In response to Alexander I also noticed that that there was a suggestion within DWB that if you gave money, time or property to the organisation it was like trading for good karma and an assurance that in your next life you would be blessed with wealth. At one point the leaders of the centre in Liverpool were making provisions for leaving the property to DWBUK should they decide to return to their own countries. I’m not sure if they were serious about this or if they have changed their mind since but it does add weight to your report of people being so captivated by Nydahl that they would give part, or indeed all their property to his organisation.

While I think the decision to give away your belongings in the hope that such a sacrifice will somehow benefit all sentient beings is a noble one, I can’t help thinking it just passes the wealth further up the chain of command.

I have always been puzzled why in Buddhist temples there tends to be an insistence on worshiping Buddha statues made from gold and other precious metals. I once asked why Buddhists, who extoll the virtues of giving ones possessions away, are quite often guilty of hoarding great wealth. When the Liverpool centre wanted to but a statue for the gompa I suggested buying a cheap statue (£20??) and giving the money that had been collected to a worthwhile charity. This idea was scorned and a £400 statue was purchased. That said, everybody who gave money did so by choice. I didn’t witness any pressure being exerted on anyone to donate beyond the ‘good karma’ promise.

Steve

Does anyone have any updates on situation in Dublin DW Sangha. Has the issue of excluding people from the Dublin Diamondway Centre has been in any way addressed and dealt with?
Did Ole rise up to the challenge or does he still behave as if nothing happened?
For the purpose of clarification; Dublin sangha has only one Irish member. The rest are non-Irish.
What was the real involvement of British teachers, including Peter Malinowski, in the situation there?
I would be interested if anyone has any news.

Quote
Alexander Nevsky
...For the purpose of clarification; Dublin sangha has only one Irish member. The rest are non-Irish.
What was the real involvement of British teachers, including Peter Malinowski, in the situation there?

Malinowski was born in Germany and has Polish ancestry. I'm curious when you say, "The rest are non-Irish", are they all by any chance from the same country?
The reason I ask is because my experience of the London sangha was that of a closed Polish clique, and which even split the sangha at one point but then was forced back together through being evicted from their seperatist centre. After that the London centre was 99% polish speaking and very partisan. I would often hear praise for them as being "good buddhists" which came across as pandering to the egos of the majority, as it clearly flew in the face of their obvious lack of openness.

As regards Ole Nydahl;

As a well known very long-term student (though actually Nyingmapa), I helped Lama Ole on his first visit to Australia and later watched the Diamond Way centres develop.

When looking at lamas like this, I always remember the teachings of streamwinner, once returner, non-returner and arahant within Theravada. Someone can be a non-returner, very highly spiritually realised, can have broken six of the ten fetters and weakened the last four, and yet still have an addiction to power. So it is very important to realise that someone can be both very highly realised and abusive at the same time. All religions agree on this. It is also important to realise that there is quite considerable latitude within Nyingmapa and Kargyu. Tecahers are supposed not to be bound by conventional morality. So this affects my comments:

1) Not all Tibetan lamas are great masters, some are genuine lamas but not high lamas, nothing special, maybe barely lamas. I though Lama Ole was one of these. I accepted his authority to teach without regarding him as extraordinary at all.

2) I thought he was very right-wing, in fact an extremist. Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche once said to us 'If you want an example of a Buddhist fundamentalist, that is Lama Ole'. I did ask a high lama, unfortunately I forget whom, whether it was OK to attend Lama Ole's teachings and they said yes.

3) Personally I enjoyed many things about him, but basically did not like him. He accepted me as an old student of dharma and was respectful, as I was of him, but we grated on each other a bit. He does not accept being teased in the way Sogyal Rinpoche does. I thought he tried to appeal too strongly to women and was looking for a particular audience of young people and especially women. He didn't seem all that welcoming to the very experienced students, who were a bit dubious about him. I had a lot of sympathy for both point of view.

4) I saw him lose his temper when he found out that Sydney University Commonwealth Bank only exchanged $USD and GBP. It was plain that he thought it a bit of a hick bank. He later apologised and said that he had quite a temper. I note that some completely accepted and great lamas, such as Chagdud Tulku and Namkhai Norbu, also have bad tempers and apologise for this. He also didn't like a caricature of him that I did for a poster.

5) He spoke openly of being sexually active. At that time I was sitting next to his wife Hannah, who heard me mutter something under my breath and turned to give me a smile of pure melting sweetness. So far as I could see she did not disapprove of his sleeping with students and they loved each other very much. I am very sad to hear of her death. I note that HH the Dalai Lama has said it is not necessarily wrong to sleep with students. Lama Nydahl thought Australia sexually repressive and said Danish culture was much more liberal.

6) He appeared to love his students and to do everything he could for them. He works extremely hard and I'm not aware that he has used this for personal gain. On a three-day Pho'wa retreat, everyone except me got clear sign. He had previously told me that I might not get physical signs as I had done the Pho'wa previously with Chagdud Tulku, but that I would get mental signs. Very clear mental signs did in fact manifest a day after the retreat. I believe his Pho'wa teaching was fully effective.

7) His stories of association with HH 16th Karmapa I know to be true. He appears to have a close association with Tai Situ Rinpoche. Not all lamas in the Kargy tradition seem enthusiastic about him, but they would 'out' him if he was a fake lama. The ranking Kargyu Lama in Sydney, Lama Trijang, a very respected student of Chatral Rinpoche, did not attend his teachings but did not discourage anyone from going.

8) I note that a genuine and very well-trained Kargyu Lama, Lama Samten in New Zealand, undoubtedly sexually abused some students. This I know to be true. He fled to India to escape prosecution and later was replaced at his temple. In general with any Buddhist organisation, it is necessary to place trust in people who run centres etc, knowing that they have limited understanding. There is great hunger for the teaching, great pressure on lamas to create centres, and limited people with experience: it is better perhaps to appoint someone unready than to leave the vacuum to be filled by out-and-out frauds. In this case, for example, Beru Khyentse, who is a great lama, left Lama Samten without supervision for over a decade. That is more traditional; in other groups such as Rigpa perhaps control is too tight.

9) I am not happy with the way that Diamond Way does not invite visiting or resident other Kargyu teachers, such as Traleg Rinpoche in Canberra or Drinkung Gyalsay Rinpoche. Lama Ole was keen to invite the Tai Situ Rinpoche. The Diamond Way centres feel closed and cultish and I regard this as a very bad indication. In my view, the number one indication that something is a cult is that the leaders do not invite teachers that are more senior and learned than him/her. (Actually the complete proof a cult is: anything that attempts to turn you against your parents is a cult. Thank God in Buddhism respect for parents is so ingrained that only the New Kadampa and Om Supreme Truth have done this, to my knowledge).

10) The Tibetan tradition regards Dharma as above all, thus donations of all your money or working students to the bone are accepted by many. Some lamas speak out against this, including Namkhai Norbu who advises caution and judgement.

11) Lama Ole represents himself as a Black Mahakala emanation and I accept this. He gave some excellent and very insightful teachings.

In conclusion, I reiterate that teachers are not supposed to be Buddhas. I have criticisms of some lamas who are undoubtedly very highly realised and respected. It is only a very few lamas who are beyond reproach. I think that Lama Ole has a lot to give and does give a great deal. I think he is very open and incautious and impulsive and I think that is both his weakness and his strength. I think he also does some things that are unwise and can believe that he may do some things that are wrong. I can also well believe that the leaders of some centres abuse their positions. The Tibetan tradition says to observe someone for twenty years before trusting them as a teacher: teachers such as Sogyal Rinpoche often remind their students of this and i have often heard Sogyal Rinpoche tell people to check out him or any other teacher very carefully. I think I also said Lama Ole say this: it is a standard teaching.

We have to be a little sceptical. For example, Namkhai Norbu once said to us "People want to go three-year retreat. They leave job, wife, sell house. Then after three years they come out of retreat. They have no job, no wife, no house. Then what they do?" Another high lama also responded to my doubts about whether a close friend had benefited from such a retreat by saying "Sometimes people who do three-year retreats gain great gains. Then it is also said, some do not improve. And some get worse, actually." You see, whether you let yourself be transformed in a positive way is your choice. It has to be.

According to tradition it is sometimes possible to gain great benefits by giving money (though five cents with true devotion is better than a house to try to win status with the teacher), or by having sex with the teacher. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said, don't just go to Buddhism because you are dissatisfied with Christianity, since you will find all those faults in Buddhism too. However, in my experience, Buddhism is very wonderful and extraordinary. Even teachers with a question mark over them such as Lama Ole have a lot to give. But one should not be too naive.

TK

"The guardians of the inner circle were thus the only ones who knew the full picture of what was going on. This gave them an incredible feeling of power and responsibility"

Disciple of Adi Da, another guru who pursued female disciples and needed enablers.

If someone has pure view, he would be having sex with everyone, old, young, homely attractive, rich, poor, all species, because to a being with Pure View all beings are deserving, not just young women who fit ego driven erotic preferences of an already married older man who has to shave to hide his grey hairs.

Quote

When looking at lamas like this, I always remember the teachings of streamwinner, once returner, non-returner and arahant within Theravada. Someone can be a non-returner, very highly spiritually realised, can have broken six of the ten fetters and weakened the last four, and yet still have an addiction to power. So it is very important to realise that someone can be both very highly realised and abusive at the same time. All religions agree on this. It is also important to realise that there is quite considerable latitude within Nyingmapa and Kargyu. Tecahers are supposed not to be bound by conventional morality.

Corboy: I dont buy this. Am just a private citizen, and am not a teacher.

Men want to do it and not feel guilty, period. Or if they dont want to do it themselves, they get a kick out of justifying the right some other fellow to do it whenever and to whomever he wants, enjoying the other fellow's rooster like behavior at a safe and vicarious remove.

Quote

Quote:
When looking at lamas like this, I always remember the teachings of streamwinner, once returner, non-returner and arahant within Theravada. Someone can be a non-returner, very highly spiritually realised, can have broken six of the ten fetters and weakened the last four, and yet still have an addiction to power. So it is very important to realise that someone can be both very highly realised and abusive at the same time. All religions agree on this. It is also important to realise that there is quite considerable latitude within Nyingmapa and Kargyu. Tecahers are supposed not to be bound by conventional morality.

IMO, this all sounds like cherry picking to leave an easy escape hatch so a powerful lama or rinpoche can do what men have always done, but use dharma to justify it.

Ozzy Osbourne in his biography (I am Ozzy)is so much more honest. He doesnt quote Dharma or invoke some exalted tradition. He simply said, he liked to do it cuz doing it felt good.

IMO even though these arguments are supposedly from old Tibetan traditions, they are tired old reasons for the rich and powerful to act on impulse. What makes this worse is that Buddhas teachings are perverted to justify the very lifestyle that Buddha abandoned when he left his life as a prince. Had using beautiful women been the rapid means to enlightement, Buddha could have remained in the palace. But he did not.

And he had promised in the Pari Nibbana sutta that he had taught all that was needed for liberation, and had held nothing back.

European feudal barons allegedly had the droit du seigneur--the right for the baron to have first use of a newly wed wife of a serf before releasing her to her husband.

At least no attempt was made to strong arm Christianity into justifying this use of might making right. This was a mere exercise of power, and not claimed to give spiritual benefit to the baron or the poor ladies or their unhappy husbands.

Quote

Quote:
Personally I enjoyed many things about him, but basically did not like him. He accepted me as an old student of dharma and was respectful, as I was of him, but we grated on each other a bit. He does not accept being teased in the way Sogyal Rinpoche does.

Sogyal has a long record of sexually using his students. He is not exactly a quotable example.

The turbulence created by a teacher who sexually uses the bodies of his students will interfere with the equanimity needed to maintain a climate for dharma practice. Equanimity is one of the Brahma Viharas--four abodes needed to cultivate wisdom.

Two, the effort needed for students to ignore or spinsophisticated rhetorical justification for the rooster-like behavior of Ole and other male teachers who supposedly do this without concealment and with alleged approval of thier wives--even to ignore and come up with ingenious and ingenuous reasons to justify violation of the Buddhist precepts is energy that is subtracted from Dharma practice.

Which brings us to what I term Devotional Enabling.

Such as Ole's wife allegedly sweetly enduring and permitting all this. THat is how she projected her image. Was she free to exhibit how she actually felt? You dont know that. You were helping her husband, the big strong brute with the power and clout. This was a visit to Australia, come and go. Was Hannah going to do anything else but put on a good 'game face' of the kind that wives have done for ages? (See the list of royalty married to wandering husbands below)

And the mental gymnastics (some call it thought criming, I call it cognitive kama sutra) needed by students to justify the behavior of teachers such as Ole and Sogyal and Chogyam Trungpa...

Devotional Enabling--A Badge of Superior Attainment?

"To them, telling the truth would have been the easy way out, and they even looked down on me when I advocated telling the truth, as if I were just not advanced enough to understand the subtleties of the art of devotional lying. "

An honorable, honest guru needs no enablers.

Some might find life with an honorable and honest, scandal free guru to be boring.

Only a dishonest and abusive guru needs repeated apologists and needs a network of celebrity enablers. And a retinue of secret keepers

Adi Da was the first guru Ken Wilber endorsed--before he went on to endorse Andrew Cohen and Marc Gafni.

Broken Yogi, a former disciple of Adi Da, and a member of his inner circle has some most interesting things to say. That around Adi Da there developed a culture of
'devotional lying'.

The entire essay is worth reading. But I am going to cite this part

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

Quote:
Quote:
As mentioned on the Daism site, the general policy in Adidam is that only good news gets reported, and this creates a culture of lies. It works both ways.
Adi Da is not supposed to hear bad news, so Adidam for years resembled a Stalinist cabal, where all the bad news was kept secret from the leader, and he was fed lie after lie about the glorious happiness of his loyal followers.

Likewise, people outside the inner circle were not to hear bad news or stories of Adida's abuse of both people around him, or his abuse of drugs, alcohol, and sex. Or, if some such stories were to get out, they would be described in a "spiritual context".

(Corboy today, substitute 'Evolutionary context' or 'Integral context' or higher level teaching--guru yoga)

Quote

In essence, only Good News was to get either in or out.

The guardians of the inner circle were thus the only ones who knew the full picture of what was going on. This gave them an incredible feeling of power and responsibility.

Lying to both sides of the community was taken to be a kind of sacred puja of service to God. Of course, the people became very twisted up and perverted inside by this life of lying, but they generally took pride in being able to "handle it".

Most devotees couldn't handle it.

I've had many conversations with inner circle people about this issue of lying, and it's kind of fascinating to hear people rationalize it. You would literally think that it was some kind of spiritual path to enlightenment to hear them describe it. To them it was almost the epitome of devotion to their Guru, because of the sacrifice it required on their part.

To them, telling the truth would have been the easy way out, and they even looked down on me when I advocated telling the truth, as if I were just not advanced enough to understand the subtleties of the art of devotional lying.

I would advocate telling Adi Da the truth about the community, and telling the community the truth about Adi Da, and on both counts was always shot down as hopelessly naive and "stuck on integrity". And I'm talking about conversations at the very highest levels of Adidam, not some local mid-level bureaucrat

.


So if you get a special charge out of being Keeper of Secrets, get a special charge from Devotional Enabling, you will find it too boring to be disciple of an honest scandal free guru.

Pay attention to what Broken Yogi wrote

Quote

The guardians of the inner circle were thus the only ones who knew the full picture of what was going on. This gave them an incredible feeling of power and responsibility.

Today you could probably tell yourself that this tension is a sign that you are one of the Evolved, the special elite.

Problem is, to get that feeeeeling--you gotta have a guru or leader who has secrets to keep. Heavy duty secrets. And that means you need a scandal ridden guru. You need a guru who is hurting people.

To get that o so special tension of being enabler, you need a guru who has secrets to keep.

And that means a guru who needs a fresh supply of prey.

Do we have here an unspoken culture of devotional enabling in the upper reaches of Integralista World?

Something similar to the culture of devotional lying described by Broken Yogi, something that gave some inner circlers a power-rush-a power rush from feeling themselves the keeper of the secrets?

If leadership in Integralista World actually unconsciously need to act out the drama of devotional enabling, that means they need scandal prone gurus.

Gurus who dont generate scandal dont require enablers.

It may be that persons who crave the tension of enabling rude people and bullies would find life with honorable gurus to be boring.

And we have Wilber's infamous screed praising Rude gurus. He has never lived under the brutal authority of rude gurus. But---could it be that Wilber needs to befriend rude gurus because he has the need to endure the tension of coping with their scandals?

Compasson Olympics / Victoria Cross for Scoundrel Apologetics?

Its hard to find ways to see the pathos in a repeat abuser of power and trust. So to find that pathos showcases how very special and evolved the apologist is.

The scoundrel is the black velvet behind with the diamond of Devotional Enabling gleams yet more brightly--the misbehavior of the scoundrel showcases the sanctity of the devotional enabler who makes excuses yet again that the scoundrel deserves our pity and -- escape sanctions.

Do those who practice devotional enablng need and enjoy the feelings of lordly magnanimity generated by Ken finding reasons to preach that these scoundrels must be pitied and forgiven and deserve a wider, evolutionary perspective of compassion? Every time these characters create scandal, Ken can mount the pulpit as forgiving and saintly Pope of Integralism and showcase his talents for unconventional compassion.

Now look at Kenny's advice that persons troubled by Gafni behave with restraint, compassion and mercy.

Where's the advice to Gafni? Its the persons who already have functioning consciences who are told to exercise restraint.

The guy who has failed to excercise retraint isnt given this advice at all!

We are told to look carefully at this sitauation. If we follow Ken Wilbers advice this means intellectualizing it into vapor.

Ken is not a licensed mental health professional. He is not required by law to take CE classes on counter transferance. Ken Wilber has been a law unto himself for the past 30 years.

Actual mental health professionals at details. But unlike Ken Wilber and other guru/lama/rinpoche apologists they also look at how long the misbehavior has been perpetrated and whether the miscreant acts on naive impulse or has been planning and setting up multiple layers of complicity, arranging to attract and groom and give preferential attention to those who are attractive, vulnerable and easily mainipulated.

Here is a textbook on psychiatry and the law. Seeing and classifying patterns of behavior is important for it determins how likely someone is to be amenable to rehabilitation.

[books.google.com]


[books.google.com]

Wives who endure the behavior of serial adulterers are a dime a dozen. If the adulterer is powerful and wealthy, he can afford attorneys in event of a divorce. The wife may be older, not have the energy for a long legal battle and may have spent years being emotionally battered into acquiescence. She may have burned her bridges and have no friends or relatives outside of the warped franchise her husband has created.

She may have grown used to a plush lifestyle and not know how on earth to live otherwise. Talking to a social worker or almoner about where to find a council flat may seem as hard to imagine as living on the moon.

The wives of Henry Edward IV, Edward VII, Henry VIII, James I and IV, Charles II, James II, William III, George I and George II, Francis I, Henry II, Charles IX, Henry IV,
Louis XIV and Louis XV all endured their husband's adulteries.

And these are the ones known to history. Many a wife has endured the intolerable without the added insult of the husband claiming that his wandering gaze is part of some sort of enlightened activity.

If having lots of women and glamour were the way to rapid enlightement, Buddha could have remained prince and practiced tantra in the palace.

Hey friends, I just had an idea.

Those who have been harmed or witnessed harm being done by randy lamas and rinpoches and tulkus and the impovrishment wrought by greedy gurus could write
a compendium of the common place arguments used by those who are part of the Apologetics Brigade.

This work could be written and made available to all new seekers of Dharma so they can become familiar with the eye watering smoke and mirrors that are tell tale signs that a sangha is bad for their practice and they need to avoid it.

I propose that this work be entitled The Diamond of Devotional Denial

How about it, eh?

All the arguments from ancient traditions used to justify when gurus, lamas, tulkus and rinchpoches want to go jiggy jiggy.

A beginner should be able to sit down and read a precise compendium of all such arguments and the ones used to shame and silence people--such as not telling new vistors the truth because Their Practice is Immature and It Would Make the Dharma Look Bad.

And then the old timers can sit together and bitch that the newbies are whingers and need to be spoon fed insipid teachings because they, the newbies are not capable of hearing Real Dharma--all this from the old timers who are engaged in advanced practice of Keeping Guru Jiggy Jiggy Secret and the even Higher Level Practice of justifying it as outside of conventional understanding.

We might as well write a new sutra, call it Diamond of Devotinal Delusion and ensure that the beginners be fed some vitamin rich material right off the bat so they can recognize bullshitology at the very start--and run the other way before losing years of their lives and having their intellects and scholastic attainments co-opted to serve an evil cause.

We can claim this text was given to us in a vision from Manjushri or it was found inscribed by Manjusri on the wall of a cave somewhere.

Note, by 'Ken' I referred to Ken Wilber, who has made an industry out of defending troubled gurus such as Adi Da(Da Free John) Chogyan Trungpa, Andrew Cohen, Marc Gafni.

However, this is no different from the efforts needed to justify the behavior of Sogyal, Ole Nydhal and others in this very sorry brigade.

It takes a vast effort to find pathos in a serial user of student's bodies and minds. Such a vast effort that I term it devotional enabling and suggest that its a way to prove superior attainment in the real of trans - conventional dharma practice.

So much so that I am only half jokingly suggesting that in the areas where this kind of thought criming is valued, there is a hypothetical Victoria Cross or Olympic Gold medal tacitly awarded those who strive, day in and day out to justify the ways of greedy and lustful gurus to the skeptical minds of mere mortals.

Just give it up. Emulate Ozzy Osbourne. All Ozzy said was that he did jiggy jiggy because it felt good.

He doenst do it today because he loves his wife, and unlike Hannah Nydhal, Sharon Osbourne refused to endure nonsence from Ozzy--and he plainly tells his readers that he respects her for that.

7) His stories of association with HH 16th Karmapa I know to be true. He appears to have a close association with Tai Situ Rinpoche. Not all lamas in the kayo tradition seem enthusiastic about him, but they would 'out' him if he was a fake lama. THe ranking kayo Lama in Sydney, Lama Trijang, a much respected student of Chatral Rinpoche, did not attend his teachings but did not discourage anyone from going.



9) I am not happy with the way that Diamond Way does not invite visiting or resident other Kayo teachers, such as Traleg Rinpoche in Canberra or Drinkung Gyalsay Rinpoche. Lama Ole was keen to invite the Tai Situ Rinpoche. The Diamond Way centres feel closed and cultish and I regard this as a very bad indication. In my view, the number one indication that something is a cult is that the leaders do not invite teachers that are more senior and learned than him/her. (Actually the complete proof a cult is: anything that attempts to turn you against your parents is a cult. Thank God in Buddhism respect for parents is so ingrained that only the New Kadampa and Om Supreme Truth have done this, to my knowledge).

Dear Thomas Kent , can you tell me when did that happen? Am I missing something here, i never knew that Lama Ole was/ is associated with Tai Situ. Did he change his sides? As i am no longer involved in DW i might missed on some new events .


5) He spoke openly of being sexually active. [Bat that time I was sitting next to his wife Hannah, who heard me mutter something under my breath and turned to give me a smile of pure melting sweetness. So far as I could see she did not disapprove of his sleeping with students and they loved each other very much. I am very sad to hear of her death. I note that HH the Dalai Lama has said it is not necessarily wrong to sleep with students.[/b] Lama Nydahl thought Australia sexually repressive and said Danish culture was much more liberal.

May be it was fine for his wife Hannah, but Dharma teacher 's responsibility is not to confuse and mislead his students by his actions.
You note that HH Dalai Lama said that it is not necessarily wrong to sleep with the students but in what context he said that?

I'm also a little confused about Ole wanting to invite Tai Situ Rinpoche. To the best of my knowledge Tai Situ Rinpoche supports the 'other' Karmapa.

With regards to teachers not being bound by conventional morality, this would imply that a Dharma teacher need not curb his urges to rape, steal and murder!!! Utter nonsense in my opinion!!! But hey, I'm not a realised master so what do I know?

Steve

Thank you for your replies, Darius and Steve. First I need to admit to an error here. I knew Ole before the two-Karmapa thing started. At that time, the Situpa was just about to visit Australia, and Ole Nydahl was keen to have his new students (there were at that time no Diamond Way Centres in Australia) study with him. At that time, Sharmapa had visited Australia only once, briefly, and actually gave no teachings and was not that well received. In fact, Lama Ole told a story that at the cremation of the Karmapa, the Karmapa's heart, tongue and eyes had leapt out of the fire and rolled to the feet of Tai Situ. One of my friends who was present at the cremation, but not actually in the central area, told me this was something that many people said. So at that time, he was promoting the Situpa as main regent to his audience, although he also made his support of and connection to the Sharmapa clear.

Since I'm not really active in Kargyu circles, I'd forgotten that since that time, Tai Situ and Ole have become estranged and that he is now closely associated with the Sharmapa. You've reminded me that I have seen him since and that at that time he told the audience that it was above all the Sharmapa who had the job of really identifying the main incarnation. So there has been a little change of tune.

No, I think crazy wisdom gurus should not be judged by conventional morality. They need to be judged even more carefully and rigorously just because their behaviour is irregular, using standards of humanity and spirituality. Teahers such as Dzongsar Khyentse and Chadud Tulku, who are identified with the Crazy Wisdom tradition, warn of letting gurus get away with bad behaviour and give standards for strictly judging crazy wisdom gurus. I always use the two standards that the Buddha himself gave in the Kalama Sutra (in which the Buddha also suggests that conventional morality isn't the right yardstick): ""So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' I would translate this a little differently, but it gives the essence.

[www.accesstoinsight.org]