Re: Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism
Date: January 31, 2009 08:32PM
Darren C – Sarmapa is no longer the lineage holder of the Kagyu lineage, following the political manoeuvrings of the 10th Sharmapa in the 18th century.
He did however grant Ole the title of lama after having a two hour long phone discussion with Hannah Nydahl in which she had to plead with him to grant this for the sake of the continuation of the lineage. It is debateable whether this was a politically motivated decision (something for which Sharmapa is renowned), and in my opinion I think that it was done more for her sake, as she showed far more potential for enlightenment than Ole, and now she no longer exerts such a restraining and enlightening influence.
I believe that in a truly liberated society, she would have been the head of this group and Ole would have merely been a hanger-on, but as there is still some way to go and Tibetan society is even more backward than ours in the area of sexual liberation, Ole now seems to be someone who believes his own hype.
Valontin – I’m sure that Mr Nydahl would like to somehow separate his roles as Lama and as “a member of society”, but unfortunately this is not really possible. Ole Nydahl gives a talk on Buddhism in his role as Lama and at some point in the middle of it he drifts off the point to give his rather prejudiced personal views on Islam, or on his rather backward view of sexual politics.
I was recently at a lecture on Buddhism and Quantum Physics in Munich, in which Ole digressed from the topic at one point to say something like – we all like to chase after the girls, eh lads? (wink, wink)
– this made me wonder if he really knew what the lecture was about, did he really think this was relevant? Was he simply drifting in his own dreams? Maybe he was enjoying the attention and saw it as yet another opportunity to showcase his own opinions.
I’ve seen Ole speak on many occasions and this seems to be a regular occurrence! It is as if he has his formula and he is very well rehearsed, so much so that if you go to see him on several occasions then his talk becomes quite predictable – these are not slip-ups, he seems to genuinely think that he is…? (words fail me, is it supposed to be entertaining, funny, a bit on the edge? To me it just looks like ego.)
At least when Jonathan Ross does it then it is clearly tongue-in-cheek!
- on this point I have to agree with Wangdrag
“Since Ole Nydahl is not a vajracharya, he cannot grant an abhisheka, so there is no entry into the vajrayana within Diamondway group…In my view it is true that teachings of Buddha bring freedom, but they have to be proper teachings and this I feel is not present in Diamondway.”
- anyone can call themselves a Lama, but for me the point is not whether Mr Nydahl is truly a Lama or not.
There is no doubt that he does some good work in his teaching and in spreading the word of Buddhism on a very basic level, however this seems to be completely mixed up with Ole’s own prejudices, and beyond that there has to be some questions asked about the whole setup of this group.
Ole Nydahl does not teach the full Buddha-Dharma simply because he does not like certain aspects of it (and I think because they would make him seem less “fun” and would therefore be less popular).
There seem to be no checks on certain aspects – the group as a whole seems to stray dangerously close to “worshipping” Ole Nydahl – hence the accusations that this is in fact a cult of personality – and I believe that Ole does not discourage this – firstly because maybe he believes that this would discourage them in their enthusiasm and diligence to practice, and that this “charisma” is one of the things that draws people to him, but I also have to suggest that his ego is somewhat flattered by this.
Also, there is an emphasis in this form of Buddhism in the direct “transmission” of Buddha qualities, and this means that one must trust ones’ Lama completely – although this clearly can be seen to be open to abuse, I am certain that Ole Nydahl is not using this to deliberately abuse his followers, and that he means well, however he simply does not seem to have the wisdom-awareness nor the authority to go any further than the most basic introduction to a watered down Dharma, and this is something which I do not see him or DWB being entirely honest about.
I also see a darker side to the group as a whole which I do not believe is manufactured by any one person.
Many of the members of the group come from Germany and Poland – these are countries where there is a tradition of fascism – a characteristic of which is a strong charismatic “father figure” in charge, and I believe that Ole Nydahl fulfils this criteria perfectly, if merely by accident and through his own lack of awareness in being a right-wing militaristic-style racist, homophobe, and sexual dinosaur.
Ole Nydahl is one of the first to admit that he isn’t the most intellectual person in the world, and one of the ways this shows itself is in his rather distorted and over-simplified revisionist history of Islam and it’s interaction with other cultures.
– He seems to conveniently overlook the long and bloody history of political intrigue, betrayal, and infighting among the Buddhist traditions, or the whole history of western oppression, slavery, crusade and conquest.
– He readily brings up examples of Moslem atrocities from centuries back, but noticeably fails to point out that 1000 years ago when the Danes were sacrificing humans to their pagan gods, Moslems were the embodiment of a culturally and scientifically advanced, enlightened, and tolerant people.
And so he comes across as being neither well informed, intelligent, nor tolerant, but rather conceitedly one-sided and self-righteous. Someone who has very clear, almost absolutist views and thinks it is not only accurate for him to demonise and blame an entire religion, but also that it is a good thing for him to take advantage of his influential status to spread this far and wide.
It is quite hard to believe that no-one has pointed this out to him, and I cannot see how, in this day and age, he can seriously hold onto such beliefs without questioning himself.
(on the other hand, he is a bit like your granddad, from a different age and a bit stuck in his rather narrow views, he’ll flirt with your girlfriend and you love him anyway and he still plays nicely with the kids “at his age!”)
This wouldn’t be such a problem if he was just one man voicing his ignorant opinion, but in his role as a Buddhist Lama, and someone who one should trust, it seems recklessly irresponsible.
Ole himself claims to be working against religious hypocrisy. I wonder if he is aware of his unconscious contribution to the very thing he claims to be working against.
It is not simply Ole’s views to which I am referring here, but the example he sets and which many seem to follow.
I have much experience with Diamond Way practitioners, and it is my experience that they regularly misuse the Dharma – for example when stealing something from you – if you question them or ask them to take some responsibility for their actions, they turn around and tell you that it is “your attachment to your possessions and your problem – go meditate!”
Similarly in matters of sexual misconduct – there is much promiscuity among Diamond Way members, but if you dare to question this they will suggest that you are the one who should re-adjust your view – they cannot seem to consider that this behaviour can in any way be damaging to relationships, self-indulgent, and desirous, and again suggest that it is the other persons’ problem, and if you cannot deal with it then it is because you aren’t sufficiently liberated.
These are hardly surprising phenomena when your Lama finds it so easy to blame others too – in it's current state, this is not a desirable form of Buddhism.