Hi Fresh.

I have been able to sit through many of Nydahl’s lectures and separate Buddhism from his political views. I understand that his political views really have no real place in a Dharma talk and so I have taken his political comments and tried to examined them in isolation from the Dharma content. This isn’t as easy as it sounds because they are presented in the middle of a Dharma talk.

So whilst I have a reasonable amount of respect for him as a Dharma practitioner and teacher this is counterbalanced by his political views which I see as somewhat right wing.

Quote:
“One who sees no connection, does not have to separate anything”

The problem I have with this is that whilst I agree in principle that one who sees no connection doesn’t have to separate anything there are those who are unable to separate because they don’t see that there is no connection!!

I actually agree with some of Nydahl’s position regarding “radical” Islam. I too oppose compulsory dress codes for women and I also vehemently oppose human rights abuses. So I’m not in total opposition with him. Perhaps he feels that his audience assume that when he talks about Islam he really means “radicalised” Islam. Perhaps he just means Islam? When he starts to mix terms like bad karma with his opinions on people of colour from the African continent then I don’t know how we are expected to separate the two?

Is Nydahl a racist? I have said in several of my early posts that I don’t think so? But I’m not 100% sure?

Do I think the DWB ranks have a racist wing. Most definitely yes. A “respected” female travelling teacher once told me that we should be blowing mosques up with Muslims in them. I couldn’t resolve my difficulty in seeing how a “Buddhist” could harbour such views. Yet another once told myself and a friend (as we were driving her through Brixton on the way to one of Ole’s lectures) that “black people serve no useful function in our societies!”

So whilst I can in some way take Nydahl’s comments and put them into separate categories, personal political views and Dharma teaching, the fact that he mixes the two clearly gives some the impression that they are the same thing. Especially as he is seen as “liberated” if not “enlightened”.

I, too, am intrigued at where you are going with this.

At the moment it sounds to me like a very personal attempt to marry two ideas that are in conflict in order to justify a long involvement about which the writer has had considerable doubts for some time.

That may make the writer feel more comfortable but it fails to address the wider issues of the influence that Nydahl and his attitudes is casting over his followers and the general perception of Buddhism in the west--which is the subject of this thread.

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

This position is called 'solipsism', one of the perils of thought that most of the genuine religions attempt to address in humanity.

[en.wikipedia.org]

The fact that one sees no connection does not negate that connection. The fact that one sees no influence from Nydahl does not negate that influence.

It is well known and generally accepted that humans, at first glance, see what it profits them to see. The effort to see further than that first glance, or further than our own personal justifications is what meditation is designed for.

It is also a part of the maturing process in human adults.

Has Nydahl not taught that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 04:23PM by Stoic.

Dear Stoic and others

Solipsism is an interesting topic, but I do not see how it relates to my post as I'm only explaining people making clear discriminations between dharma and politics in fact do exist.

Nowhere in my post I can discover any hints suggesting I experience the world as if it were only a projection of MY mind, while assuming my mind is the ONLY existing consciousness there is.

Don't you agree it is a bit wild conclusion to draw out of so little information? It makes me wonder about the quality of your investigations in general to be honest.

Given the fact I introduce my post by explaining it's goal, I'm somewhat surprised to find a suggestion it failed to address the wider issues of the influence that Nydahl and his attitudes is casting over his followers and the general perception of Buddhism in the west.

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.

I do share Steve's view it's a serious problem there are people who are unable to separate because they don’t see that there is no connection. Good point, I fully agree. But please note again my post was concentrated on busting the presented myth critical people within the DWB necessarily have to be either 'confused', or 'psychologically immature' (or, as I do understand, most preferably both at the same time) to deal with the situation they're in.

Reading Steve's comment believing this myth would mean he too must be called immature and confused as he states he has
been able to sit through many of Nydahl’s lectures and separate Buddhism from his political views understanding that his political views really have no real place in a Dharma talk.

To stress the quintessence of my argument:

wheter or not aspects of a totality can be seperated or not depends solely on the person relating to it

Anyone who can proof I am wrong about this, please feel welcome to write it down on this forum. (Perhaps that would be more useful and contributive than introducing fancy philosophical terms based on assumptions, would'nt it?)

To whom it may concern:

Stay on topic.

Focus like a laser on the topic of this thread exclusively, which is DW and Ole.

Don't go off on tangents.

If you want to discuss something else, start another thread.

Fresh.

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

This was your statement. It is clearly solipsistic.

'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.'

This is also your statement, it is a clear apology. It not only seems contradictory, it is contradictory, unless of course you have an ulterior motive for continuing to support a possibly dangerous movement?

If the only way to justify Diamond Way and Nydahls atttude is by the followers adopting solipsism and trying to square such contradictory views as continuing to support a possibly dangerous movement whilst at the same time claiming to be critical, then what is being taught is confusion, nothing else.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2010 01:28AM by Stoic.

just to clarify a point here,

I do believe that the majority of Ole's audiences are intelligent enough to discern the difference between teachings on Buddhist Dharma and his personal political views, however the issue for me in this regard is actually Ole's integrity.

There are several "readings" of this;

- that Ole is a genuine Buddhist upholding the precepts and that his political remarks are not to be taken seriously, but are in fact tongue-in-cheek.

- that Ole's form of Buddhism is one which somehow bypasses the precepts for higher wisdom - Vajrayana "crazy wisdom" not subject to the eightfold path which is for "ordinary mortals".

- or that Ole's interpretation of the precepts is in fact entirely consistent with his remarks, and that his speaking out about his views on Islam is actually an example of right-speech and right views from his perspective.


I have heard all three of these rationales from DWB members.


The first would suggest a reckless irresponsibility and inappropriateness which would call into question his awareness of the consequences of his words when spoken from such a position of influence.

The second would suggest a form of elitism, not uncommon in Tibetan Buddhism, but which would also seem somewhat irresponsible when directed at newcomers.

While some of the more egotistical DWB members may like to believe this interpretation, I would like to believe that Ole has at least developed beyond that, which is why the only reading which really shows some integrity, and which takes Ole's Buddhist ideals seriously is the third reading, and yet this one seems the scariest, most distorted, and cult-like.

Ole has spoken about his memory of past lives as a protector, and the issue of the destruction of Buddhist monasteries by Islamic invaders - is it possible that Ole genuinely believes in his crusade based upon an inability to let go and move forward from past conflicts?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2010 02:03AM by suenam.

Quote
suenam
just to clarify a point here,

I do believe that the majority of Ole's audiences are intelligent enough to discern the difference between teachings on Buddhist Dharma and his personal political views, however the issue for me in this regard is actually Ole's integrity.

Suenam,

I like your structured and clear approch to the problem but here I would solely like to comment on this one sentence (above):

I agree, that most of Ole's students are critical enough to separate Dharma and his political views.... in the first place. I am not sure about what it does in the long term through endless repeatings. I have seen some people in the sangha being neutral in the beginning and becoming radicalized over time, meaning that in the end they were actively campaigning, by e.g. spreading emails with links to texts or youtobe videos which are critical abouth islam. What disappointed me most is the fact that you cannot run away from this when you are practising at a DWB center and attend courses. You are exposed to this all the time, and at some point maybe even the most critical mind is being brainwashed into thinking that one has the duty to inform others about how dangerous islam is and so on..... I left the group at a point where I felt that I am in danger that this might happen to me.

Thanks Herbie. This might be exactly the point and a danger I see too.

Lama Ole leaves no space for the (hopefully) vast majority of moderate muslims who condemn terror and support a strictly secular society.

Drawing an absolute line there he excludes millions of important human beings pushing them into a defense position instead of stimulating their capacity to build bridges and address women's rights. In fact he is provoking the moderate to radicalize (the opposite of a solution towards a healthy, peaceful planet) and creating an army of potentially really dangerous people in the less intelligent regions of his DWB movement.

This is my last post on this forum, as I understood (communicating with Rick Ross) my contribution in style and/or content is not really appreciated here.

I therefore apologize for having mistaken this forum for something it apparently is not.

People still wanting to exchange ideas with me are most welcome though. You can send me a private message.

All the best to everyone,
Fresh

Hi Fresh.

Because I remained critical of Ole’s views it was suggested that I was “confused” and so I guess that “immature” is also a tag that must also have been applied to me. As I have stated here before, in my experience if you are critical of Nydahl then you are confused. Actually it was OK to be critical at the beginning, but if you couldn’t resolve these difficulties after some time it was deduced that you were confused. I think this suggests extra pressure to conform to the group mentality.

But back to your original reason for posting on this forum.

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.

Please do continue with this thought because I am interested in hearing all sides of the debate.

Also I would be interested to hear Ole’s ideas on your letter to him if it’s not too personal a request.

To HerbieZH

You raise an interesting point which triggered a memory. After attending the DWB centre in Liverpool for several years as well as many lectures and courses on the way, I was having a conversation with a very good friend of mine whom I have known for almost 20 years. He is a trained counsellor so an excellent listener. During this particular conversation I was discussing DWB, immigration and Islam when I saw an expression in his face I’d not normally see when we would sit and chat. He looked shocked and disturbed. I stopped and reflected over my views and my comments and realised to my horror that the views were morphing into Ole’s. Here I was opposing his views but somehow regurgitating them. It was quite frightening. It was at this point I started to remove myself from the group (actually the group in Liverpool were great. It was the Nydahl clone founders who were the problem) and more importantly I stopped attending his “rallies”.

So I was beginning to absorb the group mentality. It was starting to become my own. This is why I write here and why I urge everyone to always try and remain critical. “Practice mindfulness” I think would be the slogan here. I was told by the Liverpool founder that mindfulness training wasn’t important in DWB practice. I can understand why now.

@SteveLpool,

As you experienced in Diamond Way, repetition works, as does the osmotic absorption of any given group mentality and the extra weight given to the opinions of anyone positioned above us.
Mindfully examining what we are expected to listen to and repeat and acting on our own conclusions is the only counterbalance to the insidious way that the process works on all of us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2010 08:44PM by Stoic.