Thank you for your insightful post Fresh, and to SteveLpool and Stoic too...

My experience of DWB also echoes this idea of a double standard, and I really fail to see how it is possible in good faith to keep the two "domians" seperate.

Ole himself speaks of how his political comments, or his sexual activity, is "to be viewed as" completely seperate from his role as Lama, and in DWB there is often mention of people being idealistic (which is basically dualistic in it's very core). Ole seems to think he can unify Buddhism with modern western values, and yet one of the barriers to this is the compartmentaliztion of self required in modern life which fundamentally seems to be at odds with Buddhist idea of transcending duality.

I find it hard to write these things off as unintended side-effects because at some point they would seem to lead to such absurd contradictions that one could only really maintain good faith by intentional self-deceit and denial (either that, or developing scizoid tendencies).

At best this would seem to require a suspension of one's critical faculties in order to remain in denial, and at worst it would seem to entail downright hypocrisy and dishonesty. But the most striking thing about this for me is that the practice of Buddhism is aimed precisely at addressing this issue, and so the presence of such dualistic tendencies would seem to be a direct indicator of one's progress along the path.

Suenam:

Quote

Ole himself speaks of how his political comments, or his sexual activity, is "to be viewed as" completely seperate from his role as Lama

That sounds the same as the way abused little kids learn to separate the brutal parent beating them from their idealized view that the parent beating the child is Good Daddy/Good Mommy.

Its an internal, dualistic split between role (Lama, Parent) and bad behavior (greed for aquiring power, money, property, bully behavior (hitting the kids, saying harsh divisive things about Muslims who are living peaceably in one's community and the world)

Making a distinction between the role of lama or good parent vs the big person who is beating you or the guy who wants money, lots of property is to tell followers to adopt the mindset characteristic of small children, a mindset one is supposed to grow out of.

It is also a dualistic mindset that runs counter to cultivating the mindstates needed for practice, called the Brahmaviharas.

Thanks for the comment Stoic. I do not think Ole is applying for a role as world ruler, wearing shiny boots, a uniform, small moustache and sun glasses.

Please note my link with the sixties mind set of Ole was exclusively meant for illustrating his enthusiastic faith in his students capacities, whether he just met them for the first time, ten seconds ago, or not. A quite rare and extreme type of viewing people, as most of us see lots of faults in others all the time.

To be clear: bringing up the Era of The Flowerchildren has no connection -whatsoever- with a hilarious attempt to paint a picture of Lama Ole's political statements being some kind of daisy chain.

It will take me some time to explain exactly which viewpoint I wish to share on this forum. You might discover we have mutual concerns regarding the whole LON/DWB thing. In fact exactly the reason why I wrote in my last letter to Ole:

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. 

Perhaps those fruits I'm meantioning fell of a few fanatic branches of the mixed DWB tree already as there have been some darm issues. For this reason I added:

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. 

Is it possible to be banned twice? First from the DW center, second from Rick Ross Cult Education Forum...

Quote
corboy
It is also a dualistic mindset that runs counter to cultivating the mindstates needed for practice, called the Brahmaviharas.

Although I agree with your post Corboy, I think it's important not to trivialize this. The struggle with dualism has been a topic of a huge amount of literature and debate both in buddhism and in western philosophy for many centuries.

Were it so easy to overcome dualistic thinking then there would be no need for buddhism, but I feel that what is more important is one's approach to dualism, which would be one of either admission or denial.

I have no idea how Ole views this personally, but what I have seen in DWB is a result of Ole worshippers' attempts to view him as self-identical, confusing the role with the real person behind it, and producing a sort of "short-circuit" so they can avoid the hard work traditionally associated with Buddhist practice, and which seems to lead to an apeing of his more superficial and trivial characteristics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2010 09:53AM by suenam.

Correction regarding my last post:

Perhaps the fruits I'm meantioning fell of a few fanatic branches of the mixed DWB tree already as there have been some DARK issues.

Quote
suenam

Were it so easy to overcome dualistic thinking then there would be no need for buddhism, but I feel that what is more important is one's approach to dualism, which would be one of either admission or denial.

I fully agree with you, Suenam:

1. Thinking, logic and reasoning are very important tools, as much needed on the Buddhist Path as air to breath.

2. Thinking, as an active way to put phenomena of our daily, relative world in place, is always dualistic. Non-dualistic thinking can not contain any mental object or word because each 'symbol' we hold in our mind is by it's very nature defined by it's opposite, i.e. defined by what it is not. (I'm sure Suenam is aware of this, but want to be precise).

3. The point is not throwing away a beautiful instrument that can clarify the events taking place in our lives, but rather to use them in a way that is beneficial and healthy.

Taking part in a forum like this, with the motivation of helping people to find relevant (inside) information, is such a way. Even is this means presenting dualistic or seemingly contradictory viewpoints.

The personality traits on display in dictators, with or without moustaches, are there in potential in all humans.
The abusive parent, cult leader or workplace bully is displaying those same tendencies except on a smaller stage than that of international politics. That smaller stage doesn't make them any less damaging to those they have dominion over, it just makes their reach, thankfully, a lot smaller.

'Please note my link with the sixties mind set of Ole was exclusively meant for illustrating his enthusiastic faith in his students capacities, whether he just met them for the first time, ten seconds ago, or not.'

Assuming the above statement to be a realistic picture of the mindset of Nydahl, and it is so far only one persons opinion, my own opinion of this mindset as one appropriate to teaching and leading others is that it lacks the very necessary realistic discernment and nuanced judgement to benefit anybody.

The sixties dream of love and peace foundered in the sixties because it was unsustainable when faced with the realities of the world outside of those few cloistered years. We grew up some, Nydahl didn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2010 04:31PM by Stoic.

To people going to DW centers for no other reason than meditation, the political dimension (of which the importance strongly varies in different groups, cities and countries) is more like a side room of the house than the house itself. I understand sounds stupid to highly critical outsiders, and I'm fully aware of what might be their point. A point I deeply respect because, as you will read in a few seconds, I think hits the spot.

I wrote Lama Ole more than once I think it is a bad idea to mix presenting Buddha's teachings with political statements. (Actually my first letter about this dates from 1998). He very well knows I never liked it and never will.

The aim of this post is to explain from the inside how it is possible to work within this environment, having a critical point of view, but at the same time actually supporting a possibly dangerous movement by attending courses and so on, which seems contradictory. There were some posts about 'double standards' and 'Good Daddies' that, although I completely share the underlying concern of the writers, did not make much sense to me.

It seemed like the ability of many truly independent and sincere people to clearly distinguish between the different aspects was being questioned.

I like to explain why I think they have the right to do that and are allowed to get away with it without being called 'confused' or 'psychologically immature'. My opinion would be their minds function quite the opposite of those accusations, and are shining bright. They just have another focus, namely picking the diamonds out of the coal mine, not identifying with the mining company too much.

A short comparison:

Good food on an ugly plate accompanied by horrible sounding music, anybody knows that type of restaurant?

Hungry people looking for food instead of socializing and hanging around rush in to quickly satisfy their needs thinking: 'Boy, what a distasteful place to be in, but what a master prepared this delicious, high quality meal' They eat the food and run out again. Back on the street their bodies feel strenghtened by the food, and the well being this absorbed energy provides, is taken home to their friends, colleagues and families. Feeling happy about this, the same resaturant is visited again.

Please note: I'm -in no way- aming at saying the political dimension within DWB is as unharmful as ugly plates and horrible music (wait for my post about Islam and you will see).

What trying to make clear through analogy here, is that wheter or not aspects of a totality can be seperated or not depends solely on the person relating to it. And not on the concept of a indivisible whole as it is seen and/or being imposed by others judging the situation (thinking their view superior).

To say it more clear:

Anyone who deeply and non artificially feels political statements and the teachings of the Buddha have NOTHING to do with eachother (they just technically got blended by means of the same mouth and microphone), can en will evaluate them seperately, probably coming to different conclusions about these two entirely different things. A matter of perception and clarity.

Only confused people who actually DO think the whole political dimension is an inherent part of the Buddhist doctrine, and see it as a whole, will have to torture themselves doing extraordinary, twisted mental gymnastics if they wish to dissociate themselves from Ole's political statements and at the same time try to see him as their Buddhist teacher.

To say it even more clear:

One who sees no connection, does not have to seperate anything

Highly critical outsiders usually also see the DWB/LON as one package. (This is just human and a natural. Fed by emotions, human beings are usually not that precise). The problem arising from this is that because of this idea of 'politics and buddhism' being a indivisible aspect of the DWB path -or even worse: the main DWB characteristic-, some believe no other, more refined, nuanced and detailed, subdivisions of the general impression are possible. I.e. to them ugly plate, horrible sounding music and -if they are well informed enough to know about it- the good food are indivisible one.

This makes a certain type of critics who enjoy quick and dirty operating just as incorrect as Ole himself, who's not paying any reasonable attention to non-fundamentalist groups within Islam. Quite ironic.

Yes, I think Ole is a true master of meditation and totally qualified to teach this to students. His meditation instructions, methods and blessing (actually Karmapa's blessing, not his!) all have been incredibly helpful in my life, and so in the lives of thousands of others around the globe.

It is too easy to break and destroy things, and really difficult to build thing up or restore them. With this in mind I personally feel it's not careful at all to simply bomb the whole DWB-building including the main hall -which in my opinion is really is proper Buddhist meditation- without thorough investigation of all the pros and cons, acknowledging it is way too simple to depict lama Ole as a useless, dangerous dictator.

However (I repeat: however), although perfectly able to clearly distinguish between the power of the Kagyu transmission and the human circus around it, finally, after many years (in which things seem to have gotten more extreme), I do not want to support the DW movement anymore by being present in centers or at courses. Let this be a clear statement for those who might forget nuanced thinking about Lama Ole Nydahl is not the same as defending his behaviour.

For those of you taking the time to read my long and sometimes bad written posts (I'm not a native English speaker, sorry) I have two points of advice:

1. Do not confuse a broad view, built up over more than thirteen years from multiple levels of understanding, with inability to judge.

2. Do not confuse my clarifications with apologies.

There is (in my opinion) indeed a valid or legitimate point of view that dictates the only right thing to do is not to support what isn't perfectly right.

That's why I left Ole's group.

The reason I'm here, this week and maybe the next on this forum, is to present people with an open mind, who sincerely want to know more about the DWB movement (in contrast with those only looking for affirmation and more mud to throw with) some personal insights that might be useful to understand the why and how behind the Danish pupil of the 16th Karmapa, Lama Ole Nydahl, a man that without doubt missed an important exit along the way, but deserves a fair investigation.

Quote
Fresh

Anyone who deeply and non artificially feels political statements and the teachings of the Buddha have NOTHING to do with eachother (they just technically got blended by means of the same mouth and microphone), can en will evaluate them seperately, probably coming to different conclusions about these two entirely different things. A matter of perception and clarity.

I'm really intrigued where you are going with this, and am looking forward to your future posts, so without wishing to sidetrack you too much, as I may well have completely misunderstood the whole of Buddha's teachings, but personally, I would say that such a person would seem to have missed the whole point of Buddhism, or for that matter, even of politics in the wider sense of the term, as both would seem to be fundamentally about the way we choose to live our lives.

You've chosen two discrete entities - the plate and the food, but what if things were not so easily seperated? - say for example a fly in your food? - would that still be ok for you to seperate them and still eat well? - it seems to me that the Buddhist idea of "dependent arising" suggests that everything is in some way interconnected. Yes, we could choose to draw a line around certain things and claim that they are discrete and seperate, but isn't that choosing a samsaric view?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 11:36AM by suenam.