“I do” – one way or another

Apprentice A man at the recent public retreat asked me about who authorises or vouches for Lamas in the Nyingma Tradition. He asked if it was the Dalai Lama and I said that I did not think so.

Ngak’chang Rinpoche That is not incorrect – as it were.

Apprentice I told him that it was usually the Lama’s own Tsawa’i Lama . . .

Khandro Déchen Yes – but in what context?

Apprentice but I am wondering whether the head of the Nyingma would be appropriate?

Ngak’chang Rinpoche Well if the Head of the Nyingma happened to know the Lamas in question – but that might not always be the case. For example if you had asked Kyabjé Düd’jom Rinpoche or Kyabjé Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche about us – they would have known us. [They were formerly Heads of the Nyingma, and teachers of Ngak’chang Rinpoche. —Editor] The current Head of the Nyingma [HH Penor Rinpoche at the time of writing —Ed.] does not know us – and we have never met him. There is no particular reason for this however, just that the five certainties never came together – and we do not travel to Southern India. Our last remaining Tsawa’i Lamas—Kyabjé Künzang Dorje Rinpoche and Jomo Sam’phel—live in Nepal. But we do not really go in for authorisation as such – because what use would it serve? We are not saying that the approval of great Lamas is not an inspiration and an encouragement – but it really can only be the students who authorise a Lama. [This is the opinion also of His Holiness the Dalai Lama: “it is actually the students who empower the teacher, rather than – as so often stated – a formal certificate or ceremony performed by a member of the hierarchy.” —Ed]

If anyone asks who authorises us – all you can say is “I do” or maybe “I do – as far as I am concerned.” Each student has to be able to say that – and that is the only factor which authentically authorises a Lama. This is not some kind of monstrous chest beating affair though. It is not that the all important I is validating this Lama or that Lama – it is based on the recognition of each individual that ‘this Lama can help me’ – that ‘I have worked with this Lama and found him or her to be honest, trustworthy, knowledgeable, dedicated and devoted to his or her own Lamas.’ Beyond this – there is no authorisation.

If a Lama existed who you respected enough to authorise your Lama – then that Lama would be your real Lama – not the putz he or she authorised. Of course this sets up its own problem. On what do you base your respect and trust for the Lama who authorises your Lama? Who authorises that Lama? Unless it was the direct sanction of God, or some other such fairy tale, it could only be public consensus – and we have less reason to trust that than most things that come to mind. There is nothing right or wrong about trusting to high ecclesiastical dignitaries – but we have to trust ourselves. We have to trust ‘that’ by which we will proceed. If one works with a Lama one will have to trust ‘that which works with the Lama’. If one has no trust in one’s own being – how can one ever establish a relationship which is designed to unravel duality?

Naturally a lineage is important and it is important to see certain linkages in operation. It is naturally encouraging to be able to see us with our Tsawa’i Lamas Kyabjé Künzang Dorje Rinpoche and Jomo Sam’phel – because you know that we have not emerged from the woodwork with no context. Kyabjé Künzang Dorje Rinpoche and Jomo Sam’phel have shown their approval – but in the end it is up to the individual to make a personal decision – and no one can help you with that decision.

The best way to validate a Lama is through Dharma. If you study Dharma who will find out whether the Lama is congruent with Dharma or not. The more you study and practice the more certain you can become in your decision – one way or another.