Quote
jamgon
One recent example is the blatantly erroneous claim made by Suenam that there is nothing absolute and permanent in Buddhism. I linked a dozen authoritative texts directly disproving every single aspect of her missive but no one appears to care. I even quoted from Nagarjuna’s “In Praise of the Dharmadhatu” but my post got withheld as irrelevant! If your mission here is to critically examine the rights and wrongs where were you when a demonstrably wrong statement was posted?

Quote

Nydahl has been accused not only of speaking in a conceited and militaristic way, but
also of being right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners.

Quote

When I asked him the next day about claims that he has sexual encounters with his students, he didn’t deny this.
“There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that,” he said by phone. “They’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners.”

Quote

Anger at go-ahead for Buddhist centre
Tuesday, 10 July 2012

THE biggest Tibetan Buddhist meditation centre in London will be created following planning approval – despite protests from Muslim and Christian groups.

On Tuesday evening, Lambeth council’s planning committee approved the plans for the former Beaufoy Institute, in Black Prince Road, Kennington, to become the Diamond Way Buddhism (DWB) organisation.

However, more than 40 protesters from the Lambeth Muslim Forum and the Lambeth Interfaith Network protested outside Lambeth Town Hall, in Brixton Hill amid claims the organisation is anti-Muslim and anti-Christian.

The meeting room was so packed that the protesters were denied entry and left to protest outside.

Objections to the new use of the Grade II listed building also came from the Lambeth Against Racism and Islamophobia group and Vauxhall MP Kate Hoey.

DWB is a the world’s largest lay Buddhist organisation, following the western Karma Kagyu lineage, under the Lama Ole Nydahl.

The controversy has arisen from comments made by Lama Nydahl during interviews and online, on “radical Islam” and scandals in Christian churches.

Toaha Qureshi, a member of the Lambeth Muslim Forum and trustee of the Stockwell Mosque, in Stockwell Green, believed Lama Nydahl’s comments amounted to “hate speech”.

He said: “We are not against Buddhists because it is a peaceful religion.

“We are protesting against this particular faction of Diamond Way because we believe their leader preaches hate.

“We were not allowed into the meeting.

“We don’t feel that the council has consulted with community leaders. If they had done that, we would not be here today.”

The centre will be used for meditation and well-being classes, as well as being available for use by community groups in Kennington.

The building’s 44 bedrooms will be used by volunteers from other UK centres, who will stay there to help with the day-to-day running of the facility.

DWB trustee Steve James has denied the organisation is Islamophobic and hailed the development as a way of protecting the historic building.

He said: “Diamond Way is an open organisation.

“Members come from a wide range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, including Muslims, and would be shocked to be counted as members of an Islamophobic organisation.

“While Diamond Way Buddhism is not political, one of our teachers, Lama Ole Nydahl, has made personal statements on world affairs in press interviews.

“The occasional comments he has made about radical Islam have been grouped together and circulated in order to cause offence.”

Quote
karam-mudra
you are right, as I told here, Emma C.´s blog does not exist anymore!
.

Quote
jamgon
Suenam:

You claimed:

There is no "timeless essence" or any absolute "something" to be found anywhere in Buddhism proper, and certainly no idea that the absolute is a sentient knowing thing.

Every single part of this sentence is wrong - see Nagarjuna's verses 1, 8 and 65 (or one of the dozen other sources I quoted).

Peace

Quote

As Corboy stated early in the thread those defending Ole need not even be here (or words to that effect). If you are trying to have a rational debate on the issues which bug you this may not be the right venue. The raison d’etre of this forum is to “express and address” concerns, not to debate whether these concerns are justified.

Quote

"..I was fascinated to see the analysis and line of reasoning that empowered the fundamental Buddhist concepts concerning the nature of mind and emptiness, but when it came to spouting out memorized definitions or defending catagories I did not believe existed, there wasnt a more jaded debater in the courtyard.

"Time for instance was placed in a catagory that was neither matter, mind, or space. I claimed that it was a property of the mind, and no one succeeded in proving me wrong.

.."What frustrated me in particular was the common perception among Tibetans that, in addition to explaining the nature of mind and reality, Buddhism also offered an insight into the workings of the physical world.

"One of the first definitions that I and my classmates (none of whom had gone to secondary school) were given was of the color white. It went as follows:

White is that which appears white.

I was absolutely dumfounded. First, it was a tautology. Second of all, at the end of the twentieth century, anyone studying color should at least be aware that color is a wavelength. And if one needed a definition, "an electromagnetic vibration whose wavelenths are evenly distributed from 35 to 75 millionths of a centimeter" would have been quite appropriate. "


A bit further on the same page, Grozni describes a debate he was in. Western readers will see how different this is from the kind of debate methodology learned from our Greek ancestors.

"My first real debate (Vajrayana style-Corboy)--after weeks of reciting memorized definitions (bolded by Corboy for emphasis) took place on the balcony of the Main Temple, where all the monks from the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics had gathered to escape the rain.

"My opponent was an eighteen year old monk who through some wierd machination had been given the title "Rinpoche" - a reincarnate Buddhist teacher--and as a consequence enjoyed money, servants, private tutoring, respect and other privileges befitting a boy-king...

He was standing up, ready to attack. I was sitting cross legged, wrapped up in my zen. ('Zen' in Tibetan, is the long toga or shawl worn by monks)

"Give me the definition of space", he shouted, snapping his fingers under my nose--a small contemptuous gesture that was meant to establish his authority, right from the start.

"An absence of obstruction" I replied confidently.

(Corboy note: see how the power structures are built right into the debating ritual. This is very different from picture given by Plato of how Socrates gathered among social equals and engaged in the conversational debates written down by Plato. Totally different atmosphere. Socrates didnt snap fingers in people's faces. All the discussants were on the same physical level, too. )

The monk stepped back, raised his right hand while simultaneously pulling a rosary up his left arm (a lot like an archer pulling back a bowstring) and then rushed toward me to deliver his claim: "It follows that you can't see space directly". (Hands clapping)

"Why?" I demanded. Why was one of the four standard answers available(Corboy emphasis) to a defendant. It prompted the attacking opponent to state his reasoning.

"Because space is a negation" the monk declared.

At this point I had three options.

To say, "Do, which in Tibetan means, "I agree"

To say, "The reason is not established", which would prompt my opponent to prove that space is a negation, not a positive phenomenon

Or finally to say, "It doesnt follow" (meaning the reciprocity between the terms--negation and direct perception--isnt proven) which would call for further reasoning demonstrating that if something is a negation, it can never be perceived directly.

"Unhappy with the lines of argument that these three answers were certain to bring, I opted for something entirely different.

An illegal move.

"I see it" I announced finally, shrugging my shoulders. This kind of thing was absolutely verboten. (Forbidden)

It was like taking your king during a chess game and moving him slowly to the edge of the table and then onto the floor.

"What did you say?" the monk asked, looking confused. Maybe he had not heard me correctly. After all I was just an Engie (foreigner.) Tibetan was not my native language.

"Turn around", I ordered him. (The monk obeyed.) "Look at all the the empty space behind you!"

Dumbfounded, my opponent stared at the open space enclosed by a wall of mountains and capped by a dome of melting grey clouds. The other monks also stopped their debates to examine the sky. Everyone looked like they'd taken acid and were experiencing massive hallucinations.

Regaining his composure, my opponent took a step back and delivered his next verdict.

"It follows you cant see emptiness directly. Because it is a negation, just like space. (Hands clapping)

Now I got it. He hoped I would say space wasnt an object of direct perception so that he could transfer the argument to emptiness.

And of course, I couldnt claim that emptiness isnt perceived directly because that would mean that Enlightenment isnt achievable.

"But I can see space directly" I insisted, refusing to follow the debate protocol for the second time. "Its very easy. Look over there, at al that beautiful empty space!"

Again, everyone stopped to look at me and then at the empty space.

Now the debate digressed into a conversation, with all the monks nearly begging me to come to my senses.

"Come on, Lodro, you cant say that you can see space!"

"Why not?"

"Because there's nothing there! No one can see nothing!"

"But I love nothing! I'm looking at it and its breathtaking. It fills my eyes".

"But you cant see the absence of something!"

"Everything is an absence of what it is not" I countered.

"And what about direct perception?"

"There is no direct perception".

Granted, I wasnt a good debater, but at least I managed to get everyone totally confused.