Talk:Ole Nydahl

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)

The section is taking form now. I think the length is ok, but I will put Freiberger back in. I think it's good to give specific criticism. Just saying that some buddhists criticize him doesn't reflect the fact that the conflict appeared in academical publications. Otherwise, good work. Thumbs up! --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I also had to take out the eyewitness-part. Non of them are named, and I don't think unnamed eyewitnesses count as a reliable source. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that shortening removes certain aspects that are important to understand the way Ole Nydahl talk/thinks. They are an euphemism at best, so please undo the shortening; the sentence "Imagine the relief if one could visit Africa and meet healthy, free and educated people like in our societies today" displays racism and arrogance. Also the idea of paying poor families for having less children is from a standpoint of equality and social fairness controversial (at best). The shortened quotes suggest quite a diffrent way of thinking than the unshortened. 89.59.200.117 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be an euphemism? No reason for pinpointing every little detail, the criticism section is still a rather big part of the article. Siru108 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Siru. The section is ok the way it is. --(forgot to login) Sceptic Watcher (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Freiberger - out

The sources, especially in the critism section ought to be high quality in accordance to WP:BLP. Relooking at the Freiberger source, I do not think the source in adequate compared to the kind of criticism put in the article on this basis: Freiberger simply mention some criticism/gossip he read, but does not seem to have done further research to support the these findings. Next, the seriousity of the research also seems to totally lack context: If this was any serious confirmable study, the contaxt for these sayings would have also been brought. Apart from Freiberger being an academic, the source itself doesn't seem to be enough for such criticism. I therefore remove the part. Siru108 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He is only mentioned because the more detailed sources dealing with the conflict are written in german. They are available (and linked to in the german article) for readers who speak that language. If you want, we could directly translate the original sources and put them in the article. Until then, I will revert your change. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Skydiving

"In July 2003, on his eighty-eighth jump, the 63 year old Ole Nydahl was seriously injured while free-falling in lotus position,[12] but has since made a full recovery."

I suspect he was fine while free-falling. It was most likely the sudden stop at the end that injured him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.229.196 (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing Conflict of interest and Neutrality despute

I will remove those two tags, reason given here:

• Conflict of interest: As this seems to be referring to my edits, I tend to agree. However - after reading the guidelines closer - it seems my edits do not qualify for such a tag: The vast majority of my edits falls under the catagory Non-controvercial edits, and thus do not qualify for such tagging. The edits I made is mostly dealing with deleting or rewriting (so the text fits with the sources) violations to Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. I think at least 90% of my edits falls under these catagories:

• 1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
• 2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
• 3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
• 4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
• 5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.
• 6. Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

• Neutrality dispute was added, but besides the [wp:sock| sockpuppets-accounts] editing on these pages, there do not seem to be a conflict. Also, as there is no raeson given as to exactly what is not neutral, the right thing seems to remove it according to the guidelines on how to handle NPOV disputes. Both tags seems to have been added mostly to justify the BLP violations. Siru108 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)