I can confirm that before you can listen to streamed events you first have to be 'vetted'. You request access and the streaming team contact the leaders of your centre to ask if it's OK.

I had my access revoked before I even had time to move my things out of the Liverpool Centre. In effect, after the leader decided I was no longer 'Diamond Way', I was immediately denied access to any of the resources. I was immediately 'cast out'. In hindsight this wasn't a big deal. I didn't want to listen to Nydahl's confused lectures anymore but I think it's quite interesting to note just how quickly I was 'erased'. There was no possiblity of accessing their esteemed teachers lectures. It was as case of "if you don't regard Ole as you root lama then you get no access to any of the Kagyu Teachers associated with him. At least via DWB.

I might be wrong, but I thought that the speed with which I was 'erased' was quite spiteful rather than a administrative clean-up. Especially as I have dedicated so much time and energy for so many years.

Steve

More than spiteful. Sounds as though there could be a well practiced procedure in place.

One what grounds can one maintain tax exempt status as a religion if one does this sort of black-balling?

Would be more honest for DWB to call itself Ole N fan club.

A couple of interesting links. I apologise if they've been posted before:

[diamondwaytruths.blogspot.co.uk]

and

[www.wikileaks.org]

Hi all,

I'm a former long-time DWB member and have been following this thread for a while. Quite an eye-opener. I still visit diamondway centers from time to time without revealing my doubts about Ole and his organisation.

Here is a link to a video made by one of Nydahl's followers:

Transmission documentary-2012

Rudi

Quote
SteveLpool
"if you don't regard Ole as you root lama

Pardon my ignorance, but could someone explain what this "root lama" thing is all about? What does the term mean? At what point in one's studies does one usually take a "root lama", if there is a "usual"? What's involved in accepting someone as one's root lama? Is this when you take the teacher to be a living Buddha, someone with your best interests at heart, his wish is your command, etc.? I spent years attending various sanghas, and the term never came up. No demands were made of the students. No "special relationship" with the teacher.


Some people tell me all teachers require their students to view them as the Buddha incarnate, and to fulfill their wishes unquestioningly, with complete trust. Others tell me that only comes into play in Highest Yoga Tantra, and doesn't apply to beginning or intermediate students. I think a lot of teachers abuse this tradition as a way of manipulating and taking advantage of students. But I've never run into it myself, so I'm trying to understand it.

Thank you.

This from Wiki.

In the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the teacher is a valued and honoured mentor worthy of great respect and a source of inspiration on the path to Enlightenment.[7] In the Tibetan tradition, however, the teacher is viewed as the very root of spiritual realization and the basis of the entire path.[8] Without the teacher, it is asserted, there can be no experience or insight. The guru is seen as Buddha. In Tibetan texts, emphasis is placed upon praising the virtues of the guru. Tantric teachings include generating visualisations of the guru and making offerings praising the guru. The guru becomes known as the vajra (literally "diamond") guru, the one who is the source of initiation into the tantric deity. The disciple is asked to enter into a series of vows and commitments that ensure the maintenance of the spiritual link with the understanding that to break this link is a serious downfall.[citation needed]

In Vajrayana (tantric Buddhism) as the guru is perceived as the way itself. The guru is not an individual who initiates a person, but the person's own Buddha-nature reflected in the personality of the guru. In return, the disciple is expected to shows great devotion to the guru, who they regard as a Bodhisattva. A guru is one who has not only mastered the words of the tradition, but who has an intense personal relationship with the student; thus, devotion is the proper attitude toward the guru.[9]

The Dalai Lama, speaking of the importance of the guru, said: "Rely on the teachings to evaluate a guru: Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism." He also observed that the term 'living Buddha' is a translation of the Chinese words huo fuo.[10]

The guru, who in Tibetan Buddhism is generally the lama, is considered to be the most important of the 'Three Roots' since the guru embodies enlightened mind and without their personal guidance, the student cannot progress. "The living teacher proclaims to the student through his or her very existence that awakening is not only possible but immediate for every living being".[11] Through Guru yoga practices, the Vajrayana student becomes familiar with the refuge tree and lineage within which the guru is teaching. The 'root guru', or tsawe lama, with whom the student has a personal relationship, is visualised at the root of the tree, channeling the blessings of all the branches of the refuge tree to the student. The blessings are accessed through the practitioner's devotion.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Steve

Hi Misstyk,

you are right, it seems to be a little bit confusing.

All who say the devotion for one´s root Lama "only comes into play in Highest Yoga Tantra, and doesn't apply to beginning or intermediate students" forget to explain that you have to have a so called "root Lama" before you are able to practise the highest Yoga Tantras. You cannot do it without "to view the teacher as the Buddha incarnate, and to fulfill their wishes unquestioningly, with complete trust." This kind of relationship normally builds up in a longer process and should be the result of a real personal relationship between student and teacher. However, from my point of view this tradition is from his origin manipulating, there is now way to transform it into modern societies in opposite of studying Buddha´s teachings and deciding to become a Buddhist.

What are my experiences with Ole Nydahl? He said, the root Lama is the one you trust, you take refugue to , you dream of, you feel his presence in a special energetic way, you are accompenied by to reach enlightment in one life. In hindsight I see how he was grooming his students to choose him as root Lama. When you have a look on the youtube-video Rudi brought in you can find in the very beginning the deep devotion of some students to Nydahl. In the grooming process you finally give up your self-awareness, you attribute all your power to the Lama, no power is left for yourself. He is to become allmighty only through the trust and devotion of his students, even when he is a bad human and a bad character. Only the students build this power up. If all of them would ever leave him, he would immediately collaps like a puppet on a string without the puppetplayer.

I was told that you must check your teacher out. After you have checked him/her out and you have 'complete trust' in them this teacher becomes your 'root lama'. From this point on I was told 'not to question the lama' as this is just a waste of time. I countered this by saying that I reserve the right to constantly question my lama's words in case "the lama begins to show signs of dementia or other cognitive impairments".

Basically, when you accept Nydahl as your root lama you cease questioning him and just accept everything he says and does as enlightened activity.

SteveLPool

Quote

I reserve the right to constantly question my lama's words in case "the lama begins to show signs of dementia or other cognitive impairments"

Exactly. Even the finest teacher might succumb to dementia or lose grip for other reasons.

Quote

After you have checked him/her out and you have 'complete trust' in them this teacher becomes your 'root lama'. From this point on I was told 'not to question the lama' as this is just a waste of time

This all or nothing complete trust is regression to childhood all or nothing states of mind. Discernment and evaluation are presumed to be valuable and necessary to determine whether someone is a suitable root guru.

Then, suddenly, having found one's root guru, those same functions--discernment, evaluation --become something useless and to be discarded?

I suggest that once one has developed and trained any adult level cognitive function--in this case we discuss the the functions of discernment and evaluation--

--to stop using an adult cognitive function after having used it for years requires that the aspirant inflict a disruption in his or her inner life. I suspect this might require the aspirant to split off and disown already developed adult skills (discernment) (evaluation)that, split off, remain active but unconsciously so.

Imagine knowing how to read.

Next, imagine being told, "You are at a point where you no longer require reading comprehension. You must stop using that function."

Imagine yourself having learned reading comprehension and then being told not to exercise it.

Gazing at news headlines and forcing oneself not to recognize their meaning takes effort--it means intentionally not using a skill one has learned.

So, this may account for the volatile emotions that bubble round and churn forth in discussions of Vajrayana teachers and malpractice. People who have disowned adult cognitive functions, pretending they are not perceiving what they actually are perceiving.

Finally the bit about taking time to 'check out' a guru before deciding he or she is suitable.

But..this bit about taking the needed time to observe and test a teacher before asking to become a disciple..all that time observing and testing means staying in a social setting that surrounds the teacher.

During that time, one's objectivity is lost. We humans are sensitive to social settings.

And...how many of us have the resources to learn Tibetan or the other dialects spoken by the teacher?

And, how do we know as outsiders, how the teacher actually behaves toward his or her intimates?

'During that time, one's objectivity is lost.'

Not necessarily.

The above statement assumes that it is possible for a formerly objective person to completely lose the ability to be objective. In fact everybody flips in and out of varying degrees of objectivity constantly and no-one can ever hold an absoutely objective view.

Similarly with the example given of reading ability and following a command to no longer exercise that ability--I would contend that once such a skill is learned and neurologically hard-wired, barring brain damage of the relevant area, it cannot be unlearned. I might kid myself and others that I can no longer read and comprehend but that is not the same as being totally unable to perceive words in a mish-mash of random letters.

If I have once had the experience of being able to be reasonably objective--and all of us functioning humans have at some point or other, then I can decide to work at re-experiencing a more objective viewpoint. Of course I can also decide to chuck away any agency I might have and follow some-one elses direction but that is still a choice, if a somewhat daft and uninformed choice.

Use of the mind is a skill and an art, flexibility allows for making mistakes and it is by seeing mistakes and improving on them that humans become more knowledgable.

If I am going to be 'splitting' my mind (a concept, an idea that has no real existence outside the realm of ideas) I can also 'split off' a small portion of my mind to retain a reasonably objective view at all times, even while I am provisionally trusting something.

No absolutes, ever. :-)