Talk:Diamond Way Buddhism/Archive 2

Dealing with contested claims

The correct way to deal with contested or controversial claims is not to revert to a much poorer earlier version filled with a multitude of errors or to get into an editing war with another editor. Request supporting references, and if references aren't provided in a reasonable period, remove the claims, while noting that references were requested but not provided.

This article has several issues that need to be addressed. Most importantly, it needs to be referenced. It contains way too much jargon and too many insider terms that aren't understandable to the average reader. Spend your time and effort dealing with those issues instead of wasting time on this useless edit war.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

diamond-way and the karmapa controversy

I personally visited one lecture of Ole Nydahl. He is a Danish man who skydives and goes clubbing. He started his diamond-way Buddhism centers all over Europe and the rest of the world. There is a big controversy over who is the 17th Karmapa. There are two claimants: Urgyen Trinley Dorje and Thaye Dorje - each supported by important lamas from the Kagyu lineage.

1) Both Karmapas asked the Office of the present Dalai Lama to confirm their recognition. The Dalai Lama confirmed Urgyen Trinley Dorje. Ole Nydahl is supported by the other Karmapa (Thaye Dorje).

2) Ole Nydahl's sect is based upon the cult of personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinel Laventus (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

my experinces within diamond way

My involvement with Diamond Way started around 2001. I attended meditation sessions on a regular basis for over three years, and also met Lama Ole numerous times at various retreats hosted by the center. I will share my thoughts and feelings about Diamond Way here. While I found Lama Ole' personality to be remarkably charismatic, I also found his talks to be quite boring. His talks drift all over the place and go on for an exceedingly long time. He seems to enjoy listening to himself speak. He interjects his talks with controversial opinions, as if to startle, shock or offend. Last month, I was asked to attend a lecture given by him. Since it has been a few years since I last saw some of my friends in Diamond Way as well Lama Ole, I decided to go partly out of nostalgia and partly to see how Lama Ole is evolving as a teacher. During the talk, Lama Ole said that if you compare the scientific acheivements of Jews and Muslims, you can see that Jews have won numerous Nobel Prizes and Muslims have not. The point being that Judaism is simply a better system of beliefs than Islam. The larger point (I think) being that religious systems of belief impact society in various ways, both good and bad. I wasn't so much upset or offended by what he said, but I was troubled by the lack of relevance to the topic of Buddhism. It just seemed to be a wild generalization, and lacked any real sense of understanding about complex social issues. He went on to say that there should be small blast proof rooms made available for would be Islamic suicide bombers so they can blow themselves up without disturbing others. He was obviously trying to be controversial. But it's just completely unnecessary. He undercuts his own arguments for Buddhism mainly because his speech goes against the basic tenents of Buddhist practice, which includes avoiding divisive speech. His words are insensitive and callous, and are frankly insulting to my intelligence. It is my opinion that an authentic Buddhist teacher would never utter such words. I believe that Lama Ole is a cult leader, and his flock are more in love with his personality than anything else. And, if anyone here has been to a Diamond Way center and spoken to some of the people, you will notice a distinct sense anti-intellectuallism that pervades the group. They often seem to be fairly uneducated, and I believe that is one reason why they like Lama Ole because he comes across as smart. But the more educated one is in the area of Tibetan Buddhism, the easier it is to dissect his words and see them for what they are: Divisive. I stopped going after three and a half years and found another center I am very happy with. Roy Ward (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Diamond Way A Cult?

Depends on how you define a cult, but there are certainly a lot of cultish elements to them. However they are not in the same league as David Koresh or Scientology.

A few years ago the Sunday Times magazine 'Day in the life' featured Ole Nydahl. He came across as an egomaniac, and his lengthy ramble about how he carries a knife was disturbing.

The Diamondway organization is very close to a cult status. Don't go there. There are many authentic teachers and centers everywhere. No need to get involved with something which will cause you significant problems later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.154.98 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Please do not cut and paste copyrighted material, or any material without proper attribution, or it will be removed.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I request these copvios are removed from the talk page? Vajraspanner 17:45 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup talk page

Most of the content of this discussion page has nothing to do with improving the article. I would like to remove this material, along with anyone's personal experiences and anecdotes. Does anyone have a problem with that?--Editor2020 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal to clean up the talk page removing the 'personal experiences' which are in fact copy vios anyway. Vajraspanner 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy vios are WP:Copyright violations.

Thank you guys for allowing me to do that. It's considered poor manners to edit or change another's comments on Wikipedia discussions pages (because of the possibility of misrepresenting another's comments), but that needed to go and I could think of no good reason to archive it. I promise I won't do it again.--Editor2020 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does the title contain the word 'Buddhism'?

Referring to Diamond Way as Buddhism is like referring to the Moonies as Christianity!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma J Stacey (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not the judges of Buddhist "legitimacy". If they consider themselves to be Buddhists, then, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are Buddhists.--Editor2020 (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

While in my personal opinion Diamond Way is a long way from authentic Buddhism, and is more of a money-making scheme (perhaps even a cult), I agree that personal opinions should not be presented as facts on Wikipedia. Roy Ward (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case I will reinstate references to 'Diamond Way Buddhism' which were altered to 'Diamond Way'. The term used by the organisation to describe itself is "Diamond Way Buddhism" and it is therefore perfectly reasonable to use this terminology.

--Vajraspanner 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(identity)#Self-identification --Editor2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions in introduction section

Firstly, Diamond Way Buddhism was not "founded in 1972". As mentioned later in the article, throughout the 1970s and 80s the first Kagyu Kagyu centres were established by either by the 16th Karmapa in person or by others (including Hannah & Ole Nydahl) in his name. The term 'Diamond Way Buddhism' was used first in 1996 to refer to the Karma Kagyu centres supporting Shamar Rinpoche and Thaye Dorje, under the practical guidance of Hannah & Ole Nydahl.

Secondly, as has been established by Editor2020, it is perfectly reasonable to use the term 'Buddhist Organisation' rather than 'Religious Organisation' as (a) Buddhism is not considered by Buddhists to be a "religion" and (b) by not only it's own standards but also through the recognition of high-ranking Buddhists of the Karma Kagyu school and other Buddhists, it is definitely considered a "Buddhist" organisation. See for example these links: Shamar Rinpoche's website http://www.shamarpa.org/links/index.htm; Kagyu Asia website http://www.kagyu-asia.com/x_links.html; European Buddhist Union: http://www.e-b-u.org/show_member.php?ID=66).

Thirdly, it is also completely appropriate to include in the introduction section the text which was originally presented: "under the spiritual direction of Thaye Dorje and the practical guidance of Ole Nydahl."

Finally, the unverified comments, that Diamond Way Buddhism is "a cult" and a "religious education franchise" are better placed in the 'controversies' section where it is reasonable to wait until (a) verifiable, legitimate citations are provided or (b) they are removed due to lack of verifiable, legitimate citations.

If the accusations are eventually shown to be verifiably true, it would be fair to include them in the introduction section.

It is clear that someone with a personal dislike of Diamond Way Buddhism is using smear tactics to attempt to delegitimise the group by changing terminology and casting unverified aspersions on this Wikipedia page.

I'd appreciate the view of Editor2020 on this as he is clearly the Wikipedian here with the most expertise. --Vajraspanner 16:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

First: The "lede" or intro section should provide a summary of the article. Therefore there will, and should, be material in the intro that is repeated in the article.

Second: Identification as Buddhism is not needed twice in the introductory sentence.

Third: "Founded in 1972". Please suggest alternate wording on this discussion page.

Fourth: "Is Buddhism a religion?" is beyond the scope of this article.

Fifth: "under the spiritual direction of Thaye Dorje and the practical guidance of Ole Nydahl." This usage is incomprehensible to the general reader. Not every detail can, or should, go in the intro section. This should be explained in the body of the article.--Editor2020 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The 16th Karmapa’s first visit to Europe

Changed title, this is significant as 16th Karmapa visited Europe three times, but the first time was particularly important in the history of the Karma Kagyu school and the origins of Diamond Way Buddhism --Vajraspanner 17:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of information

A lot of text has been copied and pasted from the Ole Nydahl page. As they are criticisms and responses to criticisms of Ole Nydahl, not Diamond Way Buddhism, it is more appropriate to leaves them on that page, not to duplicate them here. Any comments? --Vajraspanner 18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to move only that material which was applicable to the group, the operational style of the group, or to the perceived legitimacy of the group. While there is no need to copy the entire Ole Nydahl article, duplication of information between articles is standard procedure on Wikipedia. After all, we're not killing any trees here, and we have the space.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tomek Lehnert reference

Since Tomek Lehnert is a close follower of Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way, can references to his book be considered a neutral point of view in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Ward (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If all references had to be from NPOV sources, we'd have very few. The standard for references is WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliability. Opposing opinions, if any, should be presented to provide a Neutral Point of View in the article. The question of Reliability varies with the claim being referenced. In this case the claims are

• "They could not accept a Karmapa who was accepted by the Chinese government.[7]"

and

• "Although the majority of Tibetan lamas, including the Dalai Lama, supported Tai Situ’s choice, Hannah and Ole Nydahl supported Shamar Rinpoche, who stood in opposition.[8]"

I don't see either of those claims as being controversial/questionable enough to require much more than a reference from a published book. But if you do, tag them.--Editor2020 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabricated quotation of Dr. Marat Shterin

Let's have a look at the "reference" offered on the page which supposedly supports the claim that Diamond Way Buddhism is a "cult", for which no verification has been offered since it first appeared about a week ago, and was subsequently tagged as "unverified":

"Almost all experts now agree that Ole Nydahl's Diamond Way group is in fact a cult." Dr. Marat Shterin, Department of Religious Studies, King's College London and Governor of Anti-Cult 'Inform' Charity.

It is true that Dr. Marat Shterin a real person who works for King's College, London (actually in the department of Theology and Religious Studies): http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/depts/trs/who/msh.html One of his areas of interest is "new religious movements" It is also true that he is on the board of govenors of the anti-cult charity 'Inform': http://www.inform.ac/infus.html However, interestingly the Inform website http://www.inform.ac/index.html states "The primary aim of INFORM is to help people through providing them with accurate, balanced, up-to-date information about new and/or alternative religious or spiritual movements"; "INFORM does not say whether a group is 'good' or 'bad'. But we can tell you what a group has done and is doing." "INFORM does not tell you what to think about a group. But we can give you information from a wide variety of sources so that you yourself can come to a more informed opinion." The spirit of these statements does not correspond with the supposed quotation from Dr. Marat Shterin that "Almost all experts now agree that Ole Nydahl's Diamond Way group is in fact a cult."

Investigating the websites of other cult experts which do actually list groups they consider cults reveals no mention of Ole Nydahl or Diamond Way Buddhism:

http://www.rickross.com/sg_alpha.html

http://infosect.freeshell.org/infocult/ic-e1.html (type "Nydahl" or "Diamond Way" into the "search this site" option)

http://www.freedomofmind.com/ (type "Nydahl" or "Diamond Way" into the search option)

http://www.factnet.org/ (type "Nydahl" or "Diamond Way" into the search option)

http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm (check through the list)

http://icsahome.com/idx_grp.asp (search through the "groups A-Z" index)

It hardly seems to back up the supposed claim attributed to Dr. Shterin that almost all experts now agree.

These points, combined with the fact that this "quotation" of Dr. Marat Shterin has absolutely no validation anywhere, nor has the person who keeps reinstating it been able to provide verification, makes it look very much like someone is has in fact fabricated this statement as a way of vilifying Diamond Way Buddhism. I detect foul play, what do others think? --Vajraspanner 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the removal of the unvalidated quotation, it seems to me from recent vandalism that members of Diamond Way are trying to whitewash this article to provide a one-sided biased view Bandizzle (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's one-sided, why don't you provide some genuine citations instead of offering hoaxes? --Vajraspanner 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The quotation was nothing to do with me. Stop trying to scapegoat. Bandizzle (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Bandizzle, this is a common tactic used by Diamond Way cult trolls. When they can't get critical information removed, thy attack those who presented the information in an attempt to smear and silence them. Emma J Stacey (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let Wikipedia decide who's using dirty tactics [1] --Vajraspanner 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and use this page for its intended purpose, to discuss improving the article.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations please

I removed a section that said Oliver Freiberger said Nydahl is considered "right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners." The citation does not link to anything or anything verifiable and, on top of that, we cannot know the context of the statement either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gautamsingh (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If the person who keeps vandalising the main page could provide some citations, references or evidence, please do so, otherwise the page will have to revert to it's previous form User:Vajraspanner 07:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Over recent months (August-October 2008) Diamond Way Buddhism has come under criticism on Wikipedia by someone who, for unclear reasons, has decided to wage an online “smear campaign”. I will address the issues here, providing referenced sources, to demonstrate why the text on the main page should not contain his allegations:

The claims listed are as follows:

That there is controversy over the status of the group

Nothing new - there has been a constant controversy about the group due to the disagreement with the Dalai Lama and others. Emma J Stacey (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then provide a reference/citation please otherwise it's just your opinion User:Vajraspanner 08:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That the group has been referred to as a “Westernised Tibetan Buddhist Sect”, a “cult” and a “religious education franchise”

Many cult experts have called Diamond Way a cult. The other term, I don't know the origin of - Can you provide this please, 90.210.255.185? Emma J Stacey (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then provide a genuine reference/citation please otherwise it's just your opinion User:Vajraspanner 08:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That the group is a ‘cult of personality’

See above. Emma J Stacey (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference supposedly from Dr. Marat Shterin is nothing other than a complete fabrication. This is totally unverifiable and has no place here. User:Vajraspanner 08:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That the organisation is a hierarchy

Diamond Way has a leader (Ole Nydahl), then the ones he has had intimate relationships with (Caty Hartung et al) then the 'Travelling Teachers', then the centre leaders, then everyone else. If that isn't a hierarchy, what is it? Emma J Stacey (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Provide a reference/citation please otherwise it's just your opinion User:Vajraspanner 08:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That the organisation has been the subject of protests in the UK

The protests were organised by the same 'Anonymous' group that has been protesting other cults, especially Scientology and the NKT. Emma J Stacey (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then provide a reference/citation please otherwise it's just hearsay User:Vajraspanner 08:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That the organisation has been criticized by Tibetan Buddhist lamas for being a cult masquerading as Buddhism

It has been criticised by the Dalai Lama, and by many highly regarded Kagyu Lamas. Emma J Stacey (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then provide a reference/citation please otherwise it's just your opinion User:Vajraspanner 08:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

These criticisms have appeared on Wikipedia, a discussion forum, a blog and on the social networking site ‘Facebook.” They are self-referential and never substantiated by reference to established facts.

Supporters of Diamond Way Buddhism accept that Ole Nydahl is a controversial figure. Ole Nydahl has attracted criticism, which is well documented and referenced on his Wikipedia page as well as in his own autobiographical accounts.

Regarding the unverifiable, unreferenced claims which have surfaced since August 2008, I have continually offered evidence and references to the contrary of these claims (see above and on the Wikipedia Ole Nydahl discussion page). To challenge to the unverifiable, unreferenced claim that there is “controversy over the status of the group”, there is no “controversy” but rather a “misunderstanding” on the part of the person writing here on Wikipedia under the names “Dusepo”, “EmmaC” and now “Bandizzle”.

To challenge to the claim that the group is a “Westernised Tibetan Buddhist Sect”, this is a rather emotive description. One can see that the logo of Diamond Way Buddhism also includes the words “Karma Kagyu Lineage”. In this regard it is definitely a Western group of Buddhist centres which are a part of the Karma Kagyu Lineage. This description is better as the word ‘sect’ has a negative and connotation.

To challenge the unverifiable, unreferenced claim that the group is a “cult” and a “religious education franchise”, please refer to the portal http://www.kagyu.net which details all Karma Kagyu Buddhist centres under the spiritual authority of Thaye Dorje. The portal includes, as well as all the Diamond Way Buddhist Centres, the numerous centres, monasteries and retreat places established by Karma Kagyu lamas such as Shamar Rinpoche, Jigme Rinpoche, Shangpa Rinpoche, Trungram Gyaltrul Rinpoche, Lopon Tsechu Rinpoche, Sherab Gyaltsen Rinpoche, Khenpo Chodrak Rinpoche and others. The ‘related sites’ page of the website of Shamar Rinpoche, the second highest ranking lama in the Karma Kagyu School, http://www.shamarpa.org/links/index.htm lists Diamond Way Buddhism as a Karma Kagyu organisation along with several others. These references demonstrate that the Diamond Way Buddhist centres established by Hannah Nydahl and Ole Nydahl do in fact stand within the Karma Kagyu school under Thaye Dorje. The claim is therefore unverifiable and should be removed.

To challenge to the unverifiable, unreferenced claim that Diamond Way Buddhism is a “cult of personality”, refer to Shamar Rinpoche, who has stated that Ole Nydahl is “carrying out the activity of the 16th Karmapa.” See OleNydahl’s page. This unverifiable material should be removed.

To challenge the unverifiable, unreferenced claim that the organisation is a hierarchy, refer to: http://www.europe-center.org/index.php?id=6 which states that “Diamond Way Buddhism is built on an international network of friendship and idealism.” This is the opposite to a hierarchy and furthermore, there has not been a single instance of such a statement having been reported anywhere. This unverifiable material should be removed.

In response to the unverifiable, unreferenced claim that “the organisation has been the subject of protests in the UK”, there has not been a single instance of such a thing having been reported anywhere in the media. This unverifiable material should be removed.

In response to the unsourced, unreferenced claim that “the organisation has been criticized by Tibetan Buddhist lamas for being a cult masquerading as Buddhism”, nowhere can a single example of such a claim be found. This unverifiable material should be removed.

Having refuted the claims by providing legitimate citations and references. Please could the one making the claims either provide his own legitimate citations and references, otherwise I believe the article needs to have them removed. User:Vajraspanner 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Grn78

Can someone please give a warning/ban/whatever to the constant trolling, vandalism and personal attacks made by the user Grn78? Bandizzle (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist Channel TV citation

This is not a legitimate criticism

The article is vilification written by an individual who is clearly antipathetic towards Buddhism in general.

The article is in fact a warning about the perceived dangers of committing one’s self within the framework of institutional religion.

The author first extols the benefit of meditation and "studying the nature of mind" but claims that if they are from "the likes of Ole Nydahl and his Diamond Way sect" then they are "impossible to unwrap from institutional religion."

The critique even goes as far as to cast doubt on: (a) The 16th Karmapa himself "a supposedly holy and learned Tibetan man" (b) Tibetan Buddhism, making a statement that based on rather superficial knowledge which equates it with "prayer wheels and prayer flags" (I'm sure not a single Tibetan Buddhist would agree that their teachings are "far relative" to what the historical Buddha taught or that devotion to teacher ever "supersedes personal responsibility"). (c) and indeed Buddhism in general, stating "if Buddha’s teachings are a path to enlightenment, will someone show me one present-day enlightened Buddhist teacher or practitioner"

The statement that Diamond Way Buddhism is a "cult of personality" is based on (a) the author's perception that it draws people into an institution like the Roman Catholic Church and (b) it employs the practice of guru yoga (a typical method within all schools of Tibetan Buddhism), which the author evaluates as "visualizing one’s self merging with another entity", stating a personal view that "This, to me, is a dangerous practice."

The fact that guru yoga is common to all Tibetan Buddhist schools undermines using this as justification to label Diamond Way Buddhism as a "cult of personality".

The critique is clearly not that of someone with any expertise in the field of Buddhism or in cults of personality, and it presents no coherent argument to support itself. It rests on the personal opinion of an individual author who disapproves of Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism as the "allure of another culture" and the meditation it uses as "feel-good practices." Just because an individual doesn't like something, it doesn't mean that such a dislike warrants a reference on Wikipedia. I don't particularly trust tofu, but that doesn't mean my distrust is worthy of a mention on the tofu Wikipedia page, unless I was an expert on tofu with firm evidence that it is indeed verifiably bad.

As such, it is completely unreasonable to offer it as a legitimate reference on the page. I believe it should be removed. Vajraspanner 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to want anything critical of Diamond Way to be removed, as your attempts at vandalism and censorship on the main page have shown in the past. Why is this?

Are you trying to provide a biased, one-sided view of Diamond Way on Wikipedia? This is clearly against the POV rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.154.98 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The supposed article actually a letter to the editor by a staff member of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities - not an editorial by the newspaper itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gautamsingh (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A worse source could hardly be found. Especially the part about Karmapa clearly shows that this is not something founded on any research or whatsoever knowledge. It is a pure personal oppinion, not verified, not backed up by any evidence. I will delete it now. Siru108 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion, what should be added

I think there is some general topics missing. Especially there should be a part about Teachers and Teachings (What is the teachings used in Diamond Way Buddhism based on).

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding NPOV, well-referenced sections would be good.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will work on this... Siru108 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to change "Controversies" section

Just a small notice: The "controversies" mentioned here are actually referring to Ole Nydahl as a person/lama, not Diamond Way Buddhism. Maybe it would be better to remove this part, and to put it on the Ole Nydahl page instead? I cannot really see it is relevant here; it is however relevant on the Ole Nydahl page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of the controvercies/responces to controversies, wouldn't it be better to do this?:

==Controversies==

The founder of Diamond Way Buddhism, Ole Nydahl, has attracted criticism during the years. The criticism varies from discussion about his title lama, to claims that he teaches “Buddhism light” .

See also: Ole Nydahl § Controversies

Because: The controversies mentioned here are basically a copy/paste from what is on the Ole Nydahl page. I agree it is good to mention, but I think shorter with a reference will do. And the Minnesota Daily article simply cannot be taken any more serious: It refers to the Karmapa as a “supposed Holy man”, which corresponds to referring to the Pope as a “supposed catholic authority” (sorry if offending anyone).

No objections?

Yes, objection. We have discussed this previously, and the consensus of the editors of this page has been to keep this information. Please see the "Duplication of information" section. The person of Ole Nydahl and the organization Diamond Way Buddhism are closely entwined, and to provide a properly contextualized and balanced article, a brief mention, such as appears here, is very appropriate.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is also to the controversies section, I would like to add something about the DBU-dispute (as well as adding it to the Ole Nydahl page. This actually has something to do with the organization and not only its director. Unfortunately, most of the references will be German, since this happened in Germany. This however seems to be no problem in the part with Oliver Freiberger. Is it ok? Sources are the same used in the part as Oliver freiberger, as well as DBU's website and the German version of Buddhism today. Siru108 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: "Buddhism Today" is a magazine published by Diamond Way itself which it's members are encouraged and pressured to subscribed to. I am not sure this constitutes a neutral source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.154.98 (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. However a much bigger problem is the language. Actually I think it would be better to avoid sources that are not english. I actually CAN make it with english sources only (and no Buddhismus Heute), it will just have some unconfirmed statements then (but this can be put in the text). Is that an idea? Siru108 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually how about deleting the Oliver Freiberger source? It is placed out of context with very limited chance to find english sources to verify the context. The Wwire article adresses the same issues anyway, AND it is a newer source. Siru108 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotation edit

I changed this:

The Willamette Week newspaper, winner of the Pulitzer prize for Investigative Reporting has said that Ole Nydahl has an "openly sexual, rockstar personality" and that many "find his remarks about Islam to be xenophobic" and said Diamond Way "a cult of personality".

into this:

The Willamette Week newspaper, winner of the Pulitzer prize for Investigative Reporting descripe him as "a friendly person who does really care for the person he's talking to", and that "it's easy to understand why people flock to the Lama." However "some Buddhists are turned off by his skydiving, openly sexual, rockstar personality, in many ways the opposite of the common image of the Buddhist as a monk who stays above the sins of the world by retreating from them the meditate his life away in a temple. Others can forgive him the sex and motorcycles, but simply find his remarks about Islam to be xenophobic".

Since the quote before seemed out of context. Full article: http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=16747 Siru108 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes 'controversial'?

Regarding the labelling of Ole Nydahl & Diamond Way Buddhism as 'controversial', I am satisfied that, given the statements Ole Nydahl has made (which are published on Diamond Way Buddhism websites), and the publication in certain academic papers of statements critical of Nydahl (all well-referenced here), it is fair to call him 'controversial'. However the same can hardly be said about Diamond Way Buddhism if we are to use the same standards of validity), given that the only citations offered are from a student produced university newspaper (see 'Buddhist Channel TV' heading above) and from the website of Sipos, an obscure programmer-cum-ameteur commentator on Eastern spirituality (who Bandizzle is currenty attempting to promote to 'expert' status). The Minnesota Daily is hardly the New York Times and Sipos is hardly a voice of authority on Buddhism. Isn't it rather misleading if this is the basis upon which Diamond Way Buddhism is labeled 'controversial'. Vajraspanner 17:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely, if what Ole Nydahl teaches is controversial, then the organisation based upon those teachings must also be? Roy Ward (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Two of the sections contain the word "controversy".
• The article is marked as a controversial topic.
• Wikitionary defines "controversial" as: 1. Arousing controversy—a debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife.

and that's what seems to be occurring on this page.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the recently added section on the Minnesota Daily newspaper that claimed Nydahl was controversial. First of all, the section read that the newspaper is from the University of Michigan. Second, it was an letter to the editor by a staff member of the school - not an editorial statement or article by the student-run newspaper. - Gautam

Reasoning for removing the controversial from the beginning of the article:

We cannot call Lama Ole Nydahl or Diamond Way controversial. We can say there is controversy surrounding them, but by controversial we are editorializing the page, clearly advocating the bias that there is something negative about him and the organization. There is no way to separate a negative connotation from the word controversial, no matter what the definition out of the dictionary says. We can state facts, but once we put describe it in this way, we are judging it and saying there is something inherently bad there. Further, what is our standard for "controversial"? If it is simply that certain persons or parties disagree with something or do not like it, then nearly anything is controversial. Every public figure has opposition, and we should list what that is, but it's too big of a jump to then define that person or organization as negative. --Gautamsingh (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Siru108 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversies cleanup - why?

Here is what I removed and why:

Read these: WP:NONENG - WP:REDFLAG - WP:LIVE (!!!) - WP:VERIFY - WP:SOURCES - WP:QS

I removed the Oliver Freiberger sorces. The Wilamette Newspaper states exacly the same, so this must be sufficient. Especially since Oliver Freiberger is quoted out of context, date of release is unknown (a qualified guess is no later than october 2000, since this is when the dispute was solved.)

Martin Baumann source is deleted, it is in German and most users have very little chance to check the fact themselves. It is a quite exeptional claim that this is Buddhism-light, and thus require better sources than a non-english one

Canada Tibet Committee is removed. It has EVERY aspect of a poor source. Most improtant is that the person behind tha harsh claims is not even named. This is basically an article referring to an article referreing to statements made by someone unnamed.

What this is is merely a continuatin of gossip, this is not intended in wikipedia!

Siru108 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Controvercies

Text originated from Oliver Freiberger source has been edited: The former Text quoted the footnotes rather than the actual text by Oliver Freiberger. New text reflects his article as he wrote it.

Canada Tibet Committee is removed. It has EVERY aspect of a poor source. Most improtant is that the person behind tha harsh claims is not even named. This is basically an article referring to an article referreing to statements made by someone unnamed. It is not fit on a biography of a living person. Siru108 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Practices

Trying to make it easier to understand, agrees there was too much jargon. Is it any better now? Siru108 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Siru108 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Diamond Way in the UK

Some stuff that really needs to be added to the controversies section, for those unaware of the public debate currently going on in the UK about Diamond Way and whether it is a cult or a legitimate group. They recently had their charity status revoked while they are investigated. Bandizzle (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the UK center has given a public statement, this could possibly be used to refer that a single person has made an "online smear campaign" and is "harrassing people" in their groups. Was that what you where referring to? [Source] --Siru108 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know they claim the criticism of Diamond Way sctretching back to the 1970's is part of some 'smear campaign' by one person. Laughable if you ask me! What about it? I was talking about their recent investigation by anti-cult groups. Bandizzle (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to then? Sources? --Siru108 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Siru108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now Tarab108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been repeatedly making controversial edits to the article, which Peter Robinson Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting. The addition of the similar username today clinched the issue for me: there is an edit war going on. Since the username change is the over-the-top behaviour that triggered the protection, I reverted to the version before Tarab108's changes today.

I suggest all parties wishing to edit the material in question—the founding date, who the founder is, and whether it's a new religious movement—to discuss the matter here. I particularly suggest the named users above to discuss edits here before making them, lest they be blocked for edit warring and/or the article gets full protection. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The edits where mainly dealing with copyright violations, poorly sourced claims clearly violating Biographies on Living Persons, and miss-quoted articles, fit to the POV of Roy Ward etc. Also editing claims, that aperrently was backed up by sources, where sources in reality said different.

Can I delete these violations if I repeat the arguments once again (All arguments has already been placed on talk-pages repeatedly with no answer)? --Siru108 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it would be better to restore it to last version of Springnuts, since this version does not include any major WP-violations [2]. Neither does it have odd unsources(!!!) claims that DW is a new-religios group and the like. Siru108 (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the scope of the changes, no, except for the new-religion claim, which I'll look at momentarily. For the rest of the changes, discuss them one at a time. —C.Fred (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the definition, it looks like DWB meets the definition of new religion. Please add this to the list of items which should be addressed separately. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Though the term is linked in the article, so I've deleted it from the See also section as redundant. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The problematic issues in the text is now pointed out one by one. Can I ask why the page-protection is so short-timed? The edit-War on this page is actually also on the Ole Nydahl page, could it be protected as well? Siru108 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Because a week seemed short enough to push discussion to the talk page. If the warring resumes after expiry, I'll protect longer. If it starts in spite of the semi-protection, I'll protect fully. That said, I'm trying to protect the minimum amount necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I am not familiar with User:Tarab108, 108 is simply the number of beads on a Mala, and indicates the person is practicing Buddhist meditaion. You should also know that there is a Sock Puppet investigation going on, because of many similar edits by different users on these pages, during this edit-war. Hopefully this protection helps, I am anyway happy to see reasonable edits finding their way back on the page. --Siru108 (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

New religious Movement?!?

I do not think Diamond Way Buddhism meets the criteria for being a new religious movement: A buddhist teacher sometimes has his or her own group, in this case Diamond Way Buddhism. It is still Karma Kagyu, just like Bodhi Path, another well known group within the Karma Kagyu. It is therefore not new, as it is not different from the existing religion. According to Curren, Erik D. "Buddha's Not Smiling, Uncovering the Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today"; Alaya Press (2008) the reason for the change of name is due to the Karmapa controversy, since the Nydahls discovered that even Lamas could be corrupt they decided to found it as a self-owned gruop to avoid corrupt outside influence. Until 1992 it was still referred to as Karma Kagyu, and it doesn't become a new religious movement just because of a change of name. Obviously, this is also why the full name of the group is Diamond Way Buddhism - Karma Kagyu Lineage --Siru108 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reasonable. What do you suggest as an alternate descriptive term? —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Religious" maybe. I'd like it to be like this (it is also more precise):

"Diamond Way Buddhism (In full: Diamond Way Buddhism - Karma Kagyu Lineage) is a religious group within the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. The first Diamond Way Buddhist center was founded in 1972 by Hannah and Ole Nydahl. It is led by Ole Nydahl and under spiritual guidence of the 17th Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje."

As it is incorrect DW was founded in 1972, it was first in 1992 it became DW. But the first center in copenhagen was founded in 1972. And it was Hannah and Ole Nydahl togheter who founded it. I also like to put in the "spiritual guidence" to indicate that Ole Nydahl isn't doing this solo. It is true the Nydahls founded it, but basically they are Karmapa's centers.

--Siru108 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Changed Now all claims in the intro seems verified by the sources used in the article. Siru108 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Practices

Wikileaks

Wikileaks source can not be used as source, as it violates WP copyright policy; not to link to pages violating copyright.

--Siru108 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is a deeper question over the reliability of Wikileaks than I have time to look at right now, but I want to explain why I'm otherwise skipping over it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The "leaked" documents are meditation booklets published by DW, and they are protected by copyright. It is not a question of reliability but Copyright Violation. It is also placed in External Links I see. --Siru108 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, the placement in external links is a matter for WP:EL, but there's no reason to exclude it as a source because of copyright infringement. Whether or not to link to the source is the tricky issue. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And Wikileaks is overloaded at the moment, so there's no way to evaluate what is there. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here: WP:COPYLINKS "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." --Siru108 (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed Wikileaks contained hearsay, gossip and copyright violation only.Siru108 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

sentence is misleading

One must receive a "transmission" from Ole Nydahl at one of his lectures before being authorised to practise any of these rituals. This is not true (only applies to nöndro), and no source seems to indicate it is like that. The other source used for proving this claim states that: The texts of these meditations are available as booklets in all Diamond Way Buddhist centres, where one can also receive the corresponding explanations from experienced members of the groups. The sentense could be changed to something like this:

Explanations to the meditations are given by more expirienced members of the group. It is recommended to get a short transmission from an authentic Karma Kagyu teacher before doing Nöndro. (I can will find a source to the last part)

--Siru108 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rituals

This sentence is misleading: Diamond Way has many meditation and ritual practices.

First of all many is not very precice. Next, many rituals contradicts the former parts of the article, that DW is avoiding to many rituals.

I'd like to change it into something like this:

Diamond Way Buddhism is using a variety of Vajrayana meditation tecniques found within the Karma Kagyu (Then the context of origin of the meditations are also established)

--Siru108 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Wilammette Weekly

This is misleading, and DO NOT reflect the article it is referring:

"The Willamette Week newspaper, winner of the Pulitzer prize for Investigative Reporting [15] says about Ole Nydahl that "some Buddhists are turned off by his skydiving, openly sexual, rockstar personality, in many ways the opposite of the common image of the Buddhist as a monk who stays above the sins of the world by retreating from them the meditate his life away in a temple. Others can forgive him the sex and motorcycles, but simply find his remarks about Islam to be xenophobic" and that "Perhaps this makes him the head of a cult of personality"."

First of all, the article is very possitive towards Ole Nydahl, which is not the expression the quote above gives. Second, the article doesn't say it is a cult of personality. It says (in full): Perhaps this makes him the head of a cult of personality . But then, what religious (or secular) leader is there who can avoid that charge? Does anybody remember John McCain's Obama-is-a- Celebrity ad ? It's not like the 67-year-old Nydahl hasn't done the work: he and his deceased wife Hannah studied for years in Tibet under the 16th Karmapa, Rangjung Rigpei Dorje.

I therefore (again) suggest it changed into this:

The Willamette Week newspaper, winner of the Pulitzer prize for Investigative Reporting descripe him as "a friendly person who does really care for the person he's talking to", and that "it's easy to understand why people flock to the Lama." However "some Buddhists are turned off by his skydiving, openly sexual, rockstar personality, in many ways the opposite of the common image of the Buddhist as a monk who stays above the sins of the world by retreating from them the meditate his life away in a temple. Others can forgive him the sex and motorcycles, but simply find his remarks about Islam to be xenophobic".

--Siru108 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Changing under principle of WP:NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I think the "friendly person" sentence should maybe be moved to the responses to the controversy subsection? Looking for suggestions there. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. It is difficult to use, because the source is supposed to bring evidence about critism, but the article is indeed very possitive towards Nydahl. Splitting it up in pro-et-contra however doesn't solve it, because then again the first critical reference will seem to be out of context with the article, and the second possitive part will seem overly glorifying. None of them will then have NPOV --Siru108 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada Tibet Committee, remove!

Canada Tibet Committee was removed several times before. It has EVERY aspect of a poor source. Most improtant is that the person behind tha harsh claims is not even named. This is basically an article referring to an article referreing to statements made by someone unnamed. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP to called a man a "Quasi-cult leader" an accusing his groups of violence on such a poor basis.

What this is is merely a continuatin of gossip, this is not intended in wikipedia!

--Siru108 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removing. The story quotes an American Buddhist, so it's hearsay and doesn't belong in the article. I can also find no mention of violence in the quote, so that fails verification. Removing the one sentence linked to the Telegraph story as printed by CTC. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

UK-DW, citation is false

"The London Diamond Way group has issued a statement responding to these controversies, stating that they believe them to be part of a "smear campaign" and call them "false, libelous allegations". "

False: This does NOT deal with responding to any contrversies, as it is claimed in the text. It deals with harrassment of members of DW.

Full Original Quote:

"Starting in August 2008 Diamond Way Buddhism been subject to an online smear campaign. We are aware of the perpetrator's identity. He has made a number of false, libelous allegations about Diamond Way Buddhism and persistent abusive phone calls to people in our groups, which have been reported to the police. We genuinely have no idea why he has decided to vilify us on the internet or why he persists in harrassing people in our groups, but we are open to discuss his claims, either in person or through a solicitor."

It should be removed, or used apropriately.

Siru108 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm out of time. I'll have to look at it later, since it'll hinge on the context of the statement. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all there is... Statement by London Diamond Way. Actually looking at the Edit-History of both Diamond Way Buddhism and Ole Nydahl, it seems that those accusations (being a cult, not a Lama etc) actually started around August 2008. [3] I wasn't aware it was such a longterm edit-war. Thank you for you time and help. --Siru108 (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Those users who originally placed it are alle block as being sockpuppets, vandalism only account includeed. Siru108 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Founding of Diamond Way

Section needs to be rewritten. It is oddly short, and lacks explanation about what happened. I think there was a better explanation in one of the former versions. If anybody but me is still active, come forward and participate. Siru108 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Despite, maybe "Early History of Diamond Way Buddhism" may be better, as it wasn't founded until later Siru108 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection revisited

I'm going to leave the semi-protection in place until it lapses later this week.

I had originally protected the article because I feared an influx of new accounts and/or sockpuppets making edits. It appears that situation may be under control.

Established editors are free to edit at their leisure. I would encourage everybody involved to use good editing practices:

• Make sure edits have an edit summary that gives some explanation for the change.
• I subscribe to bold-revert-discuss cycle editing. Be bold with a change, but if somebody reverts, discuss the change before making it again. If you revert and the edit summary doesn't do your explanation justice, go ahead and expand on your thoughts on the talk page.

New and unregistered editors will still need to request changes here.

I'll still be watching this article, but hopefully, that's all I'm doing. Happy editing! —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Founding of Diamond Way Buddhism

• Suggestion, new section after Karmapa Controversy

The Karmapa controversy resulted in the founding of Diamond Way Buddhism as a separate organisation, in order to avoid influence from corrupt Tibetan Lamas. Until then, the Nydahls had transferred all ownership of the centers they founded to the Karma Kagyu administration. This however was not a separation from the Karma Kagyu lineage, and the goal of the organisation remained promotion of “persons who teach the practice and theory of the Karma Kagyu lineage”, Buddhist Art, supporting translations of authentic Buddhist text, and real estate property for retreats etc.. The “spiritual counsel” of the foundation became the 17th Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje (India), Kunzing Shamar Rinpoche (India) and Jigme Rinpoche (France).

I think you cannot write an article about an organisation and then leave out the actual founding of it... Siru108 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

- see my post on the Lama Ole discussion page - you cannot simply call the supporters of Tai Situ "corrupt" just because Erik D Curran uses this term - this is an ongoing case and as yet no clear verdict has been reached. As you say yourself - "the majority of Kagyu monasteries chose to accept Ogyen Trinley Dorje" (quote from Lama Ole) - and it is unfair to dismiss that as corrupt while the Indian court has yet to reach a decision.

personally i think that the daily telegraph article on this subject, and published by the canada tibet committee is far more objective than the book written by Erik D Curren who openly suppports one of the claimants involved here.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox was removed since it contains mainly untrue claims. Please provide evidence Diamond Way Buddhism is not Buddhist but "Buddhism based" and "commercial". "Headquarters" is not in Denmark. "Guru" usually isn't used for describing Ole Nydahl. Wasn't founded in 1972. Please get the facts right and discuss before replacing it. Siru108 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That was the impression I got from both the article and the Diamond Way Buddhism website, as well as the research I have done. I have many spent years studying new religious movements such as Diamond Way Buddhism, and as such this has been my main area of expertise and activity on Wikipedia. If you feel the details are wrong, please correct them rather than just deleting the whole infobox. Bear in mind, however that (according to your userpage) you are a member of Diamond Way Buddhism and therefore will probably have a conflict of interest. Thanks for putting the time in though, as I can see you have been very busy doing lots of editing to this article. Kareesa Tofa (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Please see my arguments further up on page why Diamond Way Buddhism is not a New Religious Movement, 2) notice no organisations seems to have listed it as such, and 3) provide evidence for your claims if disagreeing. Siru108 (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you wouldn't want to see a religious organisation to which you belong as a new religious movement. However, within sociology circles it is not synonymous with cult or other terms often used with it by the public. Some scholars say that anything after the Bahai faith is considered a new religious movement]], while others set a cut-off point, usually between 1800 and 1950. Diamond Way Buddhism, whether founded in 1972 or 1991, clearly fulfils the minimum criteria here, as it was founded by Ole Nydahl after 1950. The other common feature in new religious movements is controversy. Looking at the 'Criticism' sections on both the Diamond Way Buddhism and Ole Nydahl pages, it is clear that both are indeed controversial, and on top of that, Diamond Way Buddhism was founded as an answer to the Karmapa Controversy, itself a controversial schism within the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism. Diamond Way Buddhism therefore also fulfils this criteria, and as such is considered by many as a new religious movement. Kareesa Tofa (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Undid. Provide evidence for your claims. Maybe useful to see Wikipedia:No original research. Siru108 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Just to let you know, I have placed the two neutrality templates on this page because at current it is very one-sided and lacks third party sources. The majority of the sources are from the following:

• Ole Nydahl's books
• Tomek Lehnert's book - he is a close disciple of Ole Nydahl
• Erik D. Curren's book - he is also a close disciple of Ole Nydahl

Please re-write the article to make it more neutral or add more thrird party sources. I will endeavour to do the same. Thanks. Showtime At The Gallow (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why exactly you placed those templates? Why is the neutrality of this article is disputed, what do you think isn't neutral? Who is disputing it? Why do you think it is written like an advertisement? What claims seems to be the problem? I may add that Erik D. Curren is not and never was a student of Ole Nydahl. Siru108 (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Foundation

IP-user 86.157.28.172 :Do you have a source for this: "who supported Tai Situ, and to add weight to Shamar Rinpoche's challenge"? Because this is not what Mr. Curren says. He clearly states that they became aware that even Tibetan lamas could be corrupt, and therefore they founded DWB to prevent such influence. If you don't have a source, stop posting it.--Siru108 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

to repeat the users' comments above - you have only cited books written by people on one side of this debate (Ole Nydahl, Tomek Lehnert, Erik D. Curren), even though you are clearly aware of other sources Talk:Ole_Nydahl

86.157.28.172 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to challenge statements in the articles if you have better sources. And please do so on this discussion-page, consensus is preferable. The thing you can't do is adding unsourced statements, like the one above. Siru108 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

also - my goal in rephrasing this section was to try to say exactly the same thing in a neutral way

of course Shamar Rinpoche, who has accused Tai Situ of forgery, believes that he and his supporters are corrupt - the case is as yet undecided - therefore i think it would be more neutral to call them - the supporters of Tai Situ, rather than simply "corrupt"

you have also written that DWB was created to prevent influence from the (allegedly corrupt) supporters of Tai Situ in some western Buddhist centres. surely this is exactly the same as saying that it was done to maintain control of the centres so that they would support Shamar Rinpoche's claim rather than becoming supporters of Tai Situ. The only difference is that one way of saying it is clearly biased, whereas the other attempts to say the same thing in a neutral manner.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I don't see anyone directly claiming Situpa and co. is corrupt. I suggest a clarification by changing it to: “(...)to avoid future influence from corrupt Tibetan Lamas, as they discovered not all Lamas was above human emotions.” (or maybe as holy as they thought). But you shouldn't jump to conclusions, read: Wikipedia:No original research. If you agree you are welcome to change it. Siru108 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ok - well, i think this needs clarification - as the term "corrupt" seems to be refer to the Karmapa controversy. if it refers to something else then i think that should be made explicit.

it does strike me as odd, on a page about a lineage of Buddhism which originated in Tibet, that there would be this sort of accusation. it is unclear who the allegation of corruption is directed against - all Tibetan lamas or just some? and it is unclear what the allegation refers to - what is the threat they pose to these European centres? is it in some way connected to the Karmapa controversy? and if so, how?

- you say that you don't see anyone claiming that Situpa is corrupt? - as i understood it Shamar Rinpoche claimed that Situpa faked the letter from the 16th Karmapa concerning his next incarnation. As this sentence begins, "The Karmapa controversy resulted in the founding of Diamond Way Buddhism..." it does appear as if the term "corrupt" has some bearing on this.

In fact, as I read the sentence again, it does seem to imply that DWB was founded to prevent any influence from (the allegedly corrupt) supporters of Situpa in regard to the Karmapa controversy.

if this is not what you are implying then i think the sentence needs to be rewritten.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also in regard to your other suggestions - "as they discovered not all Lamas were above human emotions" or "as holy as they thought" - both of these senctences clearly are written from "their" perspective

if you want to put something like this then write - "as they questioned the motives of some of the Tibetan lamas" or "as they believed that some of the Tibetan Lamas may be corrupt"

to repeat - these allegations are as yet unproven in the law courts - please do not report them as fact when they are clearly just the opinion of one of the parties involved.

86.157.28.172 (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you're right. Maybe → (...) a separate lay organisation in order to avoid outside political influence, as it became evident to them that even Tibetan Lamas could have political agendas.” Then no fingers are pointed as to who are right or wrong. It is evident this is a political case more than anything. I am aware these things are seen from their perspective, but of cause it was also from this perspective they found it necessary to found DWB.
• Another thing: May I suggest that you register? Because I am trying to get a semi-protection on the Ole Nydahl page due to the vandalism, and then only registered users will be able to contribute. Your recent edits was removed too, I had them restored.Siru108 (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

yes on both points - that sentence is good to use, and thank you for restoring my edits

86.157.28.172 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks

So you claim that the Wikileaks link to the Diamond Way mditations is a copyright breach, yet also claim that the meditations are authentic and centuries old, and hence would be out of copyright. Surely you can see the contradiction here? 82.13.152.17 (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• The original text is not copyrighted, but the translation is (and the so-called leaked document is the translation, not the original Tibetan text). The Copyright holder is BUDDHISMUS STIFTUNG DIAMANTWEG, Darmstadt. www.buddhismus-stiftung.de Siru108 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Interesting that Diamond Way copyrights and keeps secret it's "holy texts" though. Makes me think they may be more than just 'translations' and also reminds me of Scientology. 82.13.155.201 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason the texts are copyrighted is actually quite practical and has nothing to do with secrets. Being of the Karma Kagyu Lineage or the Oral Transmission Lineage it is encourage to get the oral instructions of the meditation practices before one begins them. The copyrights simply make it possible to moderate its accessibility so as to keep with the traditional way of passing on the instructions. If you have any question about their authenticity please take look at the book "Torch of Certainty" by Jamgön Kongtrul Lodro Thaye which is another excellent translation and note they are in accordance. Gilbert345 (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deaths

Hello. I think that the categories like "death from cancer", "cancer in Denmark" are irrelevant in the article about organisation. I'd propose to make separate articles about teachers and have all personal-oriented categories there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almays (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Positive content in Criticism Section

It has occurred to me that the glowing account of Ole Nydahl's qualifications and how great his students think he is seems a little funny coming in a section titled Criticism. I propose to remove this from the Criticism section. If it indeed bears inclusion in the article at all, the most appropriate place would seem to be earlier in the page, under the section on Ole Nydahl himself. Changchub (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Also two Criticism Sections for one subject look a bit over. Probably the link is enough. --DiHri (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. On top, it seems that the criticism section is directed towards Ole Nydahl, not the organisation as such. Maybe it should go to the section about Ole Nydahl, or maybe delete it? Pink Python (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realy meant "one subject", deleting is OK too.--DiHri (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Selfpublished sources?

Isn't newspaper columns included in the term selfpuplished sources? Everybody can write such a column, dosn't seem very fit as a source. Or am I completely wrong? These are the sources in question:

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,2619,0,0,1,0

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_bc6ed916-d197-11de-85b7-001cc4c002e0.html

Pink Python (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are most definitely reliable sources. The only way they would be self-published is if the author him/herself posted them on Wikipedia. Given the variety of newspaper sources in this article and all over Wikipedia, I don't see how you can label them self-published?

On the question of self-published sources, I'd question the reliability of such a biased source as a book by Ole Nydahl's follower and close friend Tomek Lehnert. 18:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.18 (talk)

The problem with this source isn't that it is a newspaper article, but rather a fairly poorly written piece of editorializing and opining from a person with a clear pre-existing bias against the subject about which he is writing. Similarly 82.13.155.18 seems to have an almost obsessive need to make sure people find out that Ole Nydahl has sex with Diamond Way people. Not really sure what to do about that other than remove the juvenile sounding stuff. Changchub (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Changchup. From WP:RS, "News organizations": "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." But "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Pink Python (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. If someone uses his place in a religious organisation to obtain sex from students below him I want to know about it. And whatever you may think of the newspaper article, you cannot dispute that Ole himself admitted to sleeping with students. 188.177.18.87 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl Ph.D. claim

In the 'Ole Nydahl' section I have added a link (Thinking Allowed. "Mind in Tibetan Buddhism". Retrieved 23 September 2010.) to a script of the episode 'Mind in Tibetan Buddhism' in the popular US and Canada TV program Thinking Allowed where Ole Nydahl is presented as holding a Ph.D. from Copenhagen University although it is accepted in Ole Nydahl that in fact he doesn't hold any formal academic qualification such as a Ph.D. Hope this is useful Rinpoche (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

By whom is it accepted that he doesn't hold formal qualification? There's a source (TV transcript) stating he does, but what's the source for the counter-claim? If it's not sourced, that claim is subject to removal, leaving just the sourced statement about him holding a PhD in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred. That would be Ole Nydahl himself (reference cited Nydahl, Ole (1985). Entering the Diamond Way. Blue Dolphin Publishing. ISBN 0931892031.) and all his Wikis in their respective languages (for example in the section Early life and contact with Buddhism in his English Wiki).

See Talk:Ole Nydahl #Ph.D._claim for an extended discussion.

I see from your talk page that you're keen on highways and sports and that you're a force to be reckoned with on AIV but I don't see any indication of any interest hitherto in the sometimes arcane world of Tibetan Buddhism and 'crazy wisdom'.

For your information the question of Ole Nydahl's Ph.D. has long been an issue (amongst others). The position finally reached on his English Wiki was that he didn't have one and it was up to his critics to provide evidence for the claim that he ever claimed to have one.

In my edit I provided evidence of that claim and your novelty has been to restore the discussion to it's starting point.

Not every claim made in a Wiki needs a citation. For example the claims 'Highways are public roads' or 'American football is a sport played between two teams' (just trying put this in simple terms we can all understand). These only need citation when challenged.

The same for the claim Ole Nydahl doesn't have a Ph.D. He doesn't. He says so himself.

So why did you slam my edit this way (and who watches watchers)?

I have removed your template. Rinpoche (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to above I have now cited an academic reference as well (reference supplied Scherer, Burkhard (2009). "Interpreting the Diamond Way: Contemporary Convert Buddhism in Transition". Journal of Global Buddhism. 10. Retrieved 24 September 2010. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)).

Sex Abuse

In the page Buddhist sex abuse cases the following was entered

• Ole Nydahl

Ole Nydahl is the founder of Diamond Way Buddhism. At age 68 he acknowledged having sex with his students but said "There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that, they’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners".Joe Orso (15 November 2009). "Lama Ole: Buddhist teacher or charlatan?". La Crosse Tribune. Retrieved 7 September 2010.

User 188.104.151.85 has deleted the section claiming that having sex itself is not abuse even with a lama and claiming that it's not NPOV.

I invite comment on the Ole Nydahl discussion page and especially whether the section should be restored or not. Moreover what, if any, reference should be made here? Rinpoche (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is now approaching a week since I made this post and it has attracted no comment. As I understand it Ole Nydahl's sleeping with his students is not denied but that this is held not to be abusive. However the entry quotes his defence that the relationships are equal. I therefore propose to restore the section and trust this is acceptable to the Diamond Way community. Rinpoche (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies/Critisms section

Hi, I am a relatively new editor here, but have been looking at the history and have noticed the following:

Despite ample sources and edits, the "Criticisms" section (formerly called "Controversy", not sure why it was changed) keeps being reverted/altered back to it's current promotional state by editors/sockpuppets who are clearly members of the Diamond Way group and not eligible to edit the article due to a clear bias. (See WP:NPOV). How best to combat this censorship? Sparkly Stars and Baubles (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello to you to and welcome, but accusations of sockpuppetry don't exactly make you sound like a "new" editor, and may in fact raise suspicion about you yourself in the minds of some people. Back on track however, I think the main reason that the reversions keep getting made is that Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, and those edits were being done by a very disgruntled, anti-Diamond-way person (probably a former member) who did not make even a pretense of NPOV and furthermore used sockpuppets to try to get his/her information accepted. I suggest that it is not "censoring" to nip this behavior in the bud, but rather the duty of every reasonable person without an aggressive agenda to push. Changchub (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved with DWB in any way and I too think that it is suspicious that none of the criticism reported in newspapers and journals have found their way into wikipedia. 188.177.18.87 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is now Wikipedia policy to avoid commenting on people's personal and sex lives. In many cases, it turns biography pages into gossip columns and lowers the whole tone of wikipedia. I think that's why this commentary was removed here (and similar comments are gone from many other pages as well.) Mekinna1 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)