Re: Lama dondrup Dorje / Peter Young FAKE
Date: June 19, 2018 08:20PM
The simple objective proof that Peter Young is not who presents himself to be is this:
Peter Young claims to be able to teach Tibetan Buddhism at a very high level.
Yet he mis-teaches the Buddha’s most basic instructions.
Here is the evidence:
Dr Robert Thurman is recognised by both Tibetan and Western practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism as one of the foremost scholars and translators, and accomplished practitioners, of Tibetan Buddhism alive today.
Thurman has been a personal friend of the Dalai Lama for more than 40 years. He is the author of countless books, and is respected, and fully recognised, by literally everyone connected to Tibetan Buddhism.
I’ve never heard a single even mildly negative thing about him, and I very much doubt that anyone else has either. You can watch lectures by him on YouTube, and get a measure of the man.
Peter Young teaches that the 2nd Noble Truth, the cause of suffering, is “desire”.
Dr Thurman says the Buddha said the cause of suffering is “thirst”.
Peter Young teaches that the 8 fold path, the 4th Noble Truth, uses the word “right”.
Dr Thurman says the best translation of the word the Buddha used is “realistic”.
(Also translated in Thai Buddhism as “appropriate”.)
So, objectively, as evidenced by one of the highest authorities possible, Peter Young has got two of the most basic teachings of Buddhism totally wrong.
How can Peter Young be the high-realisation Lama he claims to be, and yet teach these things so totally wrong?
Whole essays could be written on difference between “desire” and “thirst”, but the important thing to note is that Peter Young uses this mis-translation to convince his students to give up on all their existing desires (including life ambitions); and feel continuously worthless when they keep experiencing new desires.
Buddhism celebrates desire as a true driving force in human beings.
This is just a fact about human beings. Buddhists deal with reality.
Desire makes everything move. This is a fact.
Desire is required for movement along the path to enlightenment. This is a fact.
Lady Yeshe Tsogyal said: “Look inside desire and you will find boundless light”.
Buddhists mark a difference between a heartfelt desire, and a want.
The experience of “wanting” something is very close to what Buddha meant by “thirst”.
In a nutshell: our wants are normally fickle yet painful. We feel we need the object, but because it’s a surface want, when we get it, it’s not emotionally satisfying.
When we truly desire something, it is actually a very positive experience – we will work for it, and we will care about it when we have it. It has value.
When individuals concentrate themselves on what has real value to them, and work to understand what real value really is to them, the world becomes a better place.
Dr Thurman explains that the 8 fold path has been mis-translated to use the word “right” because Western (and highly patriarchal) theologians were looking for dogma when translating Buddhist scripture back in the 1950s. They were looking for Buddhist scripture to give commands on what to do, and what not to do, because that’s what other religions, and patriarchal systems, did.
Dr Thurman points out that Buddhism is beyond duality, so there are no commandments.
There is no dogma. There is no god-figure who ultimately decides what is “right” and what is “wrong”.
It is not patriarchal. All the patriarchal elements have been added onto Buddhism.
Dr Thurman then says very clearly that the reason this (in some ways deliberate) mistake has been perpetuated, is to support hierarchy.
If you teach someone to look for the “right” way to do something, or think something, then you are automatically giving yourself the power to say they’ve got it right, or wrong.
Otherwise, how does the student know they’ve got it right or wrong?
Right and wrong = hierarchy = power + wealth for the "righteous".
This is why Peter Young mis-teaches the 8 fold path. He, like many others, mis-uses it to establish authority over his students.
This type of authority simply does not exist in Buddhism.
It is nothing to do with what Buddha taught.
This is one fundamental reason why Buddhism is not a religion.
In Buddhism, by looking for the “realistic” way to do something, or think about something, then the power is all yours.
The Buddha said: think for yourself.
No one can tell you what is realistic. Only you can decide this.
The only way you can decide this with accuracy is to become more and more conscious of what you are doing and what’s around you.
That’s a big part of true waking up: looking to understand, and do, what is realistic.
Acting realistically, thinking realistically, meditating realistically, having a realistic livelihood ... these things all suddenly make perfect sense as a direct and practical path away from suffering, don’t they?
A person can act on them, perfect them, apply them directly in every circumstance.
In doing so, that person will automatically improve things for others around them.
These good effects from being realistic are what the Buddha identified and taught.
On the other hand, what on earth do “right action” “right thought” and “right meditation” actually mean?
Nobody knows, except the man at the top of the hierarchy.
Buddhism is all about getting to what is real, not conforming to the man at the top's view.
How can you get beyond duality when you’re looking to do everything “right”?
It’s impossible. It’s a trap.
When we look at what Dr Thurman found the Buddha actually said: be realistic, then we see it is already beyond the duality of “right” and “wrong”.
This is clear support to the Buddha’s suggestion that his path does in fact lead a person into the non-dual experience of being free from suffering.
We see the truth of this on a practical level where being realistic is actually the solution to every problem.
There can be no debate about that!
This is not semantic cleverness.
It is a very practical instruction that anyone can apply at anytime to improve their experience of life, whatever they are doing.
Being realistic (staying grounded) is even more important in spiritual practice.
These objective facts prove that Peter Young is mis-teaching Buddhism, and is therefore not the highly accomplished Buddhist pracitioner he presents himself to be.
These objective facts also indicate very strongly that Peter Young's methods will produce marked negative effects in his students.
Being honest about him is therefore, on every level, a very positive action, for yourself, and others.