of tulkus is also often delayed for years. This seems usually to be for political reasons. Significant recognitions are controversial, and it is important to get political support lined up before making an announcement.

There were very few white tulkus in the 1970s. An announcement might have gotten a lot of political flak. That would not have done anyone any good. What Ngakpa Chögyam needed was training and retreat practice, not a fuss being made over him—whether positive or negative.

  • “The AroTer is obviously bogus—so they would not have endorsed it.”

People who say it is “obviously bogus” rarely say why, other than that it comes via Ngakpa Chögyam, and he is obviously bogus because he teaches an obviously bogus terma. (It is hard to argue with that logic, isn’t it?)

Earlier I have shown that the Aro gTér is definitely not obviously bogus. It is, at least, a subtle, clever, highly-educated fake. It is entirely consistent with mainstream Nyingma teachings.

Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche was one of the first two lamas to endorse the Shambhala terma of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. That terma was highly controversial before Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche and HH The Sixteenth Karmapa praised it.

I have received and practiced most of the Shambhala terma. Because I have seen that it works, I have complete confidence in it. However, if you just read the texts, it is not obvious that they are a valid terma. They are much less obviously consistent with the Nyingma mainstream than the Aro gTer is.

Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche was willing to take a political risk to support an unusual young lama (Trungpa Rinpoche) teaching a controversial terma to Westerners.

Maybe he did something like that more than once.

endorsment

Just to add a few stories about Trungpa Rinpoche and his teachers Karmapa and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

Thrangu Rinpoche the main teacher of present Karmapa recalls from his ordination approx late 1950;
Thrangu Rinpoche was ordained with Trungpa Rinpoche by his Holiness Karmapa. One story that Rinpoche tells about the time was that when he was with His Holiness Karmapa and Chogyam Trungpa, Karmapa turned to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and said, "In the future you will bring dharma to the west." I am sure both were rather startled and were wondering why western Tibet would need the dharma.
http://www.rinpoche.com/trlife.html

Light of Blessings: Supplication to the Eleventh Trungpa Chökyi Gyatso, by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
http://www.shambhala.org/ntc/pdf/lightofblessingsR.pdf
No date to this ...

“I remember it was on that occasion that Allen Ginsberg decided to play devil’s advocate, and said, “What is the dharmic or a-dharmic reason for Trungpa Rinpoche’s drinking? And, as his students, how should we relate to that?” Of course, a deathly silence fell over the room, and I think the vajra guards were ready to jump him and cut his tongue out, but I translated it for Kalu Rinpoche. Rinpoche sort of smiled and said, “Well, let me tell you first about Padampa Sangye. Padampa Sangye was a real boozer and a lot of his students had a problem with that, and one of them finally asked him why, if he was an enlightened master, he was always drunk. And Padampa said, ‘Ah, the Padampa may be impaired, but the döndampa (absolute) is not."
http://www.lotsawaschool.org/lama_chokyi_nyima.html
No date but Trungpa must have been alive ...

As the third Jamgön Kongtrül explained in a teaching given to students of Chögyam Trungpa, "You shouldn't imitate or judge the behavior of your teacher, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, unless you can imitate his mind.
No date but Trungpa must have been alive ...

What I find interested is, all the time there is so so much endorsment that it makes me sick - and still people have NO confidence at all ... people seam to see what they want to see ...

Is this something you can comment on ??

Samsara

Well... this might be drifting off topic, and anything I can say would tend to be speculative.

However...

Based on the Tibetan history I have read, questions of which texts, lineages, and teachers were acceptable were mostly about money and power. Genuine religious considerations must also have played a role, but it looks secondary to me.

I re-read John Perks’ book a couple days ago. He describes a summit meeting he was at with Rinpoche and a bunch of other Tibetan lamas. After a long discussion in Tibetan, he asks Perks if he knows what they are saying. No, says Perks, I don't speak Tibetan. "Well," Rinpoche explained in English, loudly and distinctly, "they are saying they don't want to give the real teachings to their Western students because then the students will take over." Perks said there was a shocked silence after that.

I am not sure Perks is always a credible source, but I would not be surprised if this were accurate. It might explain part of the early hostility to Trungpa Rinpoche.

In the West, it is difficult to make even a minimal living as a Buddhist teacher, so money and power aren’t the issue. Here, it must be about ego. There is a wrong idea—found in Asia too—that being a teacher makes you “special.” Some people want to be special (or seen as special) and they see peers teaching as an obstacle to that.

By coincidence, the page I was going to post today anyway is about that: Jealousy in the sangha.

It is said that in academia, the battles are so vicious because the stakes are so low. The same is true of the wrangling between Western Buddhists. There’s very little at stake besides people’s fantasies of specialness. It’s sad we have to waste time on that.

David