'There are those who sincerely want to practice Dharma but fear emasculation, fear that the practice means giving up one's 'fire' one's gutsiness.

Men can fear this. They may fear that genuine, uncompromised Buddhist practice will cut them off from the only way this childish and unwise culture has taught them what it is to be men. Hence the easy appeal of someone who makes it seem one can remain a Bad Boy and be a Buddhist.

Women who have had to work to develop the determination and assertion needed to function in today's workplace may also fear losing this. They may fear becoming weakened by genuine Buddhist practice, want to preserve the assertion needed to function today in a very competitive world--but secretly also want the thrill of a man's man. A Bad Boy.

So women in this predicament may also find it attractive when someone makes it seem one can have a Buddhist teacher who is also a Bad Boy and who models a warrior kind of Buddhist practice--Good News, we can be Buddhists and not go soft!

But thats to remain prisoner to the larger culture and its reactive and deluded notions of what it is to be strong, what it is to not be strong.

Bad Boy Buddhism as taught by Ole is Dharma that has been co-opted by the larger culture and that keeps disciples in thrall to the Bad Boy archetype, thinking its compatible with Dharma when its just as incompatible as any sort of intoxication.

The Bad Boy archetype may seem the most reliable source for this 'juice' this 'fire'.

The maintream culture has inculcated this.

The challenge in Buddhadharma is to find there is another kind of light, another kind of energy that makes it possible for us to serve life, an an energy that does not require the Bad Boy archtype as its ignition key.

Many of us dread that if we dare to question the Bad Boy archetype and whether it is worth anything, that even daring to ask that question will turn us into weaklings, cause us to be 'sicklied over by the pale cast of thought'.

When we fear even to question the worth of the Bad Boy archetype for fear that marks us as inferior beings--then thats the signal to stand up to it and question it. Any archetype that bullies us into reactivity has to to be examined and questioned.

So the stories go, Buddha had all the masculine validation his culture could give him. A wife, a new son, trained to take over as clan chieftan from his father. He had had dancing girls galore. But he gave his princedone and his weapons away to ask questions that could not be answered by any number of kingdoms.

Buddha cut his princely long hair (regarded in many cultures as a source of strength and as a marker of vitality)and gave away his weapons and chariot.

In today's terms thats like a SAS or Special Operations commando giving away his ammo, snipers rifle, turning over his ID, decorations and the keys to his car or helicopter to an assistant, and saying, 'Take these away. I dont need them anymore. These are not answering my questions. I have outgrown these."

His affairs with his students aren’t mere hearsay. I never actually witnessed Nydahl having sex with one of his students so of course I can never be 100% sure that the stories are true. Enough people commented on his affairs and their apparent lack of an effect on his wife to suggest that there is some truth in the rumours. I did see him with his tongue down a young lady’s throat in Newcastle, who was/is a student of Ole’s. I think that this act alone is an abuse of his position let alone the stories of him having had sex with a number of his students. Again I question the ethics of a man who feels the need to sleep with students, students often old enough to be his grand-daughters. The leaders of the centre I attended never kept his affairs secret and in an odd way actually seemed to offer the information up as a way of demonstrating how “liberated” he is.

Quote;

“it's refreshing (and in some ways even beneficial) to see an extremely outspoken, coffee guzzling old farmer-joe type Dane shocking everybody.”

I can’t really agree with this statement. To me it seems like a clumsy excuse for explaining away bad behaviour. The homeless drunk down the tube flashing his penis at commuters is also outspoken and shocking. For sure, depending on your point of view, the homeless drunk might draw out feelings of anger and revulsion or maybe even compassion, but I think it’s inappropriate to purposefully set out to do this during Dharma lecture. But this is just my opinion.

The homeless drunk might be holding a mirror up to your mind but the same can be said for someone behaving in a humble and compassionate way.

Steve

I was busy typing away and missed corboy's posts.

I just wanted to say thanks for the 'bad boy' posts as they really do cast a light upon Ole's behaviour. Very well considered.

Steve

Quote
SteveLpool
His affairs with his students aren’t mere hearsay. I never actually witnessed Nydahl having sex with one of his students so of course I can never be 100% sure that the stories are true. Enough people commented on his affairs and their apparent lack of an effect on his wife to suggest that there is some truth in the rumours. I did see him with his tongue down a young lady’s throat in Newcastle, who was/is a student of Ole’s. I think that this act alone is an abuse of his position let alone the stories of him having had sex with a number of his students. Again I question the ethics of a man who feels the need to sleep with students, students often old enough to be his grand-daughters. The leaders of the centre I attended never kept his affairs secret and in an odd way actually seemed to offer the information up as a way of demonstrating how “liberated” he is.

While it is possible to judge from a moral (and external) perspective, even though you may feel it is an abuse, clearly most DWB members and Ole himself have found a way to rationalise this behaviour.

What I find interesting is their own discourse concerning this. On the one hand Ole says his sexual exploits are to be viewed as separate from his role as "lama" but then we get this "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" routine in the middle of a dharma talk. His "sex appeal" seems mostly based on his status, and as you point out, it has become woven into the "Ole Nydahl myth" which he himself does everything to promote.

This to me is typical of DWB behaviour - when something suits them they justify it with a certain discourse, but when it doesn't suit them they suddenly switch. Their whole "philosophy" is riddled with inconsistencies which results in the personal tastes of a few dictating what is acceptable or not.

I myself have witnessed one high ranking member castigating someone for being drunk and then the very next day being so drunk themselves that they could hardly stand. I have also seen members help themselves to other peoples' property and then telling them to let go of their attachment, but a week later when they are on the receiving end, they have made the most fuss and started quoting dharma about not taking what is not freely given. This is unsurprising behaviour when their "lama" sets this example himself.

It's not even the fact that he accepts the advances of women 40 - 50 years younger than him. I don't think that age is relevant if two people forge a meaningful relationship. What I call into question is if the young women in question would entertain the idea of a night of passion with Ole, if he were just another man on the street of pensionable age. I very much doubt that they would. I therefore conclude that it is his position that the women find attractive. He is seen as a liberated individual (his liberation is his claim alone) and I suspect that the women feel as though there is some 'blessing' to be had from 'uniting' with him (forgive my euphemisms).

We could argue that if the women are willing (which they appear to be) and Ole is willing (and he appears to be) then two adults sharing some intimacy isn't a problem, and to a large extent it isn't. I just can't shake off my reservations about this boiling down to Ole making the most of his elevated position as the head of DWB.

Of course men with power are attractive to some women. I think of the likes of rock stars and politicians and their muses. So if these other power figures can indulge themselves then why not Ole?

I suspect Ole is aware of, what I will refer to as his indiscresions, otherwise he wouldn't issue a statement covering his tracks by saying that during intercourse they are not his students but partners on an equal level. If he thought there wasn't a problem he would just come out and say, "I have sex with my students. It's none of your business", but he doesn't. He throws up this smoke screen of them not being his students in that moment.

He's not a monk, he's no longer committing adultery since Hannah died. He doesn't appear to prey on these women, they seem to gravitate to him. But I still can't resolve the difficulties I have with this all being about him exploiting his status, which for a 'spiritual leader' I think is inappropriate.

Steve

I want to clarify, that one can cultivate a 'Bad Boy' aura without sleeping around.

Its the projected image and the tintillating possiblity of the outrageous that adds to the thrill.

Bad Boy stuff is mostly about posturing and creating an image. Strutting about. Peacocks fanning their tails, gangster types driving 'muscle cars' with added chrome on the hubcaps and elsewhere.

By contrast real men with real jobs do not have to brag.

Firefighters dont have to brag.

combat veterans dont have to brag.

Ingredients of Bad Boyism would be using trash talk (especially if this is especially forbidden in ones role as a Buddhist leader), extreme athleticism, flaunting one's muscles, talking about or displaying weapons, etc.

Someone did a classic cartoon that summed this up:

Two men have arrived home from the department store. Empty boxes are on the floor.

Both men have put on leather jackets.

One says to the other,

'So we have the jackets. Now what?'

Steve, I agree 100%. I would add that it seems the same thing applies not only to the issue of Ole's sexual relations, but also in regard to other issues where noble ideals seems to give way to subjective judgements, such as in regard to racial issues in the face of the concept of unconditional compassion.

Subjective judgements such as guilty/innocent, good boy/bad boy, deserving/undeserving, winners/losers, heroes/villans, would suggest that DWB remains within a western modernist tradition rather than a Buddhist one.

Bad boy posturing, and refusing to give it up by creating a "cutting edge Dharma" that rationalizes Bad Boy posturing as a way to teach the Buddha way--tgats a demonstration that the teacher and those students who thrill to this and rationalize it remain in thrall to the delusional values of the larger culture.

Saddest of all, the Buddha way has been co-opted to rationalize something that is delusional--but though delusional, is rationalized by the larger culture because its a product of the larger culture--Bad Boyism and hierarchy.

Bad Boys are constantly competing. They need to keep proving themselves. That means they have to acquire more and newer stuff. Bad Boys bore easily. They need novelty.

They keep the consumer culture going. Movies, sports scandals, Bad Boy fashion attire, upgraded weapons, upgraded cars, upgraded athletic gear--more and more incidents or near-incidents.

Again, the stories are a reminder that Buddha was born into power and privilige and walked away from all that.

But the moment of truth for the Bad Boy is if he lives long enough to be put to the test of having to be dependent on others. Which is what happens when we are disabled by illness, accident or old age.

My stepmom said 'Old age isnt for sissies'.

I once said, 'It gets scary when policemen start looking like babies.'

One guy replied, 'I'll tell you when it's scarier.

'When your doctors start looking like babies.'

Dear Corboy & co.,

These are interesting posts and definitely provide much to consider. It is important for a practitioner to keep open eyes and to look around, and 'feel' around (i.e. trust their instinct a little ) in order not to be fooled by the acts put on by so many self prophesized Lamas nowadays.

I find there to be loads of problems in Ole Nydahl's teachings, which is why I wouldn't personally accept him as a guru. It may be well possible that he has a bit of a bad boy syndrome going on and makes all kinds of quasi-'buddhist' excuses for his behaviour. The drinking parties, middle-east bashing and the adoration coming from many of the young females in his audience (which he may encourage, it seems) all add up to a healthy mental warning, which reads: Attention! Something may be a little off here….
Along those lines, there are small little statements in his books that also accumulate into strange overall ideas. For example, in ‘The Way Things Are’ he states that bad karma can most prominently be seen around the equator. He also talks a lot of the superior northern schools of Buddhism (with lots of emphasis on the ‘northern’ as opposed to southern Indian or Indochinese) and makes a few sweeping statements about all other religions.

Be all that as it may, I continue to find the DWB tradition quite alright and absolutely not dangerous. The tradition operates like most others. Their standard practices and their Mahamudra practice seems to me to be very sound, beneficial and well presented. There will always be students who develop an unhealthy idolizing relationship with their teacher. Furthermore, despite many stories and allegations, nothing regarding sexual misconduct has ever been proven, nor has any real evidence of any sort ever come to the fore.

Although Corboy’s bad boy scenario is interesting and common in the world, I’m not convinced it applies. Lama Ole has, if anything, calmed down. Within the last five years I have seen him speak four times and each time was ‘better’, more respectful and insightful. As far as Buddhism as a subject is concerned, I think he knows a great deal about it and has a lot to offer students. But like I said, it’s important to keep one’s eyes open.

A wrong does not automatically replace a right.

Hi Sulmaya,

You say you wouldn't accept Ole as a guru but on the other hand that the teachings are sound - how is it possible to separate these in the real world?

(Conceptually, one may see the teachings as being pure and I have no doubt that the Karma Kagyu lineage is sound, however I can't see how one can separate the teachings themselves from the transmission of them in the mired context which you describe so acccurately - Buddhism is a practice, and while one may abstract some form of noun, what would this mean outside of the actual doing of it? Surely buddhist practice is one of enlightened activity?)

The idea of danger is a subjective one. I have heard some say that corrupt dharma leads to hell, while others say that DWB is merely buddhism-lite. I would add that I have witnesed some members voice some rather unsavoury opinions and behave in undesirable ways such as stealing, lying, malicious gossip, and even violence, which were generally viewed as entirely in keeping with the DWB ethic.

Personally I would say that while some of their teachings and meditations are based on buddhism, their behaviour outside of the meditation are simply not buddhist, but instead resemble a sort of "church of Ole worship", something borne out by the repetition of the phrase "Lama Ole says..." in preference to any reference to the Buddha or Dharma.