I think every group or organisation is self-serving, not just DWB. If someone sets up a charity to help people addicted to kite flying then the original motivation may be good, even altruistic, but over time, as the charity employs more people to help run the organisation, a conflict of interest occurs … If everyone is cured of their addiction to kite flying then the people employed in the charity find that their livelihood is lost! So who is your responsibility to? Originally it was to the people addicted to kite flying but now you discover that your employees are also under your care to some degree. In an ideal world most people never lose sight of the initial aims of the kite flying charity and understand that ultimately their success leads to the charities demise.

I think that at present DWB is really only focused on its own growth in terms of numbers of members and centres. I think this is their primary objective and should be reflected in their mission statement. Perhaps Nydahls ideals were noble initially, perhaps they still are and it is the personality cult built around him that distorts his view? To me the acquisition of property is important to them. They try to swell the ranks by marketing DWB as some kind radical, modern approach to Buddhism. This is why so much focus is made of the “famous parties” in literature. It’s why DWB is so popular with young people. I can see why it’s more appealing to attend a Buddhist group where you can meet friends and have parties and even have a teacher who is a ‘swinger’.

Before I was asked to leave it was clear that some were becoming concerned about the party idea running away with itself. The Manchester group had to close its doors for some time because their drinking was getting out of control and their hate campaign against Muslims was becoming too apparent to the ‘outside’ world. Even though I lived in the Liverpool centre at the time I was never 'told' about these problems. They were never spoken about. It was only through my own investigations that I became aware of the problems. Such secrecy is also very strange. It was almost as if they were afraid to tell me because the stories backed up my claims that DWBUK was a friends network for people looking to settle in the UK and had little to do with Buddhism.

Not once did I see them working for the ‘benefit of all beings’. I saw them working for the benefit of DWB. I didn’t see any offer of work in the community. I remember when the centre wanted to buy a Buddha statue. It was revealed that the centre had accumulated £400 or so for a statue. A meeting was held where we were ‘told’ what statue we were having (no need for a meeting then really if there was no democratic debate). I suggested that we buy a very cheap statue and give the remaining money to a charity, something like cancer research. This was met with a fair amount of disdain. I fail to see how buying a £400 statue of the Buddha benefits all beings?

Steve

Thanks Steve, while I agree that all organisations face this dilemma to some extent, I do think that some fair better than others. It would depend upon the degree to which the interests of the organisation overlap with it's aims. I also think that some organistions are more "outward-facing" than others, in the case of DWB the organisation appears to be fully self-contained, and as you rightly point out, the more immersed in DWB you become the less you seem to have contact with anyone outside of the organisation.

The issue of secrecy is a big one. I wonder why there is this claim to be non-hierarchical when there clearly is one. It's not like having a hierarchy is something to be ashamed of, and the only purpose it seems to serve is to deny any accountability of those in charge.

Having spoken to others I found they experienced the same thing upon leaving DWB. It's a bit like the disclaimer you see on competitions which state "the judge's decision is final". The door is slammed firmly shut behind you and you are faced with a wall of silence - not only are the leaders unaccountable, but their decision is unquestionable too.

Emails are then circulated with a cover story, usually about how the person is mentally ill and to be ostracised. In my own case, the information circulated was entirely false, and yet I had absolutely no chance to answer these claims. When I asked people that I once thought were friends, not a single one would show me the emails that were sent. I do wonder and can only speculate as to the information that would provoke such an extreme reaction.

One issue that particularly struck me was the emphasis on meditation. If anyone wished to tallk about their doubts they simply were told to meditate more, almost as an accusation that they were being lazy. No one could bear to hear the idea that things were less than perfect in "paradise". One of the worst accusations that you could make was that a member did not meditate (strange given Ole's statement about him no longer needing to). Shortly before I was ostracised, one member told me that I did not meditate! At the time I simply laughed thinking that it was a joke, as I had been meditating and studying the Dharma for 20 years prior to joining. Looking back I think they were sewing the seeds to undermine me for the simple reason that I would be willing to discuss both Dharma and individual issues which clearly threated the group ideal of presenting a blank wall and superficially papering over any cracks.

You point out the attraction of DWB to young people, and I think that they are also a very young group in the full sense of that term. They exhibit the folly of arrogant youth in thinking that they are experts and that they know better than individuals and groups that have a far longer tradition, and this image is maintained on the most superficial level. Personally I would feel nothing but pity if it weren't for the fact that they are acting in such a damaging way toward both the Dharma and to any individual that chances across them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2011 09:21PM by suenam.

'You need to meditate' or 'You're not meditating'

Those are both classic though stopping statements. And carry an element of shaming in them as well.

One can reply 'You dont know me well enough to presume saying such a thing.'

But this is a self serving group.

The stuff at Manchester described by StevelPool would warrant concern from the outside.

Unless things have changed, the UK has suffered much from football supporters and their riots.

(Read Among the Thugs by Buford for a description of what he witnessed in the early 1990s. He attended a party at a pub that was a meeting place for the British National Front before it changed to the BNP. Ironically, the football hooligans were so wild that even the BNF could not figure out a way to harness their energy--at least not while
Buford was there)

I mention the Buford book to make clear there has been a scary history of street violence in the UK. Prior to that in the 1930s, Oswald Mosely's enforcers would stir up quite hazardous street riots. Dame Rebecca West was no Buddhist, but without realizing it, her description of the method fits well with Buddhist understanding of causes and conditions.

In her book, The New Meaning of Treason, in her biography of Willam Joyce, one of Mosely's lieutenants and a street fighting expert, she told how a riot would be spawned.

An upcoming Moselyite meeting would be publicized and his bellicose followers would march in the streets of the locale some days before hand.

"The idea of violence would be present in the town" she wrote.

That tension would be the platform on which further tension would build and then with both sides wound up and hissing at each other, all it took was one tiny incident and the thngs would be aflame.

Persons supporting refugees from Nazi Europe would find their mailboxes at home full of terrifying messages sent from all over Britain and this too would be organized by Mosley.

Today it would be harassing emails with intimidating intent.

So Britain has good reason to be wary and it is much too bad that the young persons so eager for parties are not being educated about the history of mayhem in the UK and how valuable they are as recruits.

Last thing needed is for a bellicose elderly adolescent like Ole to surround himself with
peppery young persons, foster a party atmosphere and say inflammatory things that have the potential to wind up outside communities and lead to more rioting in the streets.

No doubt if a catastrophe happened, Ole would distance himself and claim he never told anyone to do it.

But thats the thing. One creates a pre-existing atmosphere of mental and emotional turmoil, and normalizes it, makes it seem compatible with dharma.

To quote Dame West:

'The idea of violence' (little boy games with guns) is made into a party game, or the elderly adolescent leader makes it seem part of being a Buddhist warrior.

Make no mistake: weapons are intoxicating.

And the Mahayana Buddhist vows--which apply in the tradition taught by Ole forbid us to peddle intoxicants.

That isnt just alcohol or drugs--but intoxicating ideas and images==including games with weapons.

Its all very different when the police and soldiers must learn to use weapons--its kept sober and very careful.

But partying around with them--no.

Quote
corboy
'You need to meditate' or 'You're not meditating'

Those are both classic though stopping statements. And carry an element of shaming in them as well.

One can reply 'You dont know me well enough to presume saying such a thing.'

But this is a self serving group.

Well strangely enough what happened was that I went to meditate for 30 minutes while the other person was playing video games. Even though the clock clearly showed that a half hour had passed, they were so immersed in the game that they thought it was only 10 minutes.

It's something I've encountered quite often with younger and less experienced "buddhists" who seems to believe that everyone else's perceptions of reality are distorted, and it's often the final step, and the one where they really start to take Buddhism seriously when they finally realise that it applies equally to themselves. DWB however is the only situation where I've encountered this phenomenon en masse.

"(...) In totalitarian societies where there's a Ministry of Truth, propaganda doesn't really try to control your thoughts. It just gives you the party line. It says, "Here's the official doctrine; don't disobey and you won't get in trouble. What you think is not of great importance to anyone. If you get out of line we'll do something to you because we have force." Democratic societies can't work like that, because the state is much more limited in its capacity to control behavior by force. Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says--in other words, control what people think. One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions--and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible. (...)"

"(...) For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the propaganda system to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling or unwitting instruments. (...)"

Noam Chomsky

are you comparing DW to totalitarian society? in my opinion that would be long shot. Buddhism is a tool to work on ones mind and if it is applied not correctly or withholding some information then it may become dengerous for one self and others around . DW is a cult nothing else they worship their leader for many different reasons .
recently I met few people from DW , some of them where alright but others got really cross when we shared our experience with DW and tried to tell us that we should not talk badly about Lama Ole. Interesting thing was that we did not talk badly about him , we just shared our experience with others that was all .
when I asked about the problems within DW and gave few examples conversation was finished , the answer I got was "you are very deep in to it" :))))
instead of trying to have a healthy discussion or explaining me why they have problems within DW we got just this silly answer .
I have question though , at the time when you were in DW ,were you incareged to see Lama Ole as Dorje Chang in the refuge tree doing you practice?

[www.dharmaandpsyche.com]

I can't say that I was encouraged to see Ole as Dorje Chang. It was often mentioned that is was possible to replace Dorje Chang with Ole if you felt a stronger connection that way.

I'm interested to see how the Dharma and Psyche web site develops.

Having read some of his comments I wonder if Buddhist meditation does actually have any benefits. I thought I experienced some development but I'm not sure if I was just deluding myself. This sort of self questioning was ridiculed during my time with DWB.

I think that looking at the dynamics of totalitarian societies--where such behaviour is extreme and overt and quite easy to chart--- is useful to get a grasp on the more subtle manifestations of such dynamics in other less totalitarian societies.
Chomsky is an academic, and whether you agree with his politics or not he is using a totalitarian example in an effort to do a 'compare and contrast' exercise in highlighting such dynamics. Any conclusions that the listener comes to after giving his example some thought are the conclusions of that listener alone.
The point of an academic discourse is not to tell the listener how it is but to start the listener doing his own thinking around the subject and exploring further.


'Having read some of his comments I wonder if Buddhist meditation does actually have any benefits. I thought I experienced some development but I'm not sure if I was just deluding myself. This sort of self questioning was ridiculed during my time with DWB.'

In my opinion this sort of questioning is of supreme importance if there really is to be an honest attempt to get to grips with anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2011 03:32PM by Stoic.

I do feel that I made some progress during my time at DWB but I can never be sure if this was just a bi-product of just getting a little bit older and a little bit “wiser”. Obviously it is impossible to go back in time and relive the last 8 or 9 years without having meditated to “make a comparison”.

I was chastised for having checked something out then “wasting my time” going back to check it again and again. I was told that if I had checked out a teaching and come to a satisfactory conclusion then there was no point in checking the point over and over again. I should just move on.

But I found that the longer I studied a detail I discovered flaws or inconsistencies which brought me to the conclusion that my first analysis was coloured by my initial enthusiasm which, in turn, distorted my ability to think critically.

For me there was far too much belief and trust taking place within the students towards the teachers and not enough critical thinking. It was my refusal to suspend my disbelief that eventually led them to tell me to take my practice somewhere else.

As I’ve already mentioned before somewhere on these pages, only the insane step out onto a frozen lake and, after discovering that the ice maintained its integrity for the first dozen steps, continue to walk across without being cautious.

Steve