Quote
corboy
For someone who has just recently found this thread, sam108 shows a suspiciously high degree of rhetorical sophistication. There are precedents for groups coaching members to show up and provide an oppressive atmosphere on a thread.

Quote

are u allright? drugs maybe? So u might suffer from a distorted view of reality, inability to think and act coherently or both. Either way, you will not get anywhere, I will be here long after you are taken off to a mental institution.

Quote

r u on drugs? lama ole nydahl never talked bad about eny1

Quote

u must be mentally ill to talk bad about dwb and lama ole. hope u get well soon.

Quote

criticizing lama ole is false and libellious. it is illegal so stop it.

Quote
Hao
Hi All

I am another member of DW. I found this site trough google alerts, set on “Ole Nydahl”.

First of all, I must say to Outsider, I do not know your friend nor his motives. Lama Ole Nydahl is very specific about not to create debt, as well as not cheating or in other ways hurting ones partner. Especially when children are involved. Whatever your friend is doing, it sounds like an act of free will. Did he skip the part about taken responsibility of own actions?

HaO

Quote
sam108
Hi

I am new here, but I came across this thread and thought I might contribute my perspective.
I have some experience with Diamond Way -- but I'm not in any way an official
spokesman for them (if there is such a thing); I don't have any sort of leadership position either.
Reading this thread, it sounds like a very different group from the one I am involved in.
I suppose we all take away our own interpretations of what we perceive.

I don't think Diamond Way is for everybody. Lama Ole himself says that. We have
this saying, "finding the hat that fits". For some people, the Diamond Way hat fits very
well. For other people, it doesn't. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them,
or anything wrong with Diamond Way -- it just means they need to look elsewhere.

People above have raised all sorts of issues about Lama Ole's qualifications to be a Lama,
the legitimacy of the 17th Karmapa (as recognized by Diamond Way), etc. I think these
boil down to interpretations of Buddhist teachings, and on different accounts of events that
happened years ago. I wasn't there years ago, and I don't feel qualified to judge on complicated
questions about the proper interpretations of traditional teachings. What I can say, is that I
(and a lot of other people) have found Diamond Way to be a place which contributes to my
spiritual well-being, which is why I continue to be associated with it. Because of that,
these sort of arguments (which I'm out of my depth to judge) don't sway me.

I also think, in terms of Lama Ole's attitude to Islam: I think there are two types of Muslims
-- backward, conservative types; and the more secular progressive sort. I think in terms of
the first group, Ole's criticisms are 100% on target, if maybe a bit bluntly worded. In terms
of the second group, I think Ole just doesn't seem to notice they are there, and I think if he
would make some more effort to acknowledge them I think people would be less critical of
him in this area. Also, although I see the political and social usefulness of supporting liberal
/ progressive interpretations of Islam, one has to ask, whose interpretation is more
historically authentic? And I'm afraid, as much as it is politically inopportune to say, that
the more backward sort is probably more historically authentic; and one aspect of Ole's
distinctive vocation is to point out those truths that some of us would rather ignore.

I'd also like to comment on claims of "sexual abuse". I think some people misinterpret
both the open attitude to relationships which is common (but not compulsory) in the Diamond Way
community, and also the traditional Tantric Buddhist spiritual approach to sexuality. Some people
like the idea of openness in relationships; other people find that concept hard to fathom. But there
is nothing specifically Diamond Way about that, it is also a broader (albeit minority) view within
Western culture, shared by groups of all sorts of different persuasions, spiritual or secular. I myself,
I have always been inclined to that attitude towards relationships, long before I ever even heard of
Diamond Way, so that aspect doesn't bother me. But I understand a lot of people can't understand it;
maybe they should just live and let live, rather than condemn them?

The other aspect of the sexual question -- traditionally, in Western culture, the sexual and spiritual
domains were considered largely disjoint, except in the specific case of marriage. So, the idea of
a spiritual teacher having a sexual relationship seems highly improper. But, I think the impropriety
really comes from the betrayal of trust -- in the Christian tradition, for instance, ministers of religion
are expected to behave in a way which excludes sexual relations with either anyone (celibacy), or
no one but their marital partner. Thus, for a religious functionary in that sort of tradition to engage
in a sexual relationship with a follower is to violate the teachings of their religion, and thus violate
the trust which the follower has placed in them as a minister. But, if a religion doesn't teach that,
then no such violation of trust occurs. I'd say the same thing about attempts to analogize medical
ethics into spirituality -- if you go to see a physician, you don't expect a sexual relationship, and
thus for a physician to engage in one is inappropriate. On the other hand, do you expect a sexual
relationship if you go to a spiritual teacher? Well, that really depends on the nature of their teachings.
If they teach e.g. "no sex outside of marriage", which would judge that such a relationship is improper,
and then seek to engage in one anyway, that suggests they are being abusive. Whereas, if they teach
"free love" (to use an old phrase), and offer you the opportunity to participate in that with them,
how is that a betrayal? It's not a betrayal; its just their being truthful to their own teachings.

I understand that, for someone to describe their experiences as "sexual abuse", they must be in
great personal pain. At the same time, I feel that the term should really be restricted to cases
involve minors, or those of restricted capacities (e.g. the intellectually disabled), or non-consensual
cases (i.e. rape). If an adult of sound mind consensually engages in sexual activity, then I don't
think we should call it abuse, even if they later regret doing it. I'm sure some people have had
sexual experiences in the context of Diamond Way which they later regretted -- just as people
have had sexual experiences they have regretted outside Diamond Way as well -- but unless they
involved lack of consent or other violations of the law, I don't think its fair to label them abuse.

Thanks for listening
Samuel

Quote
Emma C
Another Diamond Way book has been leaked onto the internet!

This is the 'Mandala Offerings' ritual that is a major money spinner for the Diamond Way cult.

You only get to do this once you are high up enough in the hierarchy. Those doing it are not allowed to tell those lower down about what it contains and lie to both them and the public about it. In this way it is like Diamond Way's "Xenu story".

Enjoy...!

[www.wikiupload.com]