Wikipedia cites that the 2nd Kalu Rinpoche was born after the death of his predecessor. I was sure that I read somewhere that this wasn't the case. I could be mistaken on the identity of the Tulku. I'll research this and let you know who it was.

Sorry for any confusion.

Steve

Hi,

I find Ole Nydahl's response very fair, straight and to the point. What exactly is 'aggressive' about it? I don't perceive it to be so.

So much damage is done by various people making some type of negative statement, which others then pick up and start bickering about. Having said that, I like the fact that Shamarpa addresses the issues that surround Mr Nydahl and his DW.

The whole sex issue doesn't seem to be fully justified, and is based on lots of hearsay. It also may be a more personal issue between people that shouldn't infiltrate the tradition itself. On the other hand, there are so many issues surrounding Nydahl and DWB that, because they are potentially harmful, should be addressed. The clearly racist and 'islamophobic' attitude promoted within Nydahl's talks has so completely convinced and influenced the minds of many DW Buddhists. One thing is talking about the negative effects of extreme Islam, which hopefully is something we would all agree with: Instead of hiding behind pc and allowing extremist, totalitarian and anti-feminine principles to spread in our society, we should take a stand against it; this is clear.

A completely different thing is spreading general hatred towards an entire group of people. At all talks I have gone to with Nydahl, he has promoted complete non-tolerance and non-compassion for all people of middle-eastern origin. He has even made statements such as: 'If there is a mosque in your neighborhood, put mirrors facing outwards on your windows, in order to reflect their negative energy right back at them'. For someone who spends a lot of time speaking of 'space and joy', this not only is a biggotted statement, it is also contradictory.

Peace.

hi Sulmaya
I am not sure which of Ole's response you are talking about?
And yes mirrors it is funny one, on one hand he uses science as example , and on the other, he suggests that mirrors might help with negative energy.in my opinion it is contradictory .

I don't remember exactly , if I mentioned before, once I had a discussion with few Traveling Teachers of DW and I asked them, does it apply evolution in Buddhism , the answer was that it does , I asked why , I got few answers back , one of them was " Lama Ole says that it applies " and other one was something like " but there was first man who did something and that s how karma started" ?!?! it confuse me even more , I always thought that there was no beginning and there will be no end? does it make sence? I don't know but for sure I would like to think for my self and I am happy to accept other opinion but because Ole or anyone else said something it does not necessary answer my question.

Hi Dari,

-I was refering to his letter response to Shamarpa's comments about him.

-Often, teachers of traditions are not all as well equipped with information and knowledge as some select few. Perhaps they were trying to talk about the quasi 'creation' myth from an old sutra (the name of which I cant remember). There, it explains how the world and all beings began as simply mind and emptiness as one. Eventually, the mind recognises itself and a separation takes place between mind and space. Then, mind identifies itself as 'I' and the space as 'other'. Eventually, the space becomes more solid, as does the I. From there, various aggregates and feelings begin to develop; here begin the god realms, then the demi-god realms, then the human realm and so on.
Not sure what it has to do with evolution, since as you said, the Buddhist cosmology and concept of time is eternal and somewhat circular. However, it is a teaching that is meant more as a myth to help make us understand the levels of delusion of our mind and how the world reflects these. I am aware that many Kagyus and Karma-Kagyus use this story and form of teaching quite commonly.

Peace

Quote
Sulmaya
A completely different thing is spreading general hatred towards an entire group of people. At all talks I have gone to with Nydahl, he has promoted complete non-tolerance and non-compassion for all people of middle-eastern origin. He has even made statements such as: 'If there is a mosque in your neighborhood, put mirrors facing outwards on your windows, in order to reflect their negative energy right back at them'. For someone who spends a lot of time speaking of 'space and joy', this not only is a biggotted statement, it is also contradictory.

For me, this contradictory stance is at the heart of the problem. There is the selflessnness of Buddhism coupled with western individualism, resulting in the idea of unconditional love and compassion, but only for the few that are judged to be deserving.

Ole's comments on how his political statements, sexual activities, and his role as lama are to be kept seperate are an indication of a compartmentalisation of the self, and this comes across as lacking integrity, especially when those different parts of the self are in contradiction with each other.

It is also a fundamentally non-Buddhist idea that one possesses a self and can divide it up to suit the circumstances, which is why DWB is basically a sort of "pick n' mix" style of western new-age pseudo-spiritualist cult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2011 01:09AM by suenam.

I agree with you Suenam, about the contradictions that seem to be rife within DWB. I also think that freedom of speech is important, and all issues should always be brought to the fore. Therefore, the issue of Nydahl - islamophobia - contradictory statements and so on should be discussed, and I think he has much to answer for and to change in his approach.

At this point I would also add however, some positive notes. Having good friends who are DWBs and having been to many of their centers and talks, their tradition seems to be a lot more traditional and authentic than many people have been led to believe. Their practices are well within "acceptable" Buddhism, they emphasise the four preliminary practices of Mahamudra, and in most part, publish and/or use good books. Many of their teachings present Buddhism in a very simple, down to earth and modern way - a task that most other traditions have failed, in my oppinion.

Without retracting my previous statements about Nydahl, one thing I like about him is indeed the mere fact that he completely contradicts the preconceived ideas that people have of a 'Buddhist' or of what a Buddhist 'should be like'. With all the holier-than-thou rich, political 'rogues in robes' around, it's refreshing (and in some ways even beneficial) to see an extremely outspoken, coffee guzzling old farmer-joe type Dane shocking everybody.
On a personal level, being part danish myself, he reminds me of my grandfather and I feel some affection for the guy :-)

Peace

Quote

On a personal level, being part danish myself, he reminds me of my grandfather and I feel some affection for the guy :-)

All of those are in Buddhist teachings attachments that have to be examined and seen as part of the cause and effect that generates actual unfreedom, no matter what pleasureable sensations one has.

All of those are in Buddhist teachings attachments that have to be examined and seen as part of the cause and effect that generates actual unfreedom, no matter what pleasureable sensations one has.[/quote]


Dear Corboy,

Not sure I follow you on that, nor is that the point of the argument, rather a personal feeling.
As to Buddhist teachings on attachment: As with all teachings, they need to be felt; brought down to
the heart from the intellect, otherwise perhaps, they remain somewhat unbeneficial. In light of this,
having affection for somebody is not only not the same thing as attachment, it is one of the three types of love
promoted by Gelug Buddhist (Cherishing love, wishing love and affectionate love).

Quote
Sulmaya
...he reminds me of my grandfather...

I agree completely, in fact I said something very similar in one of my first posts. I remember my own grandfather was also quite intolerant of people with non-white skin and we loved him nonetheless.
This was relatively harmless in the context of his own home, but had he got on a stage and voiced those opinions to hundreds of people in the context of being a spiritual leader I think this would have been viewed very differently.

As for his approach, it certainly is simple, down to earth and modern, yet I feel that contributes to the problem. Many other Buddhists speak about how challenging and difficult such a spiritual journey is, and that it isn't something to be undertaken lightly. The parties, drinking, sexual freedom, and the members who work in arguably harmful professions would suggest a lax approach and which begs the question - is this merely done to increase membership (and subsequent revenue)? Is this mass appeal achieved at the expense of a watered down form of Buddhism?

Equally with his radical approach which may seem refreshing at first, while one may try to separate out certain aspects from the less desirable ones, many DWB members seem to buy in to the whole package, and this is in fact how it is delivered by someone who is supposed to be old and wise enough to know better. Breaking preconceived norms is one thing, but at what expense?

"Bad Boy" behavior is enduringly fascinating in the larger culture.

And if rightly understood in Buddhadharma, a teacher will not model this behavior.

Instead, properly examined from the standpoint of Dharma and what which gives rise to suffering and that which causes suffering to case, the Bad Boy image is a form of intoxication, just as much as drugs and alcohol, but of a far more subtle variety.

The Bad Boy is enslaved to that reputation. The Bad Boy may bluster in public but he will secretly fear getting old and ending up dependent on caregivers. Often, Bad Boys feel they have to keep upping the ante, acting out more and more outrageously, both to preserve their ability to shock and also to defend against inner dread of aging.

The Bad Boy's admirers and onlookers crave the vicarious thrill, want it to keep coming.

And Buddhadharma when properly taught has been clear about the need to renounce intoxicants. Anyone who teaches otherwise is telling us what we want to hear, not what we need to hear.

And real Buddhadharma would tell us to examine the intoxicating thrill of of the emotions elicited by the Bad Boy.

For this is powerful stuff. In 18th century England, highwaymen were glamorized. Gay wrote a play and musical that became a smash hit in early 18th Century London--The Beggars Opera--William Hogarth made a print of one of the scenes. This play was performed for years all over the the UK and the American colonies.

Pirate movies have been a perennial thrill for decades. Outlaw movies. Actors such as Humprhey Bogart.

More recently the sinister sort of rockstar or sports hero who has a sinister aura due to unpredictable behavior on and offstage--those are additional Bad Boys we thrill to.

Many a woman has learned to her cost how seductive Bad Boy men can be.

Without examining this archetype in the light of insight and wisdom, and unless we come to see the Bad Boy Thrill as bondage and intoxication, we remain in its power and dont want to examine it and lose what we feel gives life thrill and charm and zest.

Buddha and real Buddhism can seem insipid to those of us who are swept in the culturally validated Bad Boy thrill.

So one way to get off on the Bad Boy thrill is buy into 'strawman' arguments that there is such a thing as conventional Buddhism and that it is inferior and for wimps and cowards or just boring and 'not enough' and take up with something cutting edge and unconventional and special, taught by a Bad Boy Lama like Ole or some other guru who is advertised as a Rude Boy Guru.

That way one can feel one is learning the Dharma without having to examine and see the fallaciousness of the Bad Boy archetype.

One can dread one is being asked to give up fun and excitement in life.

All I can say as a citizen and a human is--I know the Bad Boy thrill.

It is validated by the mainstream culture.

But its an intoxicant, just as much as heroin or cocaine.

Buddhadharma is supposed to be bearer of a different kind of culture.

It is a tragedy and malpractice when buddhadharma is distorted to validate the Bad Boy archetype, which is one of the saddest forms of bondage there is--for both men and for women, too.

Bad Boys make life seem exciting. They have charm, the most beguiling charm.

'