I have been a spiritual practitioner of various kinds for nearly forty years ago. I used to think secrecy and the need for prerequisites was the way to go. Now I don't. Why? Two reasons. One: I have read history. Two: Hierachial, patriarchal systems do not work. It is not the number of recitations or the cumulation of mandala offerings that produces the result. It is the presence and engagement of the individual's consciousness and the blossoming of their innate potential. Anyone can go through the motions, and many do, and have gone nowhere because they think and have been led to believe that if you do xyz, you will get xyz result.

Using an appropriate educational metaphor, lots of people are very could at going through academic hoops and getting high marks. That however, doesn't make them any smarter or wiser than the person who struggles along. All it means is that they are good at going through academic hoops.

I am for the availability of good instruction - don't get me wrong on that score. But secrecy and patriarchy and exclusivity - no.

As for the protection question - there is a lot of myths there too. Anybody can run into trouble doing anything. This idea that they must be protected from themselves is offensive. We are not adolescents needing big daddy. Furthermore, the myth of xyz is often the cause of the 'protection' problem in the first place. People think that doing the practice is more important to getting the result than how they practice.

One mandala offering done with presence is better than one thousand done as a mechanical ritual. But it won't get you invited to the 8th karmapa's table will it.

Quote
suenam
-
my own experience with dwb was that they simply went through the booklet with you - neither adding nor subtracting anything - yet at the same time, i fail to see anything there which really supports the main points of contention - for me, it was certainly not in the meditations where the problems arose - as many contributors to this thread have also stated - it was in the behaviour of certain members (often groups of members) and also in the divergence between their stated values and their actual bahaviour - ie. a lack of integrity.

both ole and a lot of the other members of dwb were quite well versed in actual Buddhist philosophy, however, in my opinion, they utterly failed to put it into practise - and for me this is one of the reasons why it was quite difficult to start to come to terms with, and to describe here, what the problem really was with them.

Well, I would still not post the content of the booklets, they are (at least some of them like ngondro and guruyoga of 8th Karmapa) a translation of standard Karma Kagyu practices, traditionaly these texts are kept private, so I would respect that. But of course everyone is free to do as one likes.

As for Ole and his people being well versed in actual Buddhist teachings, I have a strong doubts on that point. For example recently Ole sent out an e-mail of which unfortunately I do not have the English original, but here I offer a retranslation of one part of that letter:

"The ones who are more experienced among you, should make sure, that new and hopeful ones read books of Karma Kagyu transmission, that they understood them and that they use our terminology. With this you offer them a safe framework for explanatios and for avoiding confusion arising from mixing of different traditions."

Every Tibetan buddhist tradition has a set of basic texts that express the views of that particular school. For example for Karma Kagyu that would Gampopa´s Jewel Ornament of Liberation, 3rd Karmapa´s Namshe Yeshe, texts of 8th Karmapa on madhyamaka, etc.
It would be fine if people in DC read this books and studied them well, but this is not what is meant here, what is meant with the above statement is that new people should read Ole´s books and know the terminology he uses. I compared Ole´s books and with traditional Karma Kagyu texts, not only are they quite different in their meaning, but also basic and general buddhist texts are different in their content from what Ole asserts in his writings.
I will elaborate on this further, but let me just take another note on the above statement, in Karma Kagyu it was traditionally adopted that also writings of other buddhist traditions were studied, such as those of Jamyng Mipham and Patrul Rinpoche of Nyingma tradition as well as wirtings of Dirikung and Drugpa Kagyu, especially study of Pema Karpo´s texts was not unusual in Karma Kagyu tradition. Traditions of Tibet do not differ som much in terminology, I don´t get where Ole has this from. What differs in terminology are especially various tantras within different classes of vajrayana texts. Many different tantras with their different terminologies are studied and practiced within one school and strangely, noone is confused.
Also how come that people in Tibet who studied more than one tradition were not confused? Well they had a broad - not limited minds and they uderstood that in India there was a single buddhism and these different traditions arose in Tibet due to historical and geographical conditions.
So how can Ole being limited and limiting his students to only his own take on Buddha´s teaching be the one who is well versed in the Buddhist teachings?
Examples of how Ole differs from what is normally considered Buddha´s teaching are abound, but here are some most obvious:

1. Essential to Buddhas teaching is a teaching on Karma, meaning basically cause and efect - one has done virtuous deed will experience virtuous fruits, one who has done contrary will have the contrary result. This has nothing to with estetical value, however Ole, asserts that also if one has seen a beautiful places, things etc. by doing this one will experience positive result. This can be seen here:

[www.youtube.com]

And then depending on what impressions one put into one's mind during that life, the subconscious content, then if one filled good impressions during one life, one was at beautiful places, nice surroundings and so on, will be drawn to good rebirth...

2. In mahayana buddhist teaching, one of the central points is the teaching on emptyness. This means that thins are empty of their independent existence, in other words all is contidioned and interconnected. (this is rather symplified explanation, there is plenty of material online on this topic).
Ole prefers to use term "space" instead of emptyness, but this term already exists in buddhist philosophy and it is considered on of the five elements, which is also seen as empty. So he mergestwo different things into one.

3. As I said in one of my previous post, in vajrayana buddhist tradition, teacher is vital for students practice, butthis teacher must be someone, who confers empowerment on the student, gives the student vajrayana vows that guide students behaviour and gives the explanations of the theory and practice. All three of this capabilities of the teacher must be present in him/her in order to be a vajrayana teacher and in order to teach vajrayana. That is teach it not just teach about it. While Ole does the second (he teaches about, also with some gross misconceptions) he claims to do the first (that he teaches the actual thing).

And this is what many people around DW fail to see, that Ole not only built strangely functioning organisation, which is run in a way similar to corporate business, but that his actual teachings are in many parts deviant from indo-tibetan buddhist tradtion, which he claims to follow and teach. I also believe that this is the core and the cause of the whole problem. Ole tries to invent his own brand of buddhism and probably does not want anyone to meddle with it. So he does not allow his students to study with other teacher, because they might and they do find out that what Ole teaches is not the real thing. To support this he and his mistress invent a whole bunch of ridiculous rules and limitations which are then pressed onto naive people who do not have much of knowledge about the actual buddhist teaching, even though they might have sincere interest and motivation.

Wangdrang,

So you feel that following Ole is perhaps a bad idea but freeing the teachings from him is not? I don't understand this. As long as these practices are kept under control of Ole and his appointees people are in fact being disempowered; they must toady up to the system in order to get what they want. And that includes taking refuge with Ole, patently a bad idea.

Free the teachings and you free the practitioners. The teachers can then stand on their own merit, not their title or their charisma.

thanks Wangdrag - i didn't mean that the end product was all good, but that i am pretty sure that they are aware of these differences.

1. - i think that the core idea of Karma is present in some form in dwb, however as you say - ole adds his own flourishes - usually to paint a certain picture that he knows will be more attractive to the people he is trying to appeal to.

having said that - there is one idea of karma given in the dwb talks and then there is this sort of fatalistic form of naive christianity which seems to be bandied about in general conversation - which is not consistent even with their own "philosophy" - ie. they do not practise what they preach...

on top of that - my experience in dwb was that many would use such ideas to judge others' behaviour while cleverly side-stepping any questioning of their own, and this is a technique which ole himself cleverly uses in many instances including the racism question - as SteveLpool pointed out, it is not a fundamentally bad idea which ole is putting forward, but what is very telling is the very skewed and extremelty selective way that it is applied which then reveals an incredible degree of prejudice which itself remains unchallenged.


2. - also here, i have heard ole and other dwb teachers say that... traditionally it says "emptiness" etc. - but that translation can also be misleading and itself cause problems (many seem to get the idea of nothingness, etc.)

- i think that in these two cases, both are difficult concepts that many Buddhists have not yet fully understood, and that dwb tries to employ certain ideas and language to encourage a certain type of understanding which is not (at least in my view) a fundamental corruption of the original, but rather, is a fanciful elaboration which, i believe many in dwb are aware of - at least on an "academic" level.

3. - is also a large part of the problem - and, as i said - this is also where the question of integrity and deciept arises. Again - i got them impression that ole is well aware of this and was taking this "liberty" in order to get more followers.


- so, my point is that the issue that i (and possibly certain others) have with dwb is not to be found in the meditation booklets, although it maybe to some degree in the lectures, but where it really emerges is in the everyday practice, which is not only inconsistent with their own "philosophy", but also which seems to somehow be set up to avoid the sort of self-questioning which i see as being fundamental to Buddhist practice.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2010 11:05AM by suenam.

Quote
jah
Wangdrang,

So you feel that following Ole is perhaps a bad idea but freeing the teachings from him is not? I don't understand this. As long as these practices are kept under control of Ole and his appointees people are in fact being disempowered; they must toady up to the system in order to get what they want. And that includes taking refuge with Ole, patently a bad idea.

Free the teachings and you free the practitioners. The teachers can then stand on their own merit, not their title or their charisma.

Those meditations are not Ole's teachings, they are standard texts of Karma Kagyu, at least some of them (not the Loving eyes meditation and 16.Karmapa guruyoga, these are but mere recounts of the original texts, not even the translations). For example the short offering to Mahakala was composed by 8th Karmapa and so was the 8th Karmapa Guruyoga, Ngondro texts were composed by 9th Karmapa.
So these texts are as you say "under control" of Karma Kagyu lineage.
Also it is a normal thing that people take refuge in ceremony presided over by Lama, they do not take refuge in Lama himself/herself, they take refuge in Three jewels.
You see, Diamondway is not bogus all the way through, it has genuine elements to it which follow the actual teachings and customs of Tibetan Buddhist tradition. But there are other elements which are of their own making and these I find problematic.
Also I agree with what Suenam said, the problem is not in those booklets, part of the whole problem is in how they use a double standard, how Ole's words and deeds differ.

Another thing I would like to add at the end because I feel that I have been beating the dead horse over and over here and elsewhere, so this will be my last post on this forum with regards to Ole and Diamondway.
Diamondway is not completely black. They do invite some good teachers and make a serious attempt on the spiritual path. I would not say that they are socially dangerous, in general you will find many nice people there. Anyone who wants can leave the group, so they are not a sect, they are a bit cultish, but in no way are they like scientology or some christian sects.
In my opinion, they are dangerous in a spiritual way, because in this regard they claim that they offer Buddhist Dharma, but in reality the offer something else. So they are dangerous for people who are genuinely interested in Tibetan buddhism and want to follow it in authentic way, but not knowing much about Tibetan Buddhist teachings and tradition they join this group. They are dangerous also to the people who are already in a group to the effect that they become increasingly narrow minded which is opposite to what a Buddhist practitioner seeks.

I have posted here and elsewhere not with the hope of destroying the group, but with the hope that people who are in the group open their eyes and start to question and possibly make a change. Over the time I have learned that my posts, especially on e-sangha helped some people to sort things out and leave the group for some more serious Dharma community. But it did not have any impact on DW itself, in fact Ole and Caty are tightening the screws and impose new limitations. So I hope that some bright people will find this forum useful for themselves as individuals and as for DW - everything is impermanent, so with time the inner workings and trends that are present in this group will sure tear it into pieces.

(SueNam) so, my point is that the issue that i (and possibly certain others) have with dwb is not to be found in the meditation booklets, although it maybe to some degree in the lectures, but where it really emerges is in the everyday practice, which is not only inconsistent with their own "philosophy", but also which seems to somehow be set up to avoid the sort of self-questioning which i see as being fundamental to Buddhist practice.

This is an excellent point that I have overlooked in my posts. Oddly enough, in lengthy conversations with several members of the group I attended, both during my years there and after I left, this one fundamental factor was evidently lacking from the founders of the centre. It became apparent to almost everyone who had spent a reasonable amount of time at the centre that the founders "avoided the sort of self-questioning which is fundamental to Buddhist practice".

Perhaps this is a little unfair. Perhaps they did self-question but the reference point was Ole Nydahls personal slant of Buddhist ethic. As a result they fail to see that their behaviour (the male founder was the main problem) was "stiff", "lacked compassion", "humourless" and "stilted" (these are not only my words but are terms used by others in the group to describe the behaviour of at least one of the founders). They could justify their poor behaviour as being in the best interest of building centres for DWB. And here is the other problem. Too much emphasis on building centres and not enough on self development and practice. As Ole has said on several occassions, nothing develops you faster than building up centres!!! Utter non-sense and we see the results of this now.

So in my experience at this centre I discovered all sorts of odd behaviour which could be justified if cross referenced and then altered slightly from comments and lectures of Ole Nydahl. So who checks these people? The centre I lived in had several people who tried to live there and help in the work but who moved out after little more than a year due to the frankly, ill mannered, and fanatical attitude of those who owned the centre and saw it as their own centre. I was warned by three people who had lived there that I was making a mistake.

I have never lived in another DWB centre so I can't offer an accurate reflection of how they are run, but I have the impression that some of the other centres are run a little different. As I have tried to stress in all my posts there really are some wonderful people in DWB. What surprises me is that they remain compliant within this organisation even though in private they have expressed seriour concerns related to it and the racist comments of some of it's adherants.

S

I have a question?

I see this forum as have some function in hopefully encouraging people new to Buddhism, and to Diamond Way Buddhism in particular to delve a little deeper and to question the validity of Dharma teachers and those who hold themselves as representitives of the Dharma.

Hopefully these posts might guide people away from DWB or perhaps more importantly, if they disagree with the how the organisation functions, help them to gather strength and challenge the hierarchy and try and flush out the harmful elements in DWB.

My question is. What can we do other than voice our concern here? Those of us who have grave concerns over this organization damaging the enthusiasm of those who wish for genuine Dharma practice have very little influence or voice on a forum like this?

One idea I had was to check on Ole Nydahl's travel plans and alert local or national press to our doubts and suspicions about the man and his "foot soldiers". Perhaps if Nydahl and his followers where to express their dubious opinions on race while members of the press were hiden in the audience then this would put pressure on them to ammend their ways, assert their views in public or send them packing to where right wing politics are welcomed.

As Ole says when he defends his views on race and Islam in particular, "If one see's wrongs being done one has a duty to raise peoples awareness of our concerns".

Any other suggestions on how pressure can be exerted to get the organisation to "self-examine"?

S

i think that plan may have it's shortcomings Steve - it may generate publicity for dwb and also end up attracting a lot of "undesirables" to join. as i said in one of my first posts - i think there is a danger of "taking sides" and also of marginalisation...

i get the impression that some of the members of dwb are aware of what we write here, especially after your first post - and hopefully that will provide food for thought for them, especially if we can provide some substatial content and avoid the tendency to be reactionary.

on which point - i was wondering how you viewed the gender relations that existed within the group you attended?

my view was that, as you hinted at in one post, there seems to be an almost "chivalric" call to "protect" the women - thereby implying that they are somehow weak and vulnerable, used as a means to ingratiate themselves and at the same time - creating the idea of a threatening "other" - all these evil men just lying in wait to take advantage.

- and here, even in the pop-psychology version - it is clear that this "evil other" is in fact their own denied shadow selves - who are in fact the ones who are taking full advantage of the situation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2010 04:40PM by suenam.

Hi Suenam.

Regarding your question about gender relations. The centre I attended had/has a predominantly middle aged demographic and a was/is mainly populated by men.

I'm not sure if the issues you refer to, this idea that women are a weaker sex and need protecting, was present in the centre I attended, but I have had a sense of this idea being cultivated within DWB but it was almost imperceptable (I'm a man and so would not have been on the recieving end of such behaviour which is probably why I haven't detected it so much. Sorry.). That's not to say that your experience isn't valid, I just have to be 100% honest and in my experience this was never a huge issue in this centre.

There were two women who attended the group for extended periods who left citing the male founders "bullying" as the reason for doing so. Interestingly neither of these women attended the centre at the same time and have met each other to my knowledge and both used the word "bully". I don't know if this fits into the pattern of behaviour you have witnessed? It is unacceptable behaviour regardless.

I post these stories here as I know that there are several travelling teachers who are discussing the problems and behaviours of the founders of the centre I attended, perhaps they too are monitoring my posts, I can't be sure? These travelling teachers have had concerns for some considerable time and to their credit wish to verify or refute my accounts of the goings on in the centre. I have asked them to relay my accounts to Ole Nydahl to ascertain if he approves of the methods employed in this particular centre. I suspect even Ole Nydahl won't be too proud of the developments there?

S

Thank you all for the recent posts, I feel they have been both informative and objective. Self examination is definitely a rare commodity in the DW center local to me that my partner attends, so much so that attempts to engage in debate about DW practices are totally blanked out. I have seen that as part of a culture of denial that there can be anything wrong with either DW teachings as per the official line (and lets be sure here, Ole and his closest are doing everything in their power to manipulate the faithful) or the closed group behaviour of the local center, DW Teachings cannot be questioned and discussion about the group morals and ethics is taboo.
I have seen a person who never heard of DW several years ago totally hooked by what is essentially a social / lifestyle attraction, they don't understand Buddhism, they haven't followed their own mind, they have taken a cheap and easily available package tour. Meditation in the local center acts as a call to the faithful prior to gathering to discuss the threat of islam, plan expansion of center or purchase of local 'retreat' before heading to the nearest bar. There is nothing wrong with any of this at all, just be open and admit that DW Buddhism is amongst those who are attracted to it a trendy thing to be involved in. Ultimately like all trends and fashion the followers will move on to fresher ideas or remain as if in a timewarp that they will defend at all cost.