Talk:Ole Nydahl

why the neutrality of this page is disputed

1. in the Karma Kagyu section of Wikipedia it states - "The Karma Kagyu school belongs to the Vajrayana branch of Mahayana Buddhism. It is a Triyana (all three turnings of the Wheel of the dharma) school (e.g., monks and nuns keep the vows of Vinaya while lay practitioners hold the Upasaka vows) and a Rime (non-sectarian) tradition."

Lama Ole Nydahl does not to my knowledge belong to the Rime tradition, yet neither does he teach the Upasaka vows, which are seen by many to be the very foundation of Vajrayana Buddhism.

Siru108 claims he has no idea why Diamond Way would be referred to as "Buddhism Lite", and this is his justification for removing it on more than one occassion - Siru, i hope this explains it for you..

2. The article has clearly been written for the most part by a student of Ole Nydahls'

- take the sentence "In the early 90s Diamond Way Buddhism was founded, as a way to prevent corrupt Tibetan Lamas gaining influence in the centre during the Karmapa controversy." [20] - Curren, Erik D. (2008) Buddha's Not Smiling, Uncovering the Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today Alaya Press ISBN 0-9772253-0-5

Erik Curren is a supporter of Shamar Rinpoche and the editorial review from Publishers Weekly says "In a highly biased but fascinating account..."

- now to the unbiased observer, it would seem that the opposite could very well be the case - that Shamar Rinpoche is in fact the corrupt tibetan lama, and that Ole Nydahls' organisation was in fact founded to support him in his political maneuvering.

therefore this sentence appears to be utterly partisan propoganda.

3. Lama Ole promotes views which could be seen as offensive to women, Christians, Moslems, homosexuals, etc. - to call him politically incorrect is a gross understatement which belittles many peoples' concerns about someone in such a powerful and trusted position abusing this to voice his own personal and rather outdated prejudices.

- He is often making sexual jokes or politically incorrect statements in his lectures. He explains that "…one should always insist on a healthy sense of humour and check that one’s helpers and examples on the way are not strange and don’t take themselves too seriously..."

but it seems that it is the people he is making incorrect staements about that should not take themselves too seriously - Moslems and women for example, however when someone tries to say anything about him that his students don't agree with, this seems to be taken in not quite such a light hearted manner!

86.157.28.172 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Can't follow your logic.

2. Evidence? No? I did not invent any of this, I only added verifyable statements. So should you.

3. Evidence? No? The statements are provided in a Criticism/Response to Criticism section, an seem completely appropriate and according to WP rules. Siru108 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This response from you is no discussion

1. the logic is transparent. Lama Ole's teaching doesn't meet the basic requirements stated in the Karma Kagyu section of Wikipedia. if you can't follow this simple logic then maybe you should consider not getting involved in this discussion.

2. nowhere does it say that you invented it - it says that this reference is biased and therefore not neutral - there is no mention of any reference to counter balance such a distorted claim. Erik D. Curren is not a neutral source and you know this full well. Both Mr Curran , Lama Ole, and yourself clearly have a vested interest in the "Karmapa controversy" and therefore I propose that you are unfit to write a neutral article on the matter.

3. is an attempt to explain it to YOU - so you can see why it is a problem. this response from you is no discussion.

4. you want to remove the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" box until there is a consensus! I think that is the point - there is no consensus, hence the box stating prescisely this point.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1.You fail to provide any evidence Diamond Way Buddhism is not Vajrayana. No discussion is needed really in such a case.

2.All sources are biased. Curren's book is based on interviews, original letters, court decision etc. and seem to me to be very well sources, an well balanced. He even include the opponents statements and explanations.

2a. You adress my CoI, yes I have one. This is why I only post verifiable claims. What is your CoI?

3.Well, that's your idea of things, however I am not sure your claims corresponds to reality.

4.No, there is no dispute, just a bunch of [Sock Puppets] adding disruptive edits. You know that, you where added on the suspected list yourself... Siru108 (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1. the point is not whether diamond way buddhism is vajrayana or not, the point is that diamond way buddhism has been questioned by some (who know a lot more about it than i do) because it omits certain aspects which are traditionally practiced in this lineage. i am no authority on the matter and my opinion is irrelevant, however i do understand why some people say what they do about diamond way buddhism - their reasoning is clear, whether you choose to agree with it or not, and whatever conclusion you draw from this, it is nevertheless a fact that should be made explicit. if people are given the full information on the subject then i think that we can trust them to make up their own minds about it.

2. if Curran provides some balance then by all means cite him, but the sentence which you have quoted seems quite one-sided. my interest here is to provide a neutral article - personally i am neither for nor against Lama Ole - i have learned from him and have also seen his faults, what is important to me is that my eyes are open.

3. this isn't really my idea of things as i am not easily offended and i am not personally offended by the things that Lama Ole says, however i am aware that some people are and i think that their point of view should be respected. there is a fine line between being "not politically correct" and saying things which consciously harm others or is intolerant, and some have said that Lama Ole crosses that line - their views should not simply be invalidated or dismissed.

4. if you honestly think that i am just making these posts to be disruptive then you are entitled, however i really am just trying to be neutral. i can see that you have become quite reactive to previous attempts to edit this page, and it is possible that myself and some others have not gone about it in exactly the right way, but you know, being a buddhist allows one to take a step back and gain an equanimitous view. i seriously think that some of the stuff on these pages is biased, but i'm sure that none of the contributors are so emotionally attached to it that it needs to trigger such an emotive reaction.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1.By all means, if you have sources supporting this, feel free to add something to the “criticism”-section. Just beware that it has to meet certain criteria (Read:WP:QS ), means you cannot use a hear-say like the Canada Tibet committee article.
• 2.I cannot see how it is unbalanced to mention why DWB was founded?
• 3.This is why there is also a part in the “criticism”-section dealing with his personal style. Same applies as in (1)
• 4.OK. But the criticism should still be kept in the “criticism”-section, so the rest is more actual facts.Siru108 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

good.

- the canada tibet committee is actually an article written by the daily telegraph - is this a questionable source? (you are right to say that the quote about Ole that was taken out of the article was a poor source, but to dismiss the whole article?)

- it isn't unbalanced to say how DWB was founded, but this quote does seem to state it in a very biased way. I'm fairly certain that not all the supporters of the other Karmapa can be honestly labelled as corrupt.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

- maybe i should qualify this as the daily telegraph article is obviously biased too, however having had a good look at several sources there does not seem to be any that could be said to be truly free from bias (Curran does seem to have tried to address this to some degree, however he admits to being on one side of the argument, and although some say he is impartial, there are as many who claim the opposite) - therefore i propose that the only solution to this is to aim for a balanced view by including both sides of the argument.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it at all:

• It has no author (odd for a Newspaper article)
• You do not have the original source, it might as well be a . You don't know if it is "actually an article written by the daily telegraph".
• It is 9 years old (a lot have happened since)
• There are much better sources today, including 6 (or more?) books, mainly from the Ogyen Trinley side.
• It is very biased, all about promoting one an putting down the others
• - which is especially problematic because is not based on any sources itself.
• If you want an online source, there are two much better: http://www.karmapa-issue.org/ & http://www.kagyuoffice.org/karmapa.reference.index.html

That said, I don't think the info about the controversy should be too much, there is a main article for that, which you can also contribute in. This should be about the role of Ole Nydahl. About the balance you seek in the article, you did notice the criticism section, right? An I never heard anyone criticise Diamond Way Buddhism, all criticism points towards Ole Nydahl. Those who are not his students but Karma Kagyu with the same Karmapa seems to be more than happy to show up at the courses arranged by Diamond Way Buddhism, when the Rinpoches teach. Siru108 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article as posted on the Canada Tibet site appears to be an accurate transcription of an article by Mick Brown, entitled "Battle of the lamas," that appeared in the Daily Telegraph on March 4, 2000. I don't know why the person who reposted it on the Canada Tibet site failed to include Brown's byline, though.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, then this one issue is solved then. It still leaves 6 reasons why I wouldn't use it. Since this is a biography on a living person, you need good sources, read: WP:BLPSiru108 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

that's great - so you are aware of other sources which could be used to provide a balanced view - therefore i can see no good reason why you do not include these in your edits - that would be preferable that your current practice of using only one source which more than one person has pointed out, and on more than one occassion, is not really a neutral source.

- "The role of Ole Nydahl in the Karmapa Controversy is described in the book Rouges in Robes: An Inside Chronicle of a Recent Chinese-Tibetan Intrigue in the Karma Kagyu Lineage of Diamond Way Buddhism (2000), written by his close friend and student Tomek Lehnert"

The role of Ole Nydahl in the Karmapa Controversy is described in many places - yet you only refer to one written by his close friend!

can you see why this appears to lack neutrality.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• A) No, I don't see a problem. The books are about the Karmapa Controversy, not about Nydahl. He is mentioned short in the other books (for what I know), but they are not dealing much with his role. B) Only one person is critical of my use of sources, and this person is unwanted on wikipedia because of WP:vandalism and WP:Sockpuppet.Siru108 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Borup Source

to address your other point - the reference to the Borup article - It clearly states in this article that the issue that other buddhist groups have with Ole Nydal's group is not just about the Karmapa Controversy, but also about the issue of Buddhism itself - "controversies of representation, dharma transmission and lama authenticity" - it clearly states that many other buddhists do not consider Lama Ole's group to be "true Buddhists".

"Ole Nydahl and his group Karma Kagyu Skolen today exclusively orient themselves to their own lineage and international religious environment, and are not related to any other Danish Buddhist groups, several of the leading figures of which are still reluctant to have anything to do with them. As is the case with Soka Gakkai, which many other Buddhists do not consider as “true Buddhists”, Karma Kagyu Skolen has previously not been invited to join the umbrella organizations Buddhistisk Forum and Phendeling. The reason for this split goes back to the so-called “Karmapa conflict” in the late 1980s, which started as a sectarian struggle and developed into transnational controversies of representation, dharma transmission and lama authenticity..."[[1]]

not only have you edited this quote [[2]] to distort this part of the article, you also claim above that you are unaware of this whole issue, yet tihis article by Borup was one cited by you in the first place!

86.157.28.172 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• A) You lost me there... I just moved it and shortened it a bit diff. B) If you think the full quote is better, you are most welcome to extend it again, maybe shorten it somewhat stil like this: "Ole Nydahl and his group Karma Kagyu Skolen (Diamond Way Buddhism) today exclusively orient themselves to their own lineage and international religious environment, and are not related to any other Danish Buddhist groups, several of the leading figures of which are still reluctant to have anything to do with them. (...) The reason for this split goes back to the so-called “Karmapa conflict” in the late 1980s, which started as a sectarian struggle and developed into transnational controversies of representation, dharma transmission and lama authenticity..." I do think it belongs where it is now, however, since this is related to the Karmapa Controversy, and it should be mentioned that this applies to Denmark. C) I adressed this issue in Buddhism in Denmark, as this source deals exclusively with the situation in Denmark. D) I am not sure I am aware of what I claim to be unaware of? Siru108 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

agreed

86.157.28.172 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

the "controversial" question

maybe instead of an edit war, we could find a way to include this - maybe in the section on criticsm, say something like,

"Some have called Lama Ole controversial (references, Borup is one, there are more), and this is partly due to his unconventional teaching style, and partly due to the fact that, in trying to make Buddhism more appealing to today's younger generation, Lama Ole has chosen to leave out some of the more traditional Buddhist teachings (there are references for this, including some from Ole himself - but this will need some research and i can't quote them off the top of my head)."

maybe we could also say something about - Lama Ole's use of metaphors - the Audi in the mind, and the sticking his fingers in the electric socket - which are obvious attempts to appeal to a certain (younger, drug addicted?) audience - but which some more traditional Buddhists question as not really being the image that conveys the idea of non-attachment.

I myself am unclear about this - is it that Ole wants to attract people with ideas of nice cars, or of "getting a buzz", but only later show them that these are unecessary - or does he actually think that meditation is such a buzz that its a replacement for the buzz of driving a fast car or taking drugs?

the fact that Ole himself likes to drive a fast motorbike and go skydiving seems to make this unclear, for me, and for some others who have asked this question

86.157.28.172 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Seems good. Just edit at will, non-controversial statements like that above needs no discussion. One advice: Remember to check the page-history before posting (every time), so you don't incidentally edit in a vandalised version. You may want to read this WP:BLP before making major changes. About the why those metaphors are used, I don't know, but if I should explain something amazing beyond words myself, I too would also use the best and happiest situations of my life. Siru108 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, point taken about edits and WP:BLP

Concerning your second point, as I understand it, any responsible teacher will not make out that Buddhism is some sort of “quick fix”, or something which should be used to feel good as some way of escaping the pain of life. It is in fact a long and committed lifestyle choice which enables one to fully face and embrace the whole of life, a means to bear with life’s difficulties without labelling experiences as good or bad.

For someone to describe a glimpse of one-ness as a positive experience suggests that it is still being seen from an ego perspective and that one’s filters on experience are still very much in operation. This then gives rise to the notion that meditation can be “abused” as some sort of replacement for other addictive and exhilarating experiences, which clearly does not sit well with the ethic of Buddhism.

There are many stories of Buddhist teachers turning away potential students because they saw that they were not ready to make such a committment, and/or were not ready for the difficulty that choosing to embark upon such a spiritual path entails.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative more neutral views

<unsourced BLP violations removed>

This article seems rather whitewashed as if it's written by a groupie of Ole Nydahl and trying to censor criticism. Let's please bring some neutrality to this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.153.8 (talk • contribs)

As this is a biography of a living person, such content must in the first instance be attributed to reliable sources. Without reliable sources these allegations must be removed, even from this talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Even on the talk page, eh? I actually didn't know that. Well, fair enough. If that's the policy, I can see the logic to it. You learn something new every day! - Vianello (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Revised criticism

Rumours were put at the beginning of the criticism section, implying all criticism as not valid. I have put this part in the controversy section, where it belongs.

Boldened parts put emphasis on certain points, making a neutral reading harder.

Williamettes was wrongly attributed as having won a price, lending credence to its positive article about Nydahl. One of its authors, not the newspaper itself, won the price.

Facts around the timeline are not represented clearly. Ole used the title Lama since the late 80ies, the first written reference of this title is in 1995. -- Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed Structure to be more biographical - i.e., teachers are now mentioned after the summary of his life until he became buddhist.

Changed Criticism section, as both the Criticism and the Response to Criticism section contained a detailed explanation of when which Authorities endorsed him as Lama.

Deleted the Williamette's section, as it doesn't add anything to the previous paragraphs except that the author thinks Ole is a nice person. The previous and following paragraphs mention that some buddhists are offended by Nydahls skydiving and anti-Islam stance already. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also a bit of a problem about the Freiberger source. Actually what Freiberger refers to is the German Buddhist magazine Lotusblätter, which at that time did have some critical people writing in it. Problem is, later in 2000 these disagreements was solved, but of cause Freiberger dosn't say anythin about that (because it was solved after Freibergers writing). Since there is no newer source, and nobody started researching the researcher and made a paper out of that, the context is totally missing.

Another thing is the structure, wouldn't it be better to make one Criticism section and leave out the response to criticism part, and instead writing pro et contra togheter? Like dealing with everything about the lama title first, and then on to the next topic? Siru108 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Freiberger: I agree, we should add that the disagreement was solved.

@Deleting Response to criticism: That's a valid approach, too. I just didn't want to have it in twice. I will change it right now, please tell me if you think it can be improved. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems good. Maybe the section should also be shortened a bit, I find it somewhat odd that around 25% of this article is about criticism. Siru108 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is mainly this long because many of Ole's responses are given as citations instead of as summaries of his positions. We could try to convey the meaning by summing them up. For example,

Nydahl emphasizes that he does not make political comments in his capacity as a lama. Since the Buddha didn't express any opinion on religions such as Christianity or Islam, neither will he in his role as a Buddhist teacher. However he will address the issue as a “responsible, thinking human being”. He says “Islam, I warn against. I know the Quran, I know the life story of Mohammed and I think we cannot use that in our society today. ” He also rejects Buddhism playing a role in fighting Islam and overpopulation: “Any political idea one has, is not because of Buddhism. It's one's responsibility as a citizen. We do not get involved as Buddhists in political things, but we do, as members of society, act as protectors of our constitutions and women's freedom and stuff like that.”[9]

He also defends himself with the notion that he offers proposals for changing the current situation. He was quoted saying that “actually, I also mention such subjects because I have a constructive idea. It is both simple and humanistic: pay poor families around the world to not have more than one or at the most two children and help educate the ones they have. Machines do the hard work today and a life on a street corner and in and out of jails is what awaits more and more of the excess youth. Imagine the relief if one could visit Africa and meet healthy, free and educated people like in our societies today”.[18]

could be shortened to

Nydahl emphasizes that he does not make political comments in his capacity as a lama, but as a “responsible, thinking human being”, giving Buddha's nonability to comment on religions founded centuries after his death as reason for his comments not being buddhist, but based on his own life experience.[20] He also defends himself with the notion that he offers proposals for changing the current situation, such as introducing working birth control in developing countries.[18]

--Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made the shortening. Now Freiberger is out, changed to a generel thing. Siru108 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)