Suenam:

You may want to see it in black and white - either Shamarpa is for or against Nydahl - either the letter is authentic or forged,

Yes - I believe the letter is either authentic (in a sense that Shamarpa had it typed for him and then signed it) or forged. Do you think there are more options? Please share - I am intrigued!

but as daruisb has pointed out, no one has made the claim it was forged so I do not see the need for your polemic.

A direct quote from Puella's post up this page:

Dariusb you are right. The signature on the letter with no date is not the signature of Shamar Rinpoche. It would be interesting to know who really wrote this letter and how much he took for it.

It is clear that, according to Puella (who agrees with dariusb), Shamar did not write the letter. She even insinuates that money changed hands in the process (evidence, anyone?). Then we have your posts:

Yes - I think given the quoted 2013 date, the dodgy signature, and the totally different style, I think the letter is questionable

and:

Personally I find an undated letter where the link claims it is from 2013 to be suspicious at best

To find out what you mean I asked you directly if you think the letter is forged but you ignored my question. Do you think the letter is genuine? Do you still think the signature is "dodgy"?

Peace

I'd like to add another point to Jamgon's post.

"There is no need to second-guess what Shamarpa thinks about Lama Ole's teaching activity - he stated it very clearly himself."

We could accept Shamarpa's statement at face value and conclude that he supports Nydahl 100%. It is possible that this is the case. But given the open letter Shamarpa published which appeared to be criticising Nydahl I personally suspect there's a little more going on between the two than we are privy to. How many times do we read statements from football club directors giving their managers/coaches their "full support and confidence" only for them to be sacked a few weeks later. Wasn't it also Bill Clinton who, under oath, stated he "did not not have sexual affair", "sexual relations" and "a sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. You can simply accept his statement and say there is not need to question it but in both cases the statements appear to have been "smoke and mirrors".

So while I'm prepared to accept that Shamarpa's statement might be the end of the matter I actually suspect that it is made in an attempt to cover over some of the cracks in the relationship. Of course, at this moment it is pure speculation on my part but I think the old proverb "there's no smoke without fire" might be worth bearing in mind.

Steve

why don't all English or Tibetan native speakers get together and write a letter to Shamar Rimpoche with a questions concerning Ole and DWB? hopefully we would get clear answer from him. Be course it is a little bit confusing situation on one hand there is Shamar Rimpoche's statement from last year and now there is this letter ( with no date and different signature).

It looks like the argument over the authenticity of Shamar's letter of support is a sign of the cognitive dissonance that his supporters are feeling.

Shamar (and probably Thaye Dorje too) do not like what Ole does but they cannot bring themselves to denounce him outright because his organization is the only one of any significant size that supports them.

Shamar has been disowned by the majority of the Karma Kagyu lineage lamas who accuse him of splitting the lineage when he could not take it over and run it as his personal fiefdom. His support for Nydahl surely undermines his integrity and gives support to his critics who say he is motivated more by power and money than spiritual concerns.

Darius,

I like your emphasis, but I don´t think it would be a good idea to sent a letter to Shamar like you suggested.
I think he was asked several times why he is still supporting Nydahl.

[marte-micaela-riepe.blogspot.de]

In the letter above he said very clearly:

"The first question concerns Lama Ole Nydahl. Since Lama Ole frequently explains the connection between Dharma and sex, emphasizing that the bliss of sex is the experience of mind, the question has arisen as to why I continue to support him."

And about the teachings Nydahl got:

"Lama Ole received many teachings from His Holiness the late Karmapa and from Tenga Rinpoche. From time to time he had to go to Darjeeling to get his Sikkim permit renewed and while he was there he studied a lot with Kalu Rinpoche in Sonada."

"Whenever Lama Ole visited me, he always talked to me about how wonderful it is that he learned all about tantric union practice from Kalu Rinpoche and Tenga Rinpoche. He thought it was just marvelous." As I said in my Open Letter: "You turned to the sexual promises of the Tantras, to the supposedly power, to the power power over women. This is obviously rooted in your personality. You are a junkie of such drugs."

And so on and on. Shamar was forced to delete this letter from his website one told because of threatening by legal actions.

What Nydahl does not like is to be identified as a Tantric-Master, he has given the samaya to keep that practises and his initiations secretly. Due to Shamar´s dissociation of tantric teachings he is dissociating himself of Ole Nydahl in the same moment. That is what his letter expressed.

On the other hand Nydahl also teaches Mahayana and on that level Samar is side with him. So we can better understand why he is shifting his positions.

(Glum)

My guess, is its the 'ol skillful means argument.

That even a questionable teacher like Ole is conveying enough of the Dharma that there is a chance someone might hear of it through him and if not in this life time, then in a future lifetime, find a root lama (not Ole) to take them to the final heights of enlightement.

This argument is used in all sincerity.

It also conveniently (to us outsiders) justifies accepting revenue from from a controversial teacher.

The perspective is, better that the dharma be mentioned, somehow, by someone, no matter how controversial that someone is, than for an area never to hear of the Dharma at all.

However, today, with so very many decent teachers available, this argument does not hold water. It only made sense in old Tibet where many villages and nomad groups were so isolated in valleys and shut in by winter, that one could go a long time without hearing mention of the Dharma.

Plus in old Tibet, life was threatening and all sorts of existing non Buddhist practices already existed--rituals and offerings to appeal to and appease local spirits and malevolent demons.

The Buddhist clerical groups constantly had to re-teach Buddhism to keep isolated areas from forgetting it.

And quite often, Buddhists, even the lamas and monks blended Buddhist teaching with these appeasement and exorcistic rituals as well.

This isnt a digression, because this was the context in which the argument developed on how important it was that people learn of the Buddha Way, and....be reminded again and yet again of the Buddha Way, lest in rural isolation, and in times of crisis, they go back to the old pre-Buddhist practices.

(Am learning this and much more from Geoffrey Samuels' book, Civilized Shamans)

The concern isnt what is being done to a person in THIS life, but whether, after many lifetimes, a person who has heard Ole mention the Dharma will, eventually find reach full Bodhichitta.

So Shamar is likely thinking in terms of multiple lifetimes, not just harm done in this generation by Ole's fulminations against Muslims and the other matters discussed here.

Warrenz:

It looks like the argument over the authenticity of Shamar's letter of support is a sign of the cognitive dissonance that his supporters are feeling.

Since you ventured into the field of cognitive psychology - I have another theory. The argument over the authenticity of the letter is an example of confirmation bias on the part of Lama Ole's adversaries.

Wiki:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

In this case we have a piece of information (a letter supporting Lama Ole written by someone in authority) which does not fit in with the views held by some forum contributors. Because the letter is inconvenient confirmation bias kicks in: Oh, look - signature, date, style - the letter has been forged! Let's discount it as a fake and discuss last year's letters by Shamarpa instead. The fact Shamarpa has since retracted the allegations in his previous letters does not matter - they are still useful in that they confirm the hypothesis.

Peace

@Jamgon

Face up to it Jamgon. If Shamar and Thaye Dorje do not support Nydahl they should say so and stop teaching at his centres. Thaye Dorje is teaching under the auspices of Diamondway in London this weekend along with Shamar's brother Jigmela. This link www.karmapa.org shows him with Nydahl in Hungary last week! Shamar is extremely vocal about anyone who he does not like. See the copious writings on the internet (see www.karmapa-issue.org and elsewhere) on Mick Brown, Lea Terhune, Robert Thurman et al to say nothing of his criticism of other Kagyu lamas and the Dalai Lama. Why so coy about Ole?

You are right that this does confirm the opinion I have developed over the past 15-20 years of Shamar. I truly wish I could believe he is Amitabha and that there is some higher purpose in all this. But honestly I can't. If he repudiated Nydahl I might have some faith that there is more to him.

Jamgon are you serious? you still banging on about the letter! you even use some examples of psychology to place diagnosis in place.With your contribution it has been established that letter is not a forgery . You showed links where it is clearly seen that Shamarpa use two different signatures. Question is not about autentity of the letter ,question is why Shamarpa changes his mind. Many people who are disappointed with DW turn to Shamarpa and statements like that do not help.
I did have conversation with Shamar Rimpoche about DW and I know what he said. I think Stevelpool's post hits nail on the head about Ole's and Shamarpa's relation. May be you should drop psychology and try to see whole situation from buddhism's point of you that might help you.
PEACE

Warrenz,

why should we belief in one person as Amithaba? Why should we belief a person is someone else, not himself including his character, his skills and weaknesses, even when he or she is called liberated or enlighted? Why should we belief in a conception of reincarnation and karma? Why should we fall back into a mental middle-age as tibetan Lamaism embodies?

Why should we belief in the myth the Tantrism was told by Buddha? Due to my experiences I left it all and I think having a clear view on the games those boys-networks are playing. Like the young so called Kalu Ringpoche said in his confessions: "I'm just a normal human being even you live with me like 1,000 years I will still tell you, I'm just a human being." Very brave! And: "For me the Buddhism and all this religious organization, spiritual organization it's all about how to protect the society, how to protect the environment, how to protect our self."

[marte-micaela-riepe.blogspot.de]

I share that view of Kalu that spiritual organisations, not only the Buddhists, are self-referential and incapable to reflect and renew themselves.

In my eyes there can be only the own inner way, the personal relationship to a spiritual path and the encourage to face ourselves. No Guru, no method, no teacher can substitute that process.