Quote
suenam

I was simply summing up some issues that have been covered in detail already.

The fact that they are so numerous is one of the things that gives cause for concern, I was hoping that you might enlighten us about how you have managed to resolve your own issues with any of them - what "framework" you have used to make sense of these doubts you once had, and what sort of sense you had managed to make.

NB: Comparing Ole to Guru Padmasambhava would be somewhat akin to comparing a modern religious figure to Jesus - I hope you can see how this might appear.

Hi Suenam,

Pleased to oblige. First let’s make it clear that I am no authority on Buddhadarma and/or DW but simply a practitioner looking at the world through my own set of tinted glasses. Also, my list of issues only partly overlaps with yours (we are all wired differently) which could make your next summary even longer!

The main issue for me was that Ole’s path was so unique that he may not fully realise how hard it is for most of us to make any progress. He was born with few fears or inhibitions, had unconditionally supportive intelligent parents and, in Hannah, found an amazing wisdom-giving partner. He did the sex, drugs & rock’n’roll thing without getting bogged down with addictions, hep C, boxing injuries, mental problems (you will no doubt find this claim debatable), unwanted children etc. He learnt through immersion the languages he would later need - Danish, English, German and French. Then, with Hannah, they shot over to Nepal and found two amazing teachers willing to work with them on a personal level (Lopon Tsechu and K16). Using your style of analogy this is akin to a scruffy young Nepali couple travelling to Europe and being accepted as personal students of Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury. Hannah and Ole then decided not to have children which gave them space for what Karmapa and others asked them to do. Ngondro in 4 months, all major purifications with their teachers either nearby or in close contact. They became insiders of the Tibetan world in Northern India before feuds and Chinese interference blew most of it apart.

I feel that some of Ole’s advice is aimed at people with more freedom than is available to normal mortals stuck waist-deep in samsara.

TBC

@VDesign

If you reread what I said, I never actually mentioned bedside manners :) I assumed that Nydahls relationships consist of more than just that. Nothing voyeuristic there, but thank you for the reminder.

Have you ever considered that only those girlfriends for which it turned out well would stay part of Diamondway Buddhism? I don't think they would stay in the organisation if they feel bad about Nydahl. And you are ignoring that I already pointed out one instance of a woman who feels cheated, abused and mistreated by Nydahl. Incidentally, she left the Diamondway.

But you actually bring up a point that has no relevance to the argument I am making. It does not matter how the women involved feel about it. They are in a teacher-student-relationship, and that matters. You probably will point out the voyeurism in my question, but when was the last time Nydahl had a girlfriend that was not also a Diamondway Buddhist? Don't you think that this is an important factor at all?

Concerning your point about Yeshe Tsogyal: We have no way to know today wether Guru Rinpoche exploited his position. But some aspects of relationships between men and women in Tibet should not be taken over without examining them thoroughly. I find June Campbells works interesting in this context. Not all of this applies to Nydahl, as he doesn't keep his consorts secret, but it is still worth reading.

Also, I would like to bring up another point. I hope discussing two points at once will be a problem. If it is, just ignore this part and focus on the first, I will just bring up this point again later. You consider yourself a utilitarian. I agree that from a utilitarian standpoint, Nydahl might not be a bad teacher. He makes people happy. However, to achieve that happiness, you have to suppress critical thinking. Does critical thinking have any value in your belief system, or is it to be abandoned if it interferes with happiness? I ask because I observed that many of Nydahl's students become very uncritical of him. There was a period during which that happened to me, and I saw it in many other students of him. They adopt his political views (as did I). They adopt his views on relationships (as did I). They adopt his stance on the Karmapa issue (as did I). If critical thinking doesn't have any intrinsic value in your belief system, this isn't a problem. In my belief system however, it does. I think it is bad when students are that uncritical. It leads to an immunisation against criticism (two german links, didn't find any good english sources). Nydahl tells his students to be critical, but at the same time encourages them to develop trust and devotion. Most seem to end up developing trust and devotion. My conclusion is that he doesn't really want them to be critical of him. Of course, your conclusion may differ.

vdesign:

You are not here for discussion, simply to praise and defend Ole, as your last post illustrates.

You don't seem interested in anything other than apology.

Your redundant sing-song of praise about Ole isn't really an exchange of ideas or discussion.

Based upon your last post DW seems to be a personality-driven group defined by its leader and composed of ardent followers so enthralled with Ole they spin and/or dismiss any criticism in favor of continuing adoration.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2010 10:40PM by rrmoderator.

I just wanted to say how grateful I am for your post Suenam on September 30, 2010 04:59PM. Insightful!

Quote

Based upon your last post DW seems to be a personality-driven group defined by its leader and composed of ardent followers so enthralled with Ole they spin and/or dismiss any criticism in favor of continuing adoration.

Buddhadharma is never supposed to depend on the personality of any one teacher.

The teach ings, not the teach er, are what matters.

If ones dharma lineage is within the Mahayana lineage as the Kagyu is, these are the precepts which all, teacher and students must abide by.

One also to practice Mahayana Buddhism, must understand the principle of what is called dependent origination--the chain of cause and effect by which suffering arises and where in this chain of cause and effect, one can insightfully identify where to break chains of cause and effect and NOT give rise to suffering.

No teacher can save us from the effects of bad actions. A teachers role is to teach us how to identify patterns of bodily action, patterns of speech and patterns of mind that give rise to suffering and what states of mind, states of body and kinds of speech can free us from suffering.

If a teachers behavior consistently gives rise to sexual scandal, bigotry against others, and attacks on those who express concern--that signals that that teachers actions are part of a pattern that is generating suffering and NOT teaching the relief of suffering.

One can use the precepts and judge how well DW is doing.

Quote

The Sixteen Bodhisattva Precepts
The Three Treasures I take refuge in the Buddha
I take refuge in the Dharma
I take refuge in the Sangha


The Three Pure Precepts

Not Creating Evil

Practicing Good (Some versions state, I vow to live for the benefit of all beings)

Actualizing Good For Others

The Ten Grave Precepts Affirm life; Do not kill

Be giving; Do not steal (Beware of taking what has not been freely offered)

Honor the body; Do not misuse sexuality

Manifest truth; Do not lie

Proceed clearly; Do not cloud the mind (Some vows state, I vow not to darken mind and body of self and other with intoxicants. One can not only state that drugs are intoxicants, but also ideology, crusade mentality, addiction to technology, addiction to group think, use of personality to thrill and intoxicate a group)

See the perfection; Do not speak of others' errors and faults**

Realize self and other as one; Do not elevate the self and blame others (Which would forbid bigotry against those who are outside of your group)

Give generously; Do not be withholding (Do not play favorites)

Actualize harmony; Do not be angry

Experience the intimacy of things; Do not defile the Three Treasures (The three treasures are the teachings of Buddha, The Dharma/Reality as it is/And Sangha, the community

------------

**Corboy note, spoken as a layperson and not as a teacher:

In drastic situations where the well being of a practice community is at stake, and hurtful patterns of behavior (faults) are taking place, then in this drastic situation one must, tragically speak of faults of others.

I personally interpret 'Do not speak of the faults of others' as 'Where harmony and justice already exist, do not speak in ways that generate disharmony and that produce injustice'

If disharmony and injustice do already exist, then the well being of the sangha (community) is already endangered and to care for that community one has to speak candidly about the trouble.

If a tooth is already diseased, a dentist must mention this in order to inform you that you need to have that tooth repaired. To stay silent about a diseased tooth is to fail to care for you, the patient.

Quote
vdesign
I feel that some of Ole’s advice is aimed at people with more freedom than is available to normal mortals stuck waist-deep in samsara.

TBC

I'm really not sure what criteria you use to judge how deep someone is immersed in samsara.

The DWB members I knew had no qualms about working for investment banks or oil companies, they craved their i-phones, alcohol, music, dancing, and often some form of tobacco product. They regularly served meat and alcohol in centres, and the level of harmful gossip was much higher than I have experienced in any other "samsaric" setting. On the face of it, there was no obvious reason to believe these people to be any different from the rest of society.

Conversely, Vajrayana Buddhism involves developing a pure view, and the act of judging one's own or another's karmic worthiness would seem to suggest a huge blind spot in this regard...

to Sceptic Watcher - I think the idea of this "immunisation strategy" applies to theories rather than groups or individuals with delusions of grandeur who believe themselves to be above normal mortals. Thanks for the June Campbell article, there was one passage which seemed highly relevant to this discussion,

"...I think it's more to do with the problems of squaring up the idea of perfection alongside what is perceived to be dubious behavior. One understanding of the "enlightened guru" is that everything about his behavior, no matter how strange or morally wrong, is a manifestation of enlightenment. That view may have been sustainable in Tibetan society-even promoted-but I think it's certain that Western society will be unable to sustain it. It's my view that if people resist looking at this question, certain groups will become more and more insular in Western society, in an attempt to protect themselves from challenge and to avoid change. They'll never go beyond a simplistic view of the guru as perfect, and the gurus themselves will never go beyond wielding complete power and being adored. To my mind this kind of insularity would either hasten the demise of the whole system, or create closed, cult-like groups that have no influence on society at all."



- So, even overlooking your phrase "normal mortals" which seems deliberately provocative and which I hope was tongue-in-cheek, there is still this ego-centred form of judgement based upon identity thinking about the self - any Buddhist project relies upon the fundamental ethics highlighted by Corboy, especially the idea, "See the perfection; Do not speak of others' errors and faults", which receives particular emphasis in Vajrayana Buddhism.

Making judgements about how deserving people are, or how immersed in samsara they may or may not be would seem to fall at the first hurdle, and produces a moralising, judgemental, and reactive viewpoint that is precisely at odds with any genuine form of Buddhism.

(A result of this is the (samsaric) tendency to compare people with one another, which produces a reactive personality - it’s really not important what Guru Rinpoche, Marpa, Drukpa Kunley, or Osel Tenzin did or didn’t do, and I am less concerned to hear about what Islamic extremists allegedly did to provoke such a reaction from Ole, and more concerned about what sort of level Ole is operating on to feel the need to focus on that in the middle of a lecture which is supposed to be about Buddhism - is he projecting love, compassion, understanding, a pure view, or is he just venting his own feelings of frustration and promoting conflict?)


PS. Thanks Agnieszka, glad to be of help.

Quote
suenam
The DWB members I knew had no qualms about working for investment banks or oil companies, they craved their i-phones, alcohol, music, dancing, and often some form of tobacco product. They regularly served meat and alcohol in centres, and the level of harmful gossip was much higher than I have experienced in any other "samsaric" setting. On the face of it, there was no obvious reason to believe these people to be any different from the rest of society.

Conversely, Vajrayana Buddhism involves developing a pure view, and the act of judging one's own or another's karmic worthiness would seem to suggest a huge blind spot in this regard...

Are investment bankers and oil companies tirthikas by definition? Is this the "pure" view?

Wealth, oil, iphones, even alcohol, are neither positive nor negative, they are simply neutral. It is our use or misuse of them that produces positive or negative results on the conventional level. Be careful not to fall into the same "moralizing, judgmental, reactive" view you accuse them of. It is easy to mistake one's preferred conventional views for the profound view if one perceives them to be of an equivalent class.

Quote

Be careful not to fall into the same "moralizing, judgmental, reactive" view you accuse them of. It is easy to mistake one's preferred conventional views for the profound view if one perceives them to be of an equivalent class.

That is a very old and tired way to attempt deflecting any outside scrutiny of a greedy guru or group.

Persons discussing another guru (adi da) called it the Card Trick. What is used here is the higher level card--that this is higher level behavior for which conventional moralizing does not apply.

An old, tired trick.

Quote


"To understand this, you have to look at the mix of eastern religion and western megalomania that manifested in cultic ways during the seventies. (Corboy note: Which is right when Ole got started)

It's really very simple how these cultic groups defendThey play three very simple cards"

The Three Cards

1) The Higher Level Card (i.e. Sorry, it's just over your head). Sorry, but you're just not smart enough to realize I am smarter than you, because you're on a lower (less divine) level.

(2) The Projection Card (i.e., I know you are, but what am I). By criticizing me, you are really just criticizing yourself, because any problem you see in me is just a projection of a problem in yourself.

(3) The Skillful Means Card (i.e., it's all your own fault, dickhead). The most potent card of all! It's not abuse; it's not pathetic or ridiculous or wrong; it's a crazy-wise teaching. You know, like Zen stuff. So when I call you a dickhead, it's not because I'm a dickhead, it's because you have a dickhead-complex that you need to evolve past, and I'm here to help you see that.

Later, others added two additional cards:

4. The "He's Only Human" Card

5. (the one i use) The "At Least It's Fucking Entertaining!" Card


Note that these cards are not designed in any way, shape or form to prompt a discussion or dialogue. What can one possibly say to any of these cards? Nothing and that is exactly the point. They are designed to end all discussion, and they are used only when folks know the actual substance of their beliefs has run, or is running, dry.

The underlying essence of the previously mentioned 3-cards, played often by cultic leaders and apologists of the eastern religious/western psychological milieu, is this:

Any negative response to the leader or inner circle of the group can only be ones own fault (i.e. blame the victim). You're either not smart enough to understand (at a lower level), lack sufficient self-awareness (are simply projecting), or have failed a very deep test (when the group/leader hurts you, this is actually helping you).

[www.kheper.net]

Corboy: Any group that sets up as a tax exempt spiritual non profit is being indirectly subsidized by us 'conventional' minded folks who do pay taxes.

If Ole wants money from democratic societies to create personal fiefdoms where he can live unquestioned like a feudal baron, he'd better be prepared for scrutiny from those who indireclty subsidize him by paying the taxes he does not pay.

this entire article has more text, and well worth reading. Though written in response to discussions of Ken Wilber and the gurus he has endorsed, this same article can be pasted to one's desktop and used to evaluate any authoritarian guru or group--all the standard rhetorical non-answers and guilt trips are itemized in user friendly form.

Quote
kayo

Quote
suenam
The DWB members I knew had no qualms about working for investment banks or oil companies, they craved their i-phones, alcohol, music, dancing, and often some form of tobacco product. They regularly served meat and alcohol in centres, and the level of harmful gossip was much higher than I have experienced in any other "samsaric" setting. On the face of it, there was no obvious reason to believe these people to be any different from the rest of society.

Conversely, Vajrayana Buddhism involves developing a pure view, and the act of judging one's own or another's karmic worthiness would seem to suggest a huge blind spot in this regard...

Are investment bankers and oil companies tirthikas by definition? Is this the "pure" view?

Wealth, oil, iphones, even alcohol, are neither positive nor negative, they are simply neutral. It is our use or misuse of them that produces positive or negative results on the conventional level. Be careful not to fall into the same "moralizing, judgmental, reactive" view you accuse them of. It is easy to mistake one's preferred conventional views for the profound view if one perceives them to be of an equivalent class.

I think I was very careful in this respect - hence the phrase "no different to the rest of society" - the context of the statement was made in response to claim that Ole's teachings were for those who are "more free than normal mortals".

However, since you raise this issue - I believe that the precepts do indicate that one should not cause harm, nor promote addictions - so these things may well be viewed as questionable - really though, the point of the post was to question the equanimity of a viewpoint which claims to perceive some people as being more free than others.

Whether someone chooses to uphold the precepts or not is a purely personal matter, but claiming to be superior is an arrogant and egotistical act of moral self-righteousness.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2010 12:44AM by suenam.

To whom it may concern:

vdesign and kayo have been banned from the message board.