Empowerment, breakdown, punishment, and support

This page discusses the history of Ngakpa Chögyam’s relationship with Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche through 1988. The next page discusses later events.

Ethics and conflicts of samaya

This history involves several ethical dilemmas. These are situations in which all possible actions have negative consequences. I will ask whether the options people chose were the least bad.

I will look at these questions from two points of view. The first is according to ordinary ethical values. The second is according to the tantric ethics of samaya.

“Samaya” means “sacred vow.” Traditionally, to practice tantra, you must take many samaya vows. The foremost vow concerns the student’s relationship with a lama. The exact interpretation of this vow varies and may be controversial. However, it is often understood to require obedience to the lama’s instructions.

The samaya vows are not a detailed, legalistic system. They are general principles for proper conduct. They require interpretation according to the situation. Therefore, there can be conflicts between samaya vows. Sometimes, one vow says to do one thing, and another vow to do the opposite. Usually these can be resolved by discussing the situation with your lama, and doing what he or she recommends.

Sometimes that is not possible. It is particularly difficult if a student has samaya with more than one lama, and they give contradictory instructions. In the worst-case scenario, a student might get caught between lamas who are hostile to each other. This should never happen—but is not as rare as it should be. The Dorje Shugden situation is an example: some students have samaya with both pro- and anti-Shugden lamas. Such conflicts put students in an impossible position. There is no way to resolve this; whatever the student does is wrong.

In another difficult case, a lama might give orders that clearly conflict with ordinary ethical values. Again this should never happen—but occasionally does. It is controversial in Tibetan Buddhism what the student should do then.

Silence, discretion, and transparency

Ngakpa Chögyam has maintained nearly complete silence about the breakdown in his relationship with Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche, from the time it occurred more than twenty years ago until now. He has never publicly defended himself. Some people seem to have taken that as admission of guilt—or at least as license to slander.

A main reason for his silence is discretion. Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche came into conflict with several other teachers in the 1980s. Several people besides Ngakpa Chögyam were caught in the middle. Although the impact on his reputation was considerable, other people were affected even worse. He was not the only one who faced difficult ethical choices, and some others did not necessarily act in the best way possible.

To explain the whole affair could result in harm to several people. There is also a Tibetan sensitivity to “washing dirty laundry in public.” It is rude to tell such stories.

I believe that it is possible to explain enough of what happened to see that Ngakpa Chögyam acted responsibly, but to avoid compromising the privacy of the others involved. I have persuaded Ngak’chang Rinpoche of this. He has given me permission to recount some—but not all—of the history. I hope that I am right, and that only benefit comes of my actions.

Training, empowerment, proclamation

Ngakpa Chögyam regarded both Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche and his wife, Khandro Ten’dzin Drölkar, as his lamas. Khandro Ten’dzin Drölkar is a highly accomplished practitioner, who was a close student of Düdjom Rinpoche, Künzang Dorje Rinpoche, Dungsé Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, and Chatral Rinpoche. She gave Ngakpa Chögyam his first kangling and taught him chöd.

Under the couple’s guidance, Ngakpa Chögyam fully accomplished the Tröma Nakmo practices in 1982. In a ceremony, Rinpoche tied a takdröl into Ngakpa Chögyam’s hair. He said this symbolized the mastery of Tröma Nakmo, which qualified Ngakpa Chögyam to act as a lama. Johannes Frischknecht was the translator at this event, and confirms that it occurred. (He translated between Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche and Ngakpa Chögyam on other occasions, and he has told me that Ngakpa Chögyam “was and is always 100% honest” so far as he knows. He was never a student of Ngakpa Chögyam, so that is not a source of bias in his judgment.)

Ngakpa Chögyam started teaching in Britain in the late 1970s, on the instructions of Düdjom Rinpoche. In 1983, Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche additionally wrote a proclamation authorizing him to act as a lama. Rinpoche also wrote a Foreword to Ngakpa Chögyam’s first book, Rainbow of Liberated Energy. These were intended to give Ngakpa Chögyam the credibility to establish a center for Rinpoche in Britain.

Problems

In the early to mid-1980s Rinpoche appeared as if he had a problem with alcohol. In a lama, this is often seen as personality display. (The best-known example is Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.) Erratic behavior, seeming drunkenness, and even violence may be manifestations of enlightenment. In that case it should not be seen as a problem. In this case, it seemed a problem for students, for his wife, and for several other lamas—all of whom he came into conflict with. (Rinpoche’s autobiography omits this period entirely, jumping from 1979 to 1987.)

Some people were shocked by the change in Rinpoche’s behavior during this period. Some students left him. Ngakpa Chögyam chose not to view it as a problem, but as wrathful personality display. Some people were shocked that Ngakpa Chögyam did not see a problem—but his devotion to his lama was unshaken.

The problem for Ngakpa Chögyam came when Rinpoche started telling him to do things that would seriously harm other people. Mostly I cannot say what these were. This part of the history must remain incomplete in order to protect the privacy of others. However, Rinpoche told Ngakpa Chögyam to do things that were unethical, illegal, and/or in conflict with his samayas with other teachers.

I can give two examples.

As Rinpoche’s marriage broke down, Ngakpa Chögyam begged Rinpoche and his wife to allow him to remain neutral. That was acceptable to Khandro Ten’dzin Drölkar, but not to Rinpoche.

Rinpoche told Ngakpa Chögyam to say that Khandro Ten’dzin Drölkar had done something illegal. It was known that Ngakpa Chögyam would know for sure whether she had acted as charged, so his statement would have been highly damaging to her. He knew that she had not, and he refused to say otherwise.

This was not the worst thing Rinpoche told Ngakpa Chögyam to do. However, it is a clear case of their being unethical and illegal. From an ordinary ethical point of view, Ngakpa Chögyam definitely did the right thing by refusing. He also saw the order as a conflict of samaya, since Khandro Tendzin Drölkar was a teacher of his. (Some might argue that since she was not generally seen as a lama, he had no samaya with her. This is a judgment call on which reasonable people might differ.)

The second example is that Rinpoche told Ngakpa Chögyam to end his relationships with Künzang Dorje Rinpoche and with Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche. (This is alluded to in a letter from Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche.) He refused to do that.

In this second example, there clearly is a conflict of samaya; one for which no right answer existed. It seems to me that refusing to break with his other lamas was the least violation of samaya possible in the situation.

Punishment

Rinpoche went on an extensive teaching tour through the USA and Britain in 1986. He made a point of telling many people that he had never given Ngakpa Chögyam permission to teach. He said that Ngakpa Chögyam was teaching in defiance of his orders. This appears actually to have been punishment for refusing his other, unrelated orders. It certainly caused considerable difficulty.

When Rinpoche told people in Britain that he had not authorized Ngakpa Chögyam to teach, Ngakpa Chögyam told his students that. He had about twenty then. He advised them all to leave him and become students of Rinpoche, or some other Nyingma lama, instead. That was not because he had any doubt that he was authorized to teach. It was because being a student of a lama with a bad reputation would be difficult. They might face hostility and derision for following a bogus lama. Some students did leave. Most refused; they were not interested in being students of anyone else.

As a tantric teacher, Ngakpa Chögyam had taken vows to his students as well as to his teachers, and he could not refuse to teach if they insisted. He also had samaya with his other four Root Lamas, all of whom had told him to teach. His samaya with Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche could not override either of those considerations.

(There is a potentially interesting question of whether authorization to act as a lama can be revoked. This question is only theoretical, because Rinpoche never said he was revoking Ngakpa Chögyam’s authorization to teach. He said that he had never given it. I am pretty sure that in fact authorization cannot be revoked. I have never read of that happening. And according to theory, the samaya vows between a lama and students are permanent. They cannot be over-ridden by any factor whatsoever, including the lama’s lama.)

Denying the Foreword

Rinpoche wrote the Foreword to Rainbow of Liberated Energy in 1983, at a time when Ngakpa Chögyam was loyal to him and others had started to leave. Publication of the book was delayed until 1986, when Rinpoche toured the West. He had told many people that Ngakpa Chögyam had done only minimal, basic study and retreat, and so was certainly unqualified to teach. The Foreword, however, said

I have known Chögyam for many years and we are very close. Chögyam has studied and practiced diligently in the Tantric tradition of the Nyingma lineage for many years . . .

When Rinpoche was asked about this apparent contradiction, he denied that he had written it. At first he said that Ngakpa Chögyam had written the Foreword, and he had nothing to do with it. When he was told that it was signed and sealed, Rinpoche said that Ngakpa Chögyam had tricked him into signing an English-language introduction that he could not read. When he was told that the book also included the Foreword in Tibetan, Rinpoche said that Ngakpa Chögyam wrote that too. But everyone involved knew that Ngakpa Chögyam has only basic knowledge of Tibetan. He cannot write a grammatically correct paragraph. Moreover, the text is written in Tibetan U-mé cursive script, which extremely few Westerners, even expert translators, can write. (The Tibetan version was in fact dictated by Rinpoche to Venerable Gelong Thubten Dadak, whose picture appears at the top of this page. He hand-wrote the U-mé and prepared the English translation. Rinpoche signed and sealed the U-mé version.)

Rinpoche’s story kept changing, and none of the versions made sense. However, people were inclined to believe him, rather than Ngakpa Chögyam. The various versions spread far and wide, and many people assumed Ngakpa Chögyam was a fraud and a liar.

The extent of Ngakpa Chögyam’s study and practice during this period is confirmed by Gyaltsen Rinpoche:

During his visits to India and Nepal, he studied with many great Tibetan Lamas and received the highest and most important teachings of secret Tantra in the Nyingma tradition. He completed the four distinct levels of Ngondro; the four increasingly esoteric levels of the four Tantric preliminaries: Short Dudjom gTérsar ngondro, Long Dudjom gTérsar ngondro, Khandro Yangtig Ngondro and Troma Ngondro. He completed ngo-zhi and all necessary retreats. He also learnt the profound ritual methods of Maha yoga, including use of nga, dung, gyaling, rolmo, silnyen, kangling and dungchen in the profound rites of Tröma Nakmo (the Black Wrathful Mother) and other most secret practices.

Gyaltsen Rinpoche was a close friend of Ngakpa Chögyam while he studied with Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche, and so had personal knowledge of his progress.

Rinpoche also said Ngakpa Chögyam had no right to wear a takdröl. At first he denied performing the takdröl ceremony. When he was told there were photographs and witnesses, his replies again were inconsistent and improbable—for example that Ngakpa Chögyam had tricked him into doing it. Nevertheless his stories were accepted by many without question.

Rinpoche did not have to deny writing his proclamation, because Ngakpa Chögyam did not show it to anyone. In fact, Ngakpa Chögyam made no attempt to defend himself.

Appeals and support

Ngakpa Chögyam did write to Düdjom Rinpoche about the breakdown in his relationship with Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche. (He did not have the money to travel to Nepal to visit Düdjom Rinpoche in person.) He also discussed the matter with Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche.

Unrelated actions of Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche were also causing trouble for Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche (and several other lamas). Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche said he would discuss all this with Düdjom Rinpoche in person. Unfortunately, before he was able to meet with him, Düdjom Rinpoche died.

A letter from Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche discusses these events.

In 1988, Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche did what he could to give Ngakpa Chögyam the credibility Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche had undercut. He confirmed Ngakpa Chögyam’s authority to act as a lama. He wrote a new Foreword for Ngakpa Chögyam’s book, to replace the one Lama Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche claimed not to have written. He publicly performed the takdröl ceremony, saying “Now no one can say I did not do this.” There are several witnesses to this, and again photographs.