Re: Lama dondrup Dorje / Peter Young FAKE
Date: June 15, 2018 02:23AM
First off, I totally respect your journey, and the part you feel Peter Young played in it.
Overall, I think there’s a few things that are important to note, because I agree with much of what you say, but see it in a different context:
1. Drill sergeants behave the way they do in order to program their soldiers into certain behaviours.
Teachers behave differently, because they are looking to educate.
This is objective fact.
2. Peter Young’s openly aggressive tendencies, that you note several times, are also clear proof of his profound misunderstanding of Buddhism.
The Buddhist way sometimes does require sharpness, but it is done in private, and it is done very rarely. In Buddhism, attacking students in the way Peter Young does is a sign of very low teaching ability, or of personal issues, exactly as it has been found to be by western pedagogical scientific analysis.
The Dalai Lama is also very clear about this.
3. Yes, some people need this kind of kick in the backside at some point in their lives.
If Peter Young was presenting himself as some kind of shock-therapist for addiction / trauma recovery, I wouldn’t have a problem.
However, he presents himself as a fully realised master of all forms of Buddhism, and other esoteric arts, and therefore worthy of life-long devotion.
The problem is, because he presents himself as a fully realised guru rather than shock-therapist, he never stops kicking people.
This is precisely where short-term shock-therapy turns into a lifetime of abuse. This is where a mentor turns into a tormentor.
4. As you note, there’s not much difference between the few useful things Peter Young does, and what can be found on YouTube with Tony Robinson or Tolle, or many others, however:
(a) An important difference is Robinson, and those like him, refuse the label of guru, and refuse being worshipped.
Peter Young makes his students believe he is a fully realised master, and that the only thing they need to do to reach enlightenment is devote themselves utterly to pleasing him. He teaches them that he is not just a guru, but THE guru, a mega-guru as spoken of in the anicent stories.
He teaches them that the only reason they are not already enlightened, or just about to be, is because their devotion to him is not absolute enough.
(b) An important difference is Tolle, and those like him, don’t claim to be teaching by authorisation of a properly lineaged system. It’s their own system they are promoting.
Peter Young claims lineage from Palyul and Nyingma, yet both organisations refuse to acknowledge him. He uses this affiliation to lend an air of credibility to his business of exploiting people.
5. Peter Young was given an honorary Lama degree.
I doubt even he would claim to have followed the official study program, because it’d be easy to prove he didn’t, and he believes he doesn’t need to.
The reality is therefore that he isn’t qualified to be doing what he says he is doing. He has awarded himself the ability to teach Tibetan Buddhism.
He says he teaches at the highest levels, the most profound truths, in the clearest possible ways.
This objective measure of the man’s hypocrisy should give anyone pause for thought.
This lack of real qualification shows itself in many other ways:
(a) No practitioner of the path of Tibetan Buddhism would have to do this: “I've had him shouting down the phone at me before where I was shaking with adrenaline, shitting myself ...”.
There are other, much more effective, methods available to properly qualified Lamas.
(b) No practitioner of the path of Tibetan Buddhism would have reduced you to this: “I left Newcastle feeling like a totally shit person”.
Doctor Robert Thurman (recognised around the world and directly by the Dalai Lama as an expert in theory and practice of Buddhism, for about 50 years now) says the fundamental point of Buddhism is to that recognise we, as people, are worthwhile. This recognition then spreads to our appreciation of others. This is the essential foundation understanding.
Without this real sense of self-worth, nothing in Buddhism can be understood or practiced.
It's why they talk so much about "precious human rebirth". It's not to guilt people into practicing (as Peter Young teaches), it's to get us to understand how valueable we are!
Peter Young’s “destroy the person and their problems are also destroyed” method is very clumsy, and proven to be less effective than the Buddhist method of building a person up.
The “build up” method also happens to be the one recognised by western science as the most effective for most people.
Amongst other negatives, the “smash them down” method is recognised to be an almost guaranteed pre-cursor to dependency.
That's why soldiers will kill or die when told to by their sergeants.
That’s why people find they need to keep going back to Peter Young, exactly as you say you do. He deliberately builds dependency.
Additionally, being very nasty then very nice is a classic tool used by cult leaders to indoctrinate their followers into accepting higher and higher levels of abuse over time.
This is proven, objective fact.
The susceptability a human has to being manipluted in this way is also recognised in Stockholm syndrome.
Needless to say, applying such methods is against Buddha’s teaching, and Tibetan Buddhism, because the teacher is supppsed to be freeing the student.
(c) Peter Young teaches the 4 Noble Truths incorrectly.
His version is one we find in a lot of books, but it is wrong. Again Dr Thurman is very clear about this.
I have sympathy for most teachers in the West who have received the words of the Buddha wrongly translated, but Peter Young presents himself as a fully realised master of many (if not all) aspects of Buddhism, including the most esoteric.
This is a key claim, because otherwise his clearly despotic behaviour cannot be justified.
But here's the thing: How can a fully realised master get the most basic teaching so totally wrong?
A fully realised master would have got the correct translation – especially since it’s available with only a little digging.
Dr Thurman’s even on YouTube giving the real translations.
And then: How could a fully realised master have achieved full realisation if his understanding of the most basic teaching is totally wrong?
Therefore his lack of qualification to be doing what he says he is doing is very clear.
6. About his attitude towards children:
I saw and heard him say, repeatedly and clearly, that he supported violence against the child-monks.
Many others were there and witnessed this too, including some of his current students. The inference that he would not hesitate to use violence against us was clear.
You yourself note that he becomes aggressive whenever he decides it’s appropriate – that it’s part of his personality.
You can easily see then how this part of his personality carries over onto children, and his own students, whenever he decides aggression is justified.
7. That he wanted you to become a nun, so opened the door to you, is NOT the way it is done.
It is what I have seen him do to many of his students. He does it to trap them into becoming his long-term worshippers.
(a) In every tradition, the desire to become a monk or nun should arise in the person.
It is not the teacher’s place to introduce the idea, or give any indication of support or non-support, before the person is 100% sure in themselves they want to do it. The Christians call it “a calling” for good reason. It doesn’t come from the Lama, ever.
That Peter Young usurps this common sense and always adhered to tradition is a clear warning sign. Many “teachers” in the East use this method to trap students. This is the only reason it is ever done. It is very effective.
(b) Since Peter Young is not a qualified Lama, one wonders by what authority he ordains monks and nuns?
Did he clearly explain to you what lineage and authority he was inviting you to be ordained into? Did he discuss with you what options you had with vows, lineages, practices and progression?
By not talking with you about these, very real, totally normal, things, do you see that even putting that option in front of you was done in a fake way?
The Buddhist religious / academic is very well established, and vast. Becoming a monk or nun should open access to a whole new world of teachers and places. Buddhist monks and nuns choose what lineage to go into, they travel, and they have multiple teachers. If they do not, there is something very wrong.
Peter Young forbids his students from seeking contact with other teachers, or even read books on Buddhism. He openly tells his students that they are so dumb that even if the other teacher said something useful (which in Peter Young’s view, they almost never do, because they are all inferior to him), the student would never understand it anyway.
Of course, the reason Peter Young forbids his students contact with other Lamas is that if they ever got more than a glimpse of real Buddhism, they would see this personality cult for what it is.
8. That he made you believe becoming a nun would fast track your spiritual journey is also another classic tactic he uses, and a good example of how he operates.
He trades people’s hunger for enlightenment or power to gain their total obedience.
He uses people’s ignorance against them.
For example: In Buddhism it is well known that being a monk or nun is NOT a fast track to enlightenment. In fact, the fast track is recognised by everyone as being: living in the world!
You thankfully weren’t that hungry for enlightenment – you had other things in your life.
Many have been caught by this empty promise.
I hope this helps you ensure you keep healthy boundaries, whatever you decide those boundaries to be.