(I do not want to invest too much energy in a forum, so this will be my last post for now, but I will check in again to read any replies)

@Corboy - That was interesting, thank you for that. And please excuse if my words were misunderstandable. My intention was to not make it look like you were accepting this

Quote

The high rinpoches of the Vajryana traditions seem unable or unwilling to depose anyone and lack the mechanisms for doing so.

@suenam - This must be a misunderstanding. What I would say to anyone stuck in spiritual organisations is "Get yourself into a state so that you can safely leave this organisation. Be quick.". For the first 25 years of my life the most valuable teachings I found were in just a few words of Christ. That is my spiritual backbone. Later I found a few more statements of Buddha to be helpful too (the part of Buddhas words which somehow seem to complement these words of Christ). From my experience, as soon as one gets into contact with professional buddhists, may that be monks or new age heroes or whatever, they begin to distract you from your path and try to pull you on their path because "they are the good ones, they know better, we should trust them, ...". Why would they do that? Maybe because they make their money with this or because they want the power that comes with a greater number of followers? They say they make you stronger, but you only seem to be stronger within their and accordingly very limited context. In fact they alienate you from the outside world, make you depending on them but they are not willing to take the responsibility that has to be part of such a leader role. They draw their power from their followers, but they do not care for their followers when problems arise.

So, no, my point is exactly the opposite: Take responsibility for yourself and that means quit being a student. Stay away from leader personalities. I do not remember a single statement of Christ or Buddha (and I am very fast in forgetting Buddhas words now) pointing in the direction "find yourself a leader and follow him". I think both emphasized the importance of self responsibility, of being aware of ones own deeds. Right? So why would anyone need a leader for that?

To make it more clear: If we would follow the basic teachings as much as is possible for us, there would be much less room for hate-speech or wars, for religious or whatever else reasons. All the fighting comes from one church, leader, generalized say organisation fighting another organization. Because people in these organizations tend to value their organization more than the basic teachings on which an organization was built.

Maybe I do not have enough insight to see why this would not be applicable for other people, but I am convinced that, if you want to realize the teachings of love in your own life, you can only do that if you are not entangled with any organization.

To Suenam

Quote

I disagree with you here for two reasons. Firstly, the "accountability and fiscal transparency that is considered necessary in Western democratic society" is great in theory, but in many cases it may be seen that even the western institutions fail to conform to this ideal.

But..it is stated that this is what our Western insitutions are supposed to aspire to.

And...right now there is a vigorous movement throughout the world calling the Roman Catholic Church to accountability and court settlments for victims are being obtained and guidelines being put into place.

The existence of the problem is being acknowledged and some redress is being obtained.

Time for the rinpoches and lamas in Vajrayana to adapt.

Quote
corboy
To Suenam

Quote

I disagree with you here for two reasons. Firstly, the "accountability and fiscal transparency that is considered necessary in Western democratic society" is great in theory, but in many cases it may be seen that even the western institutions fail to conform to this ideal.

But..it is stated that this is what our Western insitutions are supposed to aspire to.

And...right now there is a vigorous movement throughout the world calling the Roman Catholic Church to accountability and court settlments for victims are being obtained and guidelines being put into place.

The existence of the problem is being acknowledged and some redress is being obtained.

Time for the rinpoches and lamas in Vajrayana to adapt.

All I'm saying is that it is better for people to be well informed and enter into any teacher-student relationship with their eyes open, rather than going in blind and expecting the "authorities" to deal with it, or having to seek redress in retrospect. That's why I wouldn't go as far as BackAtHome in recommending people to stay away from any organisation, only those with "leader personalities," because both in Guru Yoga, and in Dharma teachings, the "personality" of the Lama is a defilement.

I disagree. In which example wasn't a Guru or a Lama in his position without having at least a group of followers, if not a hierarchical system of devotees, monchs, nuns or the like? Everyone at the top of a hierarchy is a leader, yes? So a Guru or a Lama alone by his position is already a leader. Some of them may seem to have overcome their "personality" in the meaning of a regular person, but most of them develop a so much more obvious "spiritual" ego and personality. The only difference is, they tend to not use the word "I" anymore, as if that would be enough. The result in wanting to influence or even control other people is just the same, only maybe with a different content.

Also, the practice of guru yoga was critically discussed in this forum. Are you really believing Guru Yoga or having your own cultural background overthrown by a Lama is a good thing?

BackAtHome:

Please stay focused like a laser on the topic of this thread, which is Ole Nydahl and his Diamond Way group.

Make sure to connect and explain how your comments apply directly to Nydahl and his group specifically by name.

This thread should not drift off into tangential general discussion about Buddhism, "hierarchical systems", "'spiritual' ego", etc.

Quote
BackAtHome
I disagree. In which example wasn't a Guru or a Lama in his position without having at least a group of followers, if not a hierarchical system of devotees, monchs, nuns or the like? Everyone at the top of a hierarchy is a leader, yes? So a Guru or a Lama alone by his position is already a leader. Some of them may seem to have overcome their "personality" in the meaning of a regular person, but most of them develop a so much more obvious "spiritual" ego and personality. The only difference is, they tend to not use the word "I" anymore, as if that would be enough. The result in wanting to influence or even control other people is just the same, only maybe with a different content.

Also, the practice of guru yoga was critically discussed in this forum. Are you really believing Guru Yoga or having your own cultural background overthrown by a Lama is a good thing?

You are right to highlight the issue of trust here and the potential for abuse, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one should never trust. You seem to be placing a lot of the responsibility on the intentions of the leader as if they are overthowing our cultural backgrounds in order to gain control, but it seems to me as if the followers are the ones already seeking an alternative.

We live in an age of celebrity (and hierarchy), where people want to know all the details of their idols' private lives (and sleep with them). This is not something manufactured by Nydahl, but it is a sign that he is not up to the task of being a Buddhist Lama precisely because he thrives on it, and as a result he attracts the sort of followers who share his personal prejudices. This is my main issue with DWB, and it seems that the majority of people posting here have experienced issues not with the leader, but with those followers.

@suenam: If I would see someone who is seeking an alternative and tell this person "I got what you want. Sometimes you should let go of what they told you about how to be in this world. Try this, it's really good for you." Wouldn't that place a pretty great responsibility on me? Especially if it turns out it isn't really good for this person. And then we look around and see that it isn't really good for a lot of other persons, too.

But the dealers of this "really good alternative" do not take the responsibility and say "Oh, here is something happening we did not intend. We will be more careful in future so that we don't hurt other people." What do they do (as is reported from DW)? The persons for which it isn't really good are told that they are confused.

Figuratively speaking: If a LSD dealer does not tell a person about the dangers of this drug and sends a person on a lifelong trip including the need for psychiatric help, nobody would even discuss the responsibility of the dealer. Why should we see it any other way, when the effect of a buddhist teacher on some of his followers inludes the need for psychotherapy or psychiatric help (as is reported, not only, from DW).

Buddhism, and Mr. Nydahl is allowed to continue to state he teaches buddhism, advertised itself with the highest ethical ideals in the western world at a time when many westerners were and still are seeking for more ethics in their lifes. Many reports show, that in reality DW and buddhism often failed to bring these ethics to the lifes of people and when criticized about that often tends to neglect the responsibility for that. I think we may see an incredibly large amount of responsibility on the intentions of the buddhist leaders in this fact.

And there is one more thing to consider here: Some people called it "brainwash" (opening post of this thread), other "using Dzogchen as Valium" (page 3, corboy, August 15, 2008), some describe it as feeling to not be able to speak their own mind and so and so on. Most prominent example of this would be the, may I say "conversion" of Mr. Nydahl himself on his journey in Kathmandu by the 16th Karmapa. Currently, I do not find the time to collect all the corresponding reports. But there are reports about people instantly changing their attitude towards buddhism, feeling to not be able to speak out against a Lama or teacher and so on.

Suenam and corboy, you seem to have some in-depth knowledge about buddhism and Vajrayana. Would you like to explain what this is, how it works, and why it is a good thing when this happens to people in the presence of a buddhist leader or Lama, like Mr. Nydahl? And why, when this works,would it still be the people who have to take the responsibility for beginning to follow or to believe these teachers or Lamas? Why shouldn't it be the responsibility of the teachers or Lamas who, if my interpretation of these reports is correct, used this to influence these people?

It would also be greatly appreciated, if in addition you could give a recipe how westerners who have no experience with this can right from the beginning make sure that they are not influenced by this in any way.

Thank you in advance.


@rrmoderator: Some of the previous posts of other members were of a general nature, too. Why is it me, who gets these reminders to not go off-topic?

Backathome:

I deeply agree with you, also according to the sentence adressed to the moderator. Sometimes it is important to discuss basic theorems of tantric-tibetan Lamaism in the context of Nydahl´s DW, otherwise it is not understandable how he works. And, Suanam, he is a Vajra-Buddhist and even liberated as far someone in Vajra-Buddhism can be, if you like it or not. The old so called Kalu Ringpoche attested him that state of mind.

I share your view of responsibility. There is a great imperative of changing the law in our western world, so we can really be sucessful by denouncing spiritual teachers when they harm people. I reported Nydahl to the police and the prosecution and now I have to prove him to be guilty. Twenty years ago we had an initiative by our government to change that rule into the opposite: the teacher, healer or whatever has to prove that his interventions were not responsible of the client´s damage. That would be a better law and a parallel to a helpful consumer protection law. A new initiative will hopefully be more successfull than the first one.

That would also be a rational proceeding in our times, adjusted to the values and rules of our modern world. Any student-teacher relationship does not stand beyond those values, it has to bow to them. The brainwashing Guru-student relation does not represent any of our western lifestyle, it is imported from a totally different culture. Who wants to accept the inherent rules of that cultures is free to do it, but he has to stand the objections in principle normal people have.

Apart from that there is a discussion among french Psychoanalysts to take away the privileg of religion from tibetan Lamaism becaus it is a sect.

Soufrance et croyance le devenire sectaire dans le Bouddisme tibetaine. I just got the essay in PDF, who is interested should send me a private message.

This is not a thread to discuss general issues regarding Buddhism.

See [forum.culteducation.com]

These are the rules agreed to before posting here.

"The purpose of this message board is not to promote a specific religious and/or political viewpoint."

People can believe whatever they want, but they may not do whatever they wish in the name of those beliefs.

It seems to me that the behavior of Ole Nydahl is the primary issue here.

Please stay focused and on topic.

@ karam-mudra
If Nydahl has acted harmfully, how can you maintain that he is as liberated as far someone in Vajra-Buddhism can be?

As I have mentioned many times, Nydahl's "vision" of the world is utterly dualistic and if he is "liberated" then it fails to show, so consequently the transmission to his students is contaminated with his personal (dualistic) viewpoint.

@ BackAtHome
Karam-mudra mentions this issue with teachers, healers, and whatever ("whatever" including psychotherapists and psychoanalysts who have also been regarded in a similar light), and this is the basis of my point - these power differentials are not exclusive to Vajrayana, and in the majority of cases are handled responsibly. The situation with DWB is not typical of Vajrayana in general.

I'm not saying that the Lama has no responsibility here - what I am saying is that the cult-like situation here is a product of the interaction of both the leader and the followers.

I am also very wary of falling into the same delusion of DWB members in ascribing Nydahl with such "power", so to answer your final point, "westerners" can avoid giving power away by learning what to look for in a Lama and what the "effect" should be - there is plenty of literature on the subject and a wealth of online resources these days - Nydahl and DWB clearly do not conform to that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 04:12AM by suenam.