Sceptic Watcher, great thanks for June Campbells' link.

Corboy - did you compare Ole Nydahl to Ken Wilber in your post? I can not imagine two approaches towards spirituality which would be more remote. Are you at all familiar with Ken's work?

Ken Wilber has a history of associating with and endorsing abusive spiritual leaders, most noteably Adi Da and Andrew Cohen

This calls his own discernment into question.

The three cards list of cultic put downs was published in response to Kens W's endorsement of Adi Da.

The issue on this thread is Ole N.

For a thorough assessment of Ken Wilber, one can go to google and look up Frank Visser's Integral World site, and Geoffrey Falk's Norman Einstein analysis and also google David C Lane's prescient observations.

To clarify, the 'Three Cards' article is a handy list of all the classic ways authoritarian gurus and their supporters deflect and stifle dialog.

That article was originally published as an analysis of Ken W and Adi Da, but it is equally useful in identifying other guru's deflection tactics, showing how the gurus' evasion tactics tend to be the same, even when their belief systems are quite different.

Just look at the social dynamics--thats how to ID a cult. Doctrines vary but behaviors tend to be similar.

That is why Robert J Lifton's criteria for what consitutes a high demand group or cult are so useful--its a list of social characteristics that remain similar even across groups where dogma is different.

Or as one of our seminary professors put it, same hardware (fanaticism) different software (belief systems).

Its guru authoritarianism thats the same, even if the belief system is Buddhist, or Wilberian Integral, or Christian, or Firewalking for Wealth.

In response to the "three card trick", I think there is a way around it, and that is to simply describe what one sees without making judgements.

If it is someone's goal to become a fundamentalist, authoritarian, moralizing reactionary, then that is their right.

My personal opinion on this is that it would seem to pose a problem for their development as a Buddhist, but it is their right to choose the direction of thier development, and up to the reader to form their own opinion on whether this is desirable path to follow.

As regards Ole and DWB members - should they feel that the words "fundamentalist, authoritarian, moralizing reactionary" are somehow negative then it is also their right to project whatever judgements they want onto this desciption.

Taking the wider perspective of the group as a whole, these characteristics would seem to be quite useful in establishing group indentity and cohesion in the face of perceived threats and fears, despite the barriers to spiritual development that they entail.

Please don't go off topic.

The topic is not Ken Wilber.

DW devotees seem to be attempting to subvert this thread.

Trolls and apologists often try to do this by pulling a thread off topic.

Hello everybody

I've read some really good comments on this blog. Nice to see all the efforts to make people use their brains.

Let me introduce myself. Although officially self declared 'ex student' (I wrote Lama Ole a goodbye letter which I handed over personally), I am actually still a student of Ole.

We always we're, and in fact still are, good friends. I've been Ole's student since 1996 and have met him, his wife and some of his teachers many times during lectures and courses. I like him as a person, as a friend, as a meditation teacher and as example of genuine commitment towards the well being of everyone. I will not go into detail here, but feel free to ask me for more information in case you need it.

Why is it that I left?
I recently left because some (not all) of the reasons also pointed out on this forum were bothering me too much. I will get back on that.

Why is it that I still highly respect Lama Ole?
He taught me crucial things about the workings/nature of mind that, to me, are extremely beneficial – in fact invaluable, seen from both my personal experience and the Buddhist doctrine. That's in fact the main reason I went to the local group; to show gratitude for this teachings and blessings by joining the weekly Karmapa meditation.

These two sides of the DWB story; (1) unhealthy aspects I do not want to be part of, and (2) the many convincing experiences I’m grateful for -and always will be, whatever will become of DWB in the future- are both very clear to me. To me the one does not interfere with the other. They exist in seperate domaines. In fact it's quite fascinating. I'm sure I'm not the only one having this combined experience.

Apart from expressing my gratitude and feelings of friendship I wrote a few things in my goodbye letter that might be relevant observations for visitors of this forum:

You have been very helpful to many people finding some truths that can be relied on. I thank you for that. At the same time I see tendencies crossing the over all positive outcome of your movement. It’s mixed. As a person (idealistic) you surely get my benefit of doubt. As a leader (not) taking care of strange side effects of your actions I have to admit I’m more critical.

As we discussed earlier in our letters, your one liners are taken over without proper context or direct experience of the forty years of meditation experience you have, further simplifying your (already not too complex) approach. I guess after your death we will see the fruits, and I doubt they will be ornaments of enlightenment.

[…]

Today students not having finished their ngundro, only having taken refuge a few years or months before, play leader of the centre, calling themselves teachers. In an ideal world this could work. But put to the test it takes more than enthusiasm alone to execute such a responsible task.

[…]

Seeing too much sectarian behaviour putting religious matters above common practical ones, I ran out of appreciation and patience regarding DWB followers in my surroundings.

I have to be precise here. It’s not about believing certain individuals are truly, inherently nasty people. Of course they are not! Individually they can be surprisingly nice, normal, average homo sapiens, with whom I’ve had the pleasure of sharing good moments.

It is rather the very unhappy, classic outcome when a certain type of religious follower is put in group setting and confronted with the straight forward cut –the-crap-approach of every day life: if there’s no true inner security, let alone freedom, these worlds do not coincide and things become some kind of war between the sacred and the mundane, ending up arrogantly having to neglect sangha members with other, more practical visions. Thus dwelling in “higher views” facing the core of the problem and self reflection are effectively avoided. (Sect alert!)

I’m absolutely fine and can clearly distinguish between the power of the transmission and the human circus around it. It is somehow inappropriate to point out in detail things you most probably are aware of already. Times, numbers and new generations buddhists have changed. And as I noticed problems within the DWB community with politics, internet and controlling the actvity of members and centres around the globe are already part of daily reality.

[…]

I will no longer visit any national or foreign centres, and just leave it to the future what will happen. Same with visiting you, my, until now foremost and only Dharma teacher. It is time to move on and I’m strongly thinking about switching to Shamarpa, in this way also staying close to H.H Karmapa Trinly Thaye Dorje while at the same time avoiding the somewhat strange DW community – not referring to the many fantastic, inspiring people I’ve met in your community, but referring to the frightening dynamics of group behaviour in connection with a strong cult around you.

So, I repeat: it is mixed. Not just good or just bad. But loads of both.
If you are searching for a perfect sangha, I have to be honest: you won't find it at the DWB

Nevertheless there is a lot of simplification going on regarding criticizing the movement of Lama Ole. Ironically just as much as within his movement regarding criticizing Islam.

Not every single centre has turned into a fanatic anti-islam community, not every student is childishly copying the outer behaviour of the central figure, running around with big muscles and sniffing tobacco. There are truly intelligent, brave and inspiring meditators too in Lama Ole's groups, who see the same 'split level' as I do, but choose to stay for some reason.

I guess these days the smart, independantly thinking people mentioned above are definitely in the minority. Something that could happen because, in my opnion, Ole is not effectively stimulating critical thinking, but rather sees his students rush down the same steep path he followed himself: 'Total identification with (and unconditional surrender to) the teacher'

A path most beautiful and inspiring to read about in lifestories of Great Masters- a path that might have worked without problems with the 16th karmapa- but indeed a tricky enterprise once a teacher has developed a strong political agenda and is publicly calling other ways of (political) thinking 'confused'

I will get back on that later some day and will try to explain why I think Ole's perspective on Islam, Africa and Women is in fact way less horrific than most critics believe it to be - but this will be of course my subjective viewpoint, so correct me if I'm wrong, I might learn something.

Actually I feel it's a pitty the whole output of Lama Ole's activity got such a distorted, political and extreme face. No one but he himself brought this in existence. Would he have chosen a more elegant approach (maybe listening a bit more to his teachers - had they been alive) he could have helped and inspired twice as much students, which would have been great, because in my eyes he's really a good guy with a lot to give.

It's just that Ole seems to be somehow still living in the sixties and is having a very idealistic, almost naive, believe in the potential of the people he meets, thus empowering them to play roles they are not ready for… In fact not their fault. And maybe, in some way, also not Ole's as he copied this approach from the 16th Karmapa of whom is said he never referred to anything less than buddha-potential or Buddhanature. I must admit I'm too much of a poet not to like this view!

Sometimes the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. I do not doubt Ole's good heart.


-sorry for the ridiculous lenght of this post, but complex matters need a full context, hope it made sense-

'It's just that Ole seems to be somehow still living in the sixties and is having a very idealistic, almost naive, believe in the potential of the people he meets.........
Sometimes the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. I do not doubt Ole's good heart.'


Its just that Nydahl is empire-building and doing it the quick and dirty way by appealing to the lowest common denominator--classic stuff, create an insular group by identifying an outside enemy and encouraging hatred of that enemy.
Nothing naive or idealistic in that, its been tried and tested by every aspiring dictator.

I started to write a post to this forum late last night and abandoned it. After reading the post by Fresh I have decided to write again.

The gist of my abandoned post was to in some way temper the Nydahl bashing. My main gripe is with DWB and some of it’s members and of course Nydahl must take responsibility. As Fresh says (and I have said in previous posts) there are some critical, compassionate and inspiring people within the DWB community. I had the pleasure to meet a few. Also as Fresh mentioned not all centres are run like divisions of the BNP (my analogy not Fresh’s).

My experience within the Liverpool centre was both positive and negative. I had some great friends their and I do feel that during the 7 years I attended and meditated I made some progress. The problem for me was the founders/leaders of that group were fanatical to the point where they had lost sight of how their quite frankly rude, and abusive behaviour created an atmosphere which stifled growth.

Any criticism of Nydahl was rebuked and the dissenter labelled “confused”. In my opinion they lost the ability to be critical, pledging their unwavering trust in whatever came out of his mouth. As I pointed out, if, in his advancing years Nydahl were to develop dementia (and I hope that he doesn’t) will they still follow and trust every word uttered? What is to say that his own critical faculties aren't already so impaired from the years of drug abuse that this isn’t already the case?

It’s fine for vdesign to make a glib remark regarding Nydahls sexual appetite but would he be so glib if it was his partner that Ole was having sex with? It’s the double standards from many who defend Nydahl which flag DWB up as a cult. Actually it’s one of several warning signs.

The Manchester group had it’s e-mail privileges suspended as they were exchanging race hate material which was being read by ex-members who had not been removed from the mailing list when they left DWB. It seemed that the problem wasn’t the racial hatred. I seemed to be more the fact that it was being accessed by people who might find it objectionable!!!

The leaders of the Liverpool group proposed a cull of it’s members because they were not deemed Diamond Way enough!! It is this arrogance I find distasteful. If you do not buy into the Nydahl story 100% then there is no place for you in their meditation centre. I suspect that one of the reasons was that the Liverpool members didn’t throw themselves into renovating the leaders property with the enthusiasm the leaders expected. The argument I had with them went something like this; “is the work in the centre compulsory?”, “no it’s voluntary”, “OK then there isn’t a problem if people don’t want to do building work on your house is there?”. “Well it isn’t the DWB way so they are not DWB enough so we are going to kick them out!!”

No logic at all. Just a fanatical devotion to the words from the man at the top. They would regurgitate one of Ole’s pet phrases that “we develop most from the work we do in our centres” (or something to that effect). It sounds like a way of manipulating people to do you work for you. Tell them the best way to develop is to increase the value of the DWB property portfolio!!!

I was under the impression that the best way to develop was to meditate. And I saw very little evidence that this was actually the main focus in the DWB centres I visited.

'Tell them the best way to develop is to increase the value of the DWB property portfolio!!!'

As I understand it, the DWB portfolio is completely under the control of Nydahl (evidenced earlier in this thread in the document outlining the controlling members of the organisation)

There are positives and negatives in all situations and within all persons; recognising when the negative factors are beginning to outweigh the positives is a function of developing a balanced capacity for rational judgement.

If DW is tax exempt, that means all this castle building is indirectly subsidized by tax payers.

Culling members is also ungrateful---imagine how one would feel having given ones enthusiasm to building up the DW/Ole fiefdom only to be 'culled' later one because one is not deemed sufficiently enthusiastic.

It can often happen that a person who is young and single, full of energy and idealism will work hard at supporting DW and its projects (including improving the teachers property).

Later, that same young person may marry or find a partner, want to divert his or her energy to making a homelife and not have as much money or time to beaver away at the local DW center.

That person, once enthusiastic while young and single, may also have become more alert and wary after seeing people treated badly, hearing adverse talk against others.

A person like this, once young, single and energetic, now older, with different and legitimate priorities, wanting to divert some personal time, energy and funds to make a home onself and a family,not just add to the property portfolio of DW and Ole N, that person, older and with a legitimate change in priorities, may suddenly find themselves included in the cull and feel betrayed.

And recognize, belatedly, that this is what he or she saw done to others, and ignored the pattern, being young and idealistic at the time.

And not told this by senior member/workleaders who have to keep the numbers up and who rationalize by not wanting to disrupt the practice of younger members by 'making the Dharma look bad'.

Buddha was radicalized by witnessing older persons, sick persons and dead persons.

The measure of a Dharma center or teacher is whether those who are older, ill, who are poor, not rich, who are NOT young, beautiful and wealthy, are supported in their practice.

A true Buddhist does not favor the energetic and young and beautiful while devaluing those older, ailing, poorer and who have to budget their vitality so as to support their families and homes.

Differences in rank and hierarchy are legitimate in sofar as it produces a nonheirarchical outcome--

That outcome being an atmosphere of steadiness, calm and clarity, to support the practice of all, regardless of youth, wealth, attractiveness or social rank.

British readers may recall this:

Quote


A Jacobite's Epitaph

To my true king I offer'd free from stain
Courage and faith; vain faith, and courage vain.

For him I threw lands, honours, wealth, away,
And one dear hope, that was more prized than they.

For him I languish'd in a foreign clime,
Gray-hair'd with sorrow in my manhood's prime;

Heard on Lavernia Scargill's whispering trees,
And pined by Arno for my lovelier Tees;

Beheld each night my home in fever'd sleep,
Each morning started from the dream to weep;

Till God, who saw me tried too sorely, gave
The resting-place I ask'd, an early grave.

O thou, whom chance leads to this nameless stone,
From that proud country which was once mine own,

By those white cliffs I never more must see,
By that dear language which I spake like thee,

Forget all feuds, and shed one English tear
O'er English dust. A broken heart lies here.

Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lord Macaulay

[www.englishverse.com]