Talk:Ole Nydahl/Archive 1

Stub tag?
OK, this is far from being complete (some additional details like precise date of birth or list of books he has written would be nice) but maybe we could remove the stub tag already? AndyBrandt 19:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Controversies need some mentioning
This teacher is not without controversy in Buddhist circles, which deserves some mention, IMHO. I have heard Lama Nydahl speak, and have read his book 'Entering the Diamond Way' and have read of the controversies, which I will not repeat here, except to say that seekers and students should not be too gullible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.202.173.218 (talk • contribs)


 * I've added the Dalai Lama conflict and restored the skydiving accident. I appreciate some more positive wording could be achieved, but I've tried to remain neutral. I removed the "serious" adjective regarding his injuries because he recovered and it keeps the article succinct. Peace. Metta Bubble 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that the controversies surrounding Oles' teaching is more appropriate on the Diamon Way page rather than here.ALR 09:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is both appropriate really? I believe comments about his skydiving and views on the Dalai lama are appropriate here. Comments on his teachings, which we currently don't have could go over there. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nydahl's view on Islam is certainly worth mentioning. It's very un-buddhistic. And we're not just talking about Muslim fanatics. Islam as a whole is more or less 'evil', if you are to believe him. You'll not hear this when attending the first few meetings, but keep going and you'll eventually hear things said about Muslims that's in grave contrast to the teachings about universal compassion and tolerance. I know of at least one other person who's turned away from him on discovering this. Some people, however, give in and accept the notion that Islam is evil. An old friend of mine, once very tolerant, has gone this way, accepting the teachings of the prejudiced lama... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.158.89 (talk • contribs) - March 28, 2006

> In Islam as written in their books Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98 On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161 Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191 Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation: Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

Forget about evil. Islam does not tolerate others. So why tolerate the intolerant? Anyone who says Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion should first try bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia.

If a buddhist will have to choose, a buddhist will choose to gun down a suicide bomber before he has the chance to denote it in a mall...out of compassion for the suicide bomber and his would-be victims of course.


 * Please provide some links if you'd like someone to review the information you propose exists. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The information I provided is not easily verified. That's why I put it here and not in the article itself. It's something of a hush hush-issue within that circle. I highly doubt that Ole will ever admit to this animosity in public, especially considering the recent Muhammad-crisis. Unless someone secretly record some of his Muslim-bashing, you'll only have my word for it. The only way I can think of for anyone to get hard confirmation is to come here to DK and become one of his students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.158.89 (talk • contribs) - 12:58, March 30, 2006

I was wrong. There is, in fact, an easier way to get confirmation. Afer submitting my response, I did some reseach and realized that the German Wikipedia article on Nydahl reflects reality to a much greater degree than the English one. Here you'll find mention of the controversies not included in the English version, including but not limited to his views on Islam. I also found this interview, in German as well. Like most Danes I've learned German in school and understand the following quote, which says it all: "Was ich über den Islam sage entspricht völlig der Wirklichkeit. Frauenunterdrückung, die politischen Morde - jeder der Zeitung lesen kann und bessere deutsche Zeitungen verfolgt, sieht deutlich, wie gefährlich der Islam ist. Natürlich muss ich das auch sagen können. Die Leute wissen ja zu wenig über östlichen Religionen um die Unterschiede zu kennen. Sie denken alles aus dem Osten ist gut und irgendwie das selbe. Da muss ich schon sagen, dass Buddhismus nichts mit dem Islam gemein hat. Wir behandeln unsere Frauen gut und darüber hinaus gibt es natürlich auch noch andere gravierende Unterschiede. Klar muss ich das sagen um deutlich zu machen, wer wir sind." If you're not fluent in German, I suggest using Babel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.158.89 (talk • contribs) - 13:34, March 30, 2006
 * I'm afraid Babel has let me down. It comes out as:


 * Which I over the Islam legend corresponds completely to the reality. Woman Mrs., the political murders - everyone the newspaper to read can and improves German newspapers pursued, sees clear, how dangerous the Islam is. Naturally I must be able to say also. The people know to know too few over eastern religions around the differences. They think everything from the east are good and somehow the same. There I must say that Buddhism does not have anything in common with Islam. We treat our wives well and beyond that there's naturally also other serious differences. Obviously I must say this to make clear, who we are.


 * I could extrapolate pieces:


 * sees clear, how dangerous the Islam is.
 * I must say that Buddhismus does not have anything with the Islam in common
 * We treat our wives well and beyond that give it naturally also still different serious differences.


 * However, I am disinclined to use these because the translation is so poor that the context is missing. For all I know he's talking about the German newspaper's opinion or the opinion of Buddhists in general. I'd also like to view the passage you cited in the context of the entire article (translated well). Can you offer a better translation or know someone who can?


 * Given the context our discussion here it would be easy to conclude the piece is damning, but I just can't accurately factor in my personal biases and deal with a poor translation simultaneously. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can make out, the interview was conducted in connection with a lecture he gave at the Buddhist Center in Wuppertal (which Ole founded). Since christenn.de seems to be a Christian site, I assume the interviewer to be of Christian faith - which may explain the underlying critical tone in the questions asked. In response to a question, Ole states that they (Diamond Way) are not missionary. (my translations - basically a somewhat improved version of the Babel) To be missionary is to go somewhere and say: What I have is right, what you have is wrong. But we say: what we have is right for us, and hopefully what you have is good for you. Then the interviewer says: But what you have said about Islam was not so tolerant, that was rather harsh. To which Ole answers:
 * What I've said about Islam fully corresponds with reality. Opression of women, the political murders - everyone who can read a newspaper and follows the better German newspapers, clearly sees how dangerous Islam is. Naturally I must be able to say the same. People know too little of eastern religions to tell the differences. They think everything from the east is good and somehow the same. There I must say that Buddhism does not have anything in common with Islam. We treat our wives well and beyond that there's naturally also other serious differences. Obviously I must say this to make clear, who we are. Please note that my fluency in German is not up to speed with my English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.158.89 (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, thanks. I will search for a fluent german speaker on Wikipedia that might be willing to do a transalation and post it here. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I think I accidently messed with your previous response, trying to improve Babel. Like I changed your babel, not the one I pasted? I should be sleeping and my concentration is waning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.158.89 (talk • contribs)


 * I've made a request for translation here. If enough editors, like yourself, support the request we may get more German speaking editors here. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Insignificant and un-neutral viewpoint
I think the comments here about Lama Ole Nydahl are based on an insignificant and un-neutral viewpoint. His political views are no more extreme or ‘prejudiced’ than what we read and hear every day in the mainstream press and media.

On his own website he states that he sees great dangers for our “soft and spoiled democratic countries”, citing Islam and over-population. He also states that if there is no willingness and foresight to protect our values, then our cultures will fall. While I can see the reason for mentioning the Karmapa controversy and Lama Ole’s connection with the side supporting Thaye Dorje, I don’t see the fact that a Buddhist teacher has a conservative view on world politics to be of much significance. Also, to call his view on Islam ‘unbuddhistic’ seems odd as Buddhism precedes Islam by several hundred years.

It is claimed here that two people have ‘turned away’ from Lama Ole (presumably because they don’t find his teaching to their taste), but one would hardly merit filing this under ‘controversy’ especially looking at the stories of other Buddhist teachers in recent times (e.g. Osel Tenzin who infected his students with AIDS in the 1980s). Vajraspanner 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * However, there are also examples of conflicts. One is the ongoing controversy about the Danish Lama Ole Nydahl, who makes statements and takes part in activities that offend a number of Buddhists who claim that his conduct is not appropriate for a Buddhist teacher.


 * And:  Nydahl has been accused not only of speaking in a conceited and militaristic way, but also of being right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners. His unusual activities (e.g., bungee jumping) also annoy Buddhists who are not his followers—be they other adherents of the Karma Kagyü school or not (see the statement by the DBU in Lotusblätter 13, no. 4, [1999], 64f., and Lotusblätter 14, no. 1, [2000], 56-61). , both quotes are from the article 'The Meeting of Traditions:

Inter-Buddhist and Inter-Religious Relations in the West' , by Oliver Freiberger, Department for the Study of Religion, University of Bayreuth, Germany
 * The following are excerpts from a discussion thread on E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and Buddhism Forum: I went to visit a dhamma talk by Lama Ole Nydahl a couple of weeks ago. The place was crammed with people. Half of his dhamma talk consisted of hate speech against people of arab/turkish/persian descent and still he is a well-respected and highly popular teacher. (dharmagrrl)


 * "I think it is more accurat to speak of "cultural racism" or probably simply ignorance. His tool of choice seems to be radical simplification. His dhamma talk was supposed to be about Buddhism in the West, but I was under the impression the title should have been: How Buddhism and our European heritage is threatened by dark savages from the Middle East. *g* That's what I kept in mind:Lama Ole talked a great deal about ghettos in European cities being the greatest potential danger nowadays. So far, so good. But instead of pointing out the complex sociological correlations that lead to the current situation, he implied that these "ghettos" consisted merely of muslim people with fundamentalist or criminal intentions, out to sabotage our "European heritage". He also made a sarcastic remark about Muslimas "breeding" better than Tibetan or European women. I was impressed by this mixture of sexism and racism.


 * Later in same post: ''Lama Ole said he would give the blessing to everyone, even to those who weren't Buddhist or would later turn to another religion. It is interesting to note that the only religion he explicitly excluded was Islam, because it was a violent and dangerous religion. This makes clear he never studied Christianity or Jewish or Hindu scriptures, that include a great deal of violence, rape, misogyny, murder and so on in the name of God. He talked about a stupa being built to protect "us" from Islamic forces. I can't help but think that Lama Ole is getting really obsessive about this, leading a crusade just like the warrior he claimed to have been in another life.


 * I went to his talk with a friend, a Zen buddhist, who is of Persian heritage. She was almost shaking with hurt when we came out of the hall. If this is Lama Oles way of showing compassion, than I can happily abstain from it... (dharmagrrl)


 * In response to this: This is absolutely disgusting. What unconscionable and inappropriate remarks! (J. Khedrup)


 * Response: Hi J. Khedrup


 * I have similar impressions about this man and i know him since almost 30 years. What to say, well, well, it's like you already said. Thanks for the input! D. (Dave)


 * Anyone capable of Googling (try fx. Ole Nydahl + racism) can find more. "two people"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.158.89 (talk • contribs)


 * Vajraspanner. I don't see how you can say the quotations we're looking for clarificaton on are insignificant and non-neutral unless you speak German fluently. Do you speak German fluently? Can you provide an accurate translation for the source? If not, it is perhaps you who is being non-neutral on this issue. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course every individual is free to form their own opinion, independent of what us Wikipedians decide to promote or not. Luckily there is such a richness in Buddhism that people can pick their teacher based on their own preferences and judgment, without necessarily having to get moralistic about other teachers who may be good for other students. Anyway, all the best to you and be well Vajraspanner 14:55, 01 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, to summarise your position: you believe it is fine for a Buddhist teacher to be racist and anti-islam just as long as their own students approve? And your reasoning for this view is it creates diversity?
 * I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. I believe prominent figures are answerable to a larger community and not merely their closest ghettoised clique. Criticism's of Ole are widespread. You're suggesting we should ignore these criticisms? And your sole argument for this is that nobody is qualified to morally judge another being? You may believe that's very buddhist of you, but it's nothing to do with existing procedure on wikipedia. We should be following WP:NPOV and WP:REF. If you are sincere in your moral neutrality I suggest you take action on behalf of all beings who are getting morally judged on wikipedia. You could suggest Wikipedia policy change over at Village Pump. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  00:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding Metta Bubble's criticism that Vajraspanner is non-neutral because he's not a completely fluent german speaker: I have also heard Ole Nydahl speak and vajraspanner's translation is exactly the way Nydahl speaks and refers to the media and world events. But please, get a native german to translate the passage, if you must be argumentative. I'm sure you'd only find the most minor of technical differences from what vajraspanner provided. --Rico yogi 12:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be lots of confusion on this talk page about what's Buddhist and what's not. Ole Nydahl is labelled as uncompassionate and therefore 'unbuddhistic'. The Buddhist notion of compassion does not mean meekly and permissively accepting everything that anyone does. Rather, Karma says that certain actions have negative results and most likely lead to more negative situations. So in Buddhism it is compassionate to point out to people if actions will bring more suffering or more happiness. Compassion and an understanding of Karma aims for a more long term result than worrying about people's immediate likes, dislikes or political sensitivities.


 * Furthermore, in Tibetan Buddhism there is the idea of a Precious Human Life. This entails not just that a human life is important, but that if one is human and has a free society where one can practice Buddhism then this is incredibly rare and hard to maintain. If Ole Nydahl states that Islam may become a dominant force in Europe or any other Western country, then he's saying that the conditions to practice Buddhism would, if not just severely limited, completely vanish. More than that, he says that many democratic and societal freedoms we now enjoy would be diminished.


 * If this sounds crazy, tell me in which Islamic countries you can easily practice Buddhism. Buddhism requires a society where there's freedom to question pretty much everything. Its also a fact that in Asia wherever there was previously a flourishing Buddhist culture, when Islam arrived it soon disappeared - and not always peacefully either.


 * Ole Nydahl's comments may be hard to hear for some, but he's trying to get people to think seriously about world trends rather than only associate with people who agree with us. Nydahl also doesn't say that everyone must agree with him, not even his 'closest ghettoised clique', but he wants to challenge us to think outside the politically correct square.--Rico yogi 13:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rico. Your opinion about Nydahl has absolutely no bearing on this article, nor does my opinion, nor Vajraspanners. Please read Wikipedia in eight words so you understand this.


 * You say, "Regarding Metta Bubble's criticism that Vajraspanner is non-neutral because he's not a completely fluent german speaker." I never made this assertion, or anything close to it. Be absolutely clear on your confusion here, and reread what I requested.


 * I requested an accurate translation of the German article that criticises Ole Nydahl. This is a perfectly neutral thing to do. But for you and Vajraspanner to come in here and debase the article without providing a translation is pure and utter bias. You both are clearly basing your opinions without any evidence -- because no one has translated the article yet.


 * So, somehow you contend the article is unimportant? Unbelievable! Whether or not Nydahl is considered unbuddhistic is not open for discussion here. Nor anywhere on Wikipedia. All we need to do is merely verify facts, not intellectually battle and argue our biases of this teacher.


 * So purely and simply, my argument is this German source warrants a better translation.


 * Again, it's a neutral request. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  02:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends, here is an accurate translation into English of the passage in German quoted above:


 * "What I say about Islam totally reflects reality. Suppressing women, political murders, everyone who can read a newspaper and follows the better (German) newspapers can clearly see how dangerous Islam is. Of course I need to be able to say that, too. People generally don’t know so much about Eastern religion to know the differences. They think everything from the East is good and somehow the same. Then I do need to say that Buddhism has nothing in common with Islam. We are treating our women well and of course there are other huge differences that matter. Of course I need to make clear who we are."

As you can see, it's not strikingly different to the versions above, and German isn't so esoteric, so if we're talking about 'facts', it is clear that Lama Ole Nydahl has said that he thinks that Islam is dangerous (not “evil”) which was also ascertained earlier. Now we need to decide whether we want to continue or to end our 'battle' based on our personal biases, opinions and google searches. Best wishes Vajraspanner 12:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

reliable source Ole Nydahls controversies
Oliver Freiberger
 * However, there are also examples of conflicts. One is the ongoing controversy about the Danish Lama Ole Nydahl, who makes statements and takes part in activities that offend a number of Buddhists who claim that his conduct is not appropriate for a Buddhist teacher.(30) His followers, however, are equally upset and emotional about these accusations, emphasizing the spiritual strength they receive from his instructions.(31) Furthermore, this Western lineage controversy is intertwined with a dispute at the school level in Asia, namely the controversy about the seventeenth Karmapa who has been recognized in two boys, one of whom Ole Nydahl and his followers support strongly (see below).
 * 30. Nydahl has been accused not only of speaking in a conceited and militaristic way, but also of being right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners. His unusual activities (e.g., bungee jumping) also annoy Buddhists who are not his followers—be they other adherents of the Karma Kagyü school or not (see the statement by the DBU in Lotusblätter 13, no. 4, [1999], 64f., and Lotusblätter 14, no. 1, [2000], 56-61). --Kt66 15:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that anytime I suspect that someone somewhere is bungee jumping, I become very annoyed. However, when someone bangs a lot of chicks, and IS TOTALLY UPFRONT ABOUT IT, that doesn't really bother me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.123 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I added that source. --Kt66 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why it is still not added that Ole Nydahl is seen as controversial too?
Of course it needs a mentioning that Ole Nydahl is seen as controversial or is disputed. So why it is still not added? It is quite obvious that this is the case! If you want to have an idea see the german wikipage on him at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Nydahl it mentions the controversials on him in a neutral manner. Kt66 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My point exactly! Kt66 has hit the nail on the head... (author of some of the above) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.62.169.70 (talk • contribs).

The ‘controversies’ section was removed. While the reference was given to Oliver Freiberger’s article, Freiberger himself takes his statements from other sources which are not referenced in this article. As the material could be construed as critical, negative or harmful and it is after all in an article about a living person Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia’s guidelines suggests it should be removed. Vajraspanner 21 June 2006


 * Freiberger has published this research article based on publications on Nydahl. There is no reason not to mention the controversies on Nydahl and cite a reliable source for that. Controversies - if existent - are wished to mention in WP artciles. see WP guideline. --Kt66 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vajraspanner, as you tried always to supress the critics on Nydahl and even reverted the scientific source I will ask more experienced editors for their comment on the controversy section to avoid an edit war. Thank you for your consideratiion. --Kt66 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the criticisms section as it stands now is approximately right. Clearly part of the reason that the biography guidelines stress how not to criticise is that we want to avoid libelous situations like that with John Seigenthaler. However, in this case, I don't think there is anything remotely libelous about our criticism section. It might be a good idea to trim it down a bit to avoid "overwhelming" the rest of the article. And we should probably use less italics for the same reason.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your statement I shortened it and removed the italics. --Kt66 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends, I have added some quotations from Lama Ole Nydahl so as to provide some context for the criticism you have referred to. I have tried to keep this balanced, with appropriate links. Best wishes Vajraspanner, 23 June 2006


 * Dear Vajraspanner, your edits meet not NPOV. Some examples: His own comments are certainly worth examining. also Since Lama Ole Nydahl himself claims to teach people fearlessness, he engages in sports such as skydiving as a way of checking his own mind. - fearlessness is taught by the Buddha and all the Buddhist masters but the do not teach skydiving! So it is not needed to explain/justify his uncommon style by common features of Buddhism. I will try to comprehend the section as suggested by Nat Krause. There were just three or four sentence of critics and you expand that critics section to as much as the main article is. Also the critic section is now mixed with personal view. I will try to sum it. --Kt66 09:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the ongoing use of Lama, titels are not always mentioned in WP articles (see the rules for titels). Also the praise of Karma Kagyue school was quite euphemistic. There are four main Kagyue schools and 8 branches. Karma Kagyue school is one of them. All this is mentioned/should be mentioned in the Kagyu article. Further what source is there that Ole Nydahl and Hanna were HH Karmapa first western disciples? Is this really for sure? This is a claim of him/his followers what other sources do confirm this? So I balanced this claim too. --Kt66 10:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, I added that Freiberger is the source of the term "ongoing controversy" since most of the criticism of Ole Nydahl mentioned is based on his research. Also I agree that it would be good to find a source for Ole and Hannah being the 16th Karmapa's first western students. I know that in 'A Cave in the Snow' it is mentioned that the english nun Tenzin Palmo recieved her nuns vows from the 16th Karmapa in 1967 (have to check that). This doesn't make her the first student of the 16th Karmapa, her teacher was Khamtrul Rinpoche.--Rico yogi 15:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * well done! --Kt66 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear all, I added a reference to a letter by the 14th Shamarpa that states that Ole Nydahl met and became a student of the 16th Karmapa in December 1969. It doesn't state that he and Hannah Nydahl were the 16th Karmapa's first western students, however since I know of no other claims from anyone else being his first western students it seems okay that we leave it as "According to Nydahl, he and his wife Hannah Nydahl, became the first western students..."--Rico yogi 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done! Thank you very much. I removed the claim of H.E. Sharmapa Rinpoche's/O. Nydahl's followers of being the second highest Lama in Kagyue school. I balanced also the claim of Ole Nydahl regarding HHDL. --Kt66 10:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kt66, I don't think this page is really the right place for counter claims against Nydahl's opinions about the Dalai Lama's involvement in the Karmapa controversy. Don't you think it should be on the contoversy page? Another thing is that although the Dalai Lama initially did merely assent to Situ and Gyaltsap's request, followers of Karmapa Thaye Dorje see the circumstances of the Dalai Lama's involvement as controversial. Therefore, I think this passage should be mentioned on the controvery page.--Rico yogi 03:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay for the truth, no to Nydahl-follower censorship!

Grammer in First Paragraph
Can someone clean up the first paragraph the sentence: "The main focus in Diamond way is on the person Ole Nydahl, very similar like in the history in the Karma Kagyu lineage was on the Karmapa, in case of the Diamond way things did deteriorate into a Buddhist personal cult sect around the personality and charisma of this self-proclaimed Lama.."

I don't know enough about Nydahl or the Diamond Way to work out what's being said here. Perhaps it should be something like "The main focus in Diamond Way Buddhism is on the person Ole Nydahl, very similar to how, in the Karma Kagyu lineage, the main focus was on the Karmapa. However, in case of the Diamond Way, things deteriorated into a Buddhist personal cult sect around the personality and charisma of this self-proclaimed Lama."

Also, this statement (i.e. about the deterioration into a Buddhist personal cult sect) is very non-NPOV and without any supplied corroboration. Should it be here at all? 83.147.143.16 12:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. I have further edited out the 'sect' comment "a kind of sect which has the same name as the original Kagyu School". Arguments aside about who is 'the real Karmapa', one can see from the website:
 * http://www.kagyu.net/
 * That as Ole Nydahl's Diamond Way Centres clearly belong within the Kagyu School and are not considered a 'sect' which merely shares it's name.
 * I have also taken the liberty to remove the essay which has been inserted at the top of this page (a) as it disrupts the chronology of the discussion on this page so far and (b) it is unsourced, and completely non-NPOV User:Vajraspanner 23 October 2006


 * Links section: I have now included the above link to Kagyu Net in the links section, clarified there what the ‘Buddha’s Not Smiling’ link refers to and also removed the link to the Buddhist Channel. The reason is that this is article is pure vilification written by a Christian who is clearly antipathetic towards Buddhism in general.

Restructure for clarity
A few changes for the sake of the page’s clarity: I have divided the main text into an introduction and also using headings for his teachers and activity to add clarity. I have also added a few more details (e.g. that Lama Ole is a student of Shamarpa, and also later a little more on what he teaches). I have located the text on his role in the Karmapa Controvery into the ‘Controversies’ section, and also made some grammatical changes to the text previously posted there. User:Vajraspanner December 13, 2006.

facts references in the controversy section

 * Aside from the 14th Shamarpa, Ole Nydahl is one of the most prominent supporters of Karmapa Thaye Dorje in the controversy over the identity of the 17th Karmapa, who assert the Dalai Lama is not entitled to recognize (and has never before recognized) the head of the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Firstly I didn't add that unsourced points. However they are well known among his followers as well as among his critics or neutral observers. Although it is difficult to find the exact references on these points which need still verification, there is some evidence for them by implicit sources. However exact references are needed. Two implicit sources I have found by speedy search:

Which shows the known opinion of Diamond Way Buddhism (Nydahl's organisation), but is not a source that he claimed this personally.
 * "...particularly after H.H. the Dalai Lama, against all historic tradition, involved himself in the matter and gave his recognition of the candidate." http://www.diamondway-buddhism-university.org/KarmapaControversy.htm

Which shows his involvement in the controversy, which is also well known. How deep the level of his involving is, can be seen by the fact that his organisation Diamond Way Buddhism has bought mainly all domains including the name Karmapa, like karmapa.com, karmapa.org, karmapa.at, karmapa.de, karmapa.cz, karmapa.ru etc or the Diamond Way's last press release at http://www.presseecho.de/vermischtes/NA3731002916.htm where they establish their Karmapa candidate, HH the 17th Karmapa Thaye Dorje as "the highest and most revered person in Tibetan Buddhism since centries"...
 * "Furthermore, this Western lineage controversy is intertwined with a dispute at the school level in Asia, namely the controversy about the seventeenth Karmapa who has been recognized in two boys, one of whom Ole Nydahl and his followers support strongly (see below)." http://www.globalbuddhism.org/2/freiberger011.html

maybe the contributor of the lines which need verification should find and add the exact sources. This is just an indication that this passage is not wrong, but for WP evidence is needed, especially with controversial stuff. --Kt66 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added an explicit source which verifies that “the Dalai Lama, against all historic tradition, involved himself in the matter and gave his recognition of the candidate” - an affidavit in a 2004 New Zealand court case which provides evidence against the historical claims of the Dalai Lama’s candidate

The court case was pursued by Thrangu Rinpoche, who submitted an affidavit to the court at Auckland in contest for a property run by Beru Khyentse Rinpoche as a Karma Kagyu Buddhist center - which said that Urgyen Trinley was the titular head of the Karma Kagyu school. His affidavit made a statement to the effect that in all Tibetan history the Karmapas were recognized or authenticated by no one except the Dalai Lamas. This obliged Chodrak Tenphel, Khenpo of Rumtek Monastery, to submit an affidavit to the effect that none of the Dalai Lamas at any time in history have in fact been required to render such services to the Karma Kagyu lineage.

In the end, Beru Khyentse won because Khenpo Chodrak Tenphel's affidavit was endorsed by an independent expert Geoffrey Samuel, a renowned historian and rabbi whom the court had appointed to the case. With relevant documents at his disposal, Mr. Samuel testified at court that none of the previous Dalai Lamas had anything to do with the recognition of the Karmapas and, by inference, the present Dalai Lama's claim of having any authority, spiritual or legal, over the recognition of the 17th Karmapa is a falsehood.

This was mentioned in Eric Curren’s book ‘Buddha’s not Smiling’ (2006) and is also noted on the website connected with the book: http://www.alayapress.com/introduction.html

--Vajraspanner 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added (with a citation) that Shamar Rinpoche is the second highest ranking lama in the lineage. I think that this is a significant point, especially as a balance to the addition of another user of fact that Situ Rinpoche and Gyaltsap Rinpoche were close disciples of the 16th Karmapa.

--Vajraspanner 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An affadavit is actually not a reliable source. It is simply some individual's statement. Only court findings published by the court can be used as reliable sources. Therefore, I am removing this citation. Cundi 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - I have re-added it along with the court's decision, based on the affidavit.
 * Vajraspanner 21:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For better NPOV, the opposing affadavit really ought to be mentioned too, if possible with a citation, but if it is not online, the court decision should be sufficient reference. Cundi 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of additions
Added info about teachers and teachings received, as well as quotation from Shamar Rinpoche about Ole Nydahl's activity. The quotation is from a public teaching in Germany in 2006 where I was present. It shows the esteem in which Ole Nydahl is held by the second highest ranking Lama of the Karma Kagyu lineage and as such i think it is pertinent to the article.

--Vajraspanner 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done, well done. I added that his teachings are seen by critics as superficial. I think this will help to balance the article. Ole Nydahl is not seen by all Buddhist and Buddhist teachers as a Buddhist master. He has also many critics. Regards, --21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.187.147.18 (talk)

Re-ordering of latest comments under more appropriate categories + a quote to add further contextualisation
Martin Baumann's criticism of Ole Nydahl belongs in the section "controversies" (maybe better titled "criticisms"), and Shamar Rinpoche's quote belongs under "responses" which I have re-named as they are now not just responses by Ole Nydahl himself. --Vajraspanner 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lama title
This was deleted, with the comment that the title was conferred by Sharmar Rimpoche
 * Ole Nydahl has been criticised for using the title of Lama, despite having not completed the usual retreats required to take on such a title, and also for his critical comments regarding Islam and homosexuality. His organisation, 'Diamond Way Buddhism' has also attracted criticism from some Buddhist leaders for using a 'Cult of Personality'.

I agree with the deletion as it is unsourced. But if there is a reliable source it certainly sounds contraversial.Billlion (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It says in a letter from Shamar Rinpoche found on Nydahl's own website that "This letter is to clarify the title of "Lama" for Lama Ole Nydahl. There has recently been some criticism on the internet in this regard". So there you have it, even on Ole's OWN website it is confirmed that his use of the lama title is disputed. Anyone capable of accessing various Buddhist forums on the web can assert for themselves that the use of the lama title is often mentioned when Ole Nydahl is discussed. Therefore I'm putting back in the article that his use of the lama title is disputed, citing the letter from Shamar Rinpoche as the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.239.242 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is disputed, but who are those involved in the dispite? High lamas or regular practitioners? Has anyone seen any posts by any significant lamas of any lineage with critiques toward nydahls lama title? I have not seen any and nobody has provided any links to back it up, they just state that "the title is disputed". It is like if europeans would start to dispute whether Bush really won the election or not and expect this dispute to affect US politics. An obscure tibetan lama in copehagen claims to remember word by word a critical remark regarding the 16th Karmapa said to Nydahl regarding him teaching dharma some 30 years ago. We will never know if that is so and to me it seems weird that a man who sent Nydahls to europe to spread the dharma and accompanied them with official documents to back them up, would say something like that. However, what we do know for sure is that the highets lamas of the Kkarma Kagyu, Ole Nydahls teachers, do call him a Lama and have written official letters for the whole world to know their position.--Grn78 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Balancing
It's nice to see that the attempts by Vajraspanner to censor any mention of the considerable controversy regarding "lama" Ole Nydahl have failed, and that the article now to a higher degree reflects facts rather than the romantic image of Nydahl that his devotees have tried to impose on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.239.242 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

None of the high teachers of Tibetan Buddhism have made any official statements about Ole's skydiving activities, critical remarks about islam or buddhist teachings. However, this has been done by some western followers of other lineages and two professors who are far from any buddhist practice... about some third party statements in countries other than their own... ...all while the highest teachers of the Karma Kagyu lineage under Karmapa Trinlay Thaye Dorje hold Nydahl as a "teacher who transmits the flawless teachings of the Karma KAgyu Lineage".

As long as there is no substantial proof of his teachings being controversial in a buddhist context and his critics of islam and his love for skydiving being not in accordance with appropriate buddhist conduct and no authority of Tibetan Buddhism (that is a lineage holder or any other high lama) goes publicly and says what Nydahl does and teaches is wrong and why it is so, then there is no controversy regarding teachings and statements, only personal opinions - and these have no place here on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.102.196 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinions from lamas would be opinions just as from professors. The reason, in my opinion, that the criticisms are notable WP:N is that they are published. This showes that Nydal is "a controversial figure". The balance in the article is to show what both "sides of the controversy" say. This is the usual way to treat controversial topics in Wikipedia, whether it be Palestine or the Karmapa controversy. In practice if the article is edited in such a way to reflect the view point of one side of conflicting factions it just results in an edit war. Mostly people can agree on  the format "one side says this, the other side says that", even on controversial topics.By the way I am not sure that his skydiving is controversial, it is sufficiently unusual to be worthy of comment

and is reported in newspapers so is verifiable. Billlion (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I found a review of "Entering the Diamond Way" on the Wisdom books web site that says "The story and spiritual odyssey of the controversial Ole Nydahl," so at least it is on record here that he is considered "controversial"  in buddhist circles.

Drug use, sentence for drug smuggling, jail time, conflict with BDU
These things needs to be mentioned in the article: Ole Nydahl's drug use which started in '62 with marijuana, his use of hallucinogens, including LSD, Ole and Hannah Nydahl's hashish smuggling operations, the subsequent arrest and conviction of drug smuggling in Copenhagen, the time they spent in jail. All of this is described in Nydahl's own book, Entering The Diamond Way, which constitutes a rock solid source. Pretty hard to write his OWN book off as insignificant, un-neutral or libelious.

Also highly interesting is the fallout with the German Buddhist Union, BDU, that took place in 1999-2000. To my knowledge they openly criticized his whole manner of speaking, his statements about Islam, his conduct regarding women (i.e. sleeping with his female students) and threatened to exclude Diamond Way from BDU. It seems they reached an agreement, after all, and DW is still part of BDU.

I encourage other editors to look into these circumtances and will personally be doing more research. 87.56.239.101 (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved this to the botom of the page. This sounds interesting if true. While I agree that if Nydal says things in his own book that casts him in a poor light then that is reasonably credible, but I think it would need to be clear if this was the only source. One presumes that any connviction would have appeared in the press too. Where is the BDu stuf documented? Can I just caution editors though to respect Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people WP:BLP. Billlion (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Ole Nydahl's drug smuggling, jail time and early life should be mentioned. I have done this providing references from his own book and from another author. I have also added other pertinant information to provide a more detailed picture of Ole Nydahl's early life and also added a new section discussing his unconventional/controversial teaching style. I have also reinstated the endorsing quotation from Thaye Dorje in the 'teachers' section which is significant to counter claims against Ole Nydahl's status as a lama of the Karma Kagyu tradition. I also moved a couple of sentences around (author of several books, parachuting) for better flow of the article. --Vajraspanner 20:30, 04 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job Vajraspanner, I was working on adding info about the smuggling and jail time, but despite your obvious loyalty to Nydahl you've managed to include this in the article in a relatively neutral tone. This gives me time to focus on the conflict with BDU. Thank you :) 87.56.239.101 (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, whoever you are--Vajraspanner 08:00, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Lama title
Vajraspanner has put in the article that the 16th Karmapa gave Ole Nydahl the title of Lama. this is UNTRUE! The 16th Karmapa only ever gave Ole Nydahl a lesser title, despite Ole's repeated requests for such a title. Ole then started using the title of Lama after the 16th Karmapa's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.154.98 (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
It might be useful for everyone to review WP:TE and WP:DE. --Editor2020 (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting invalid source?
According to the wikipedia rules, “Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer”.

Now, the source used to verify the claim about Ole Nydahl not being a lama is exactly that; A self-published story making a strong claim, that the Lama is in fact no lama. And it is even in Danish, so unless you are a native Danish speaker (like myself), you can't check for yourself. It is by the way not very convincing, but that is yet another talk.

Shouldn't it be deleted?

Siru108


 * Please be more specific. Which reference are you talking about?
 * Footnote #?--Editor2020 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought i linked to it... Here it is: http://www.sangyetashiling.dk/kt/namsebio2.htm

It is actually a general problem in this article, that unverifiable references are used, especially in the controversies part. Siru108 —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC).


 * It could be something like this:


 * "Ole Nydahl has met criticism on the internet for using the title “lama”, however Shamar Rinpoche addresses this issue and states that it is "absolutely appropriate" for Nydahl to hold the title of Lama. (Ref: official letter from Shamarpa)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, since no objections, I changed the text to: "Ole Nydahl has met a lot of criticism on the internet for using the title “Lama”, however Shamar Rinpoche addresses this issue and states that it is "absolutely appropriate" for Nydahl to hold the title of Lama."" This s verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Siru108, the reference: http://www.sangyetashiling.dk/kt/namsebio2.htm is to hearsay. If we are going for more than opinion then the reference and the argument it supports should be removed – eg. That Ole Nydahl is not a lama – which definitely supports a minority view of the situation.

It is not in English – which is another issue – how about linking to references in English on the English wikipedia. I ran it through babelfish and it amounts to something like – in 1977 I heard 16th Karmapa say to Lama Ole he should not behave as a Lama – which is taken out of context and could have meant any number of things. This argument should be replaced by the official 2006 letter addressing this exact issue http://www.lama-ole-nydahl.org/olesite/pages/person/ole_shamar_letter.pdf by the head of the lineage Shamarpa Mipam Choki Lodro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JK108 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I bring a translation of that part, then we can discuss it further:


 * After Denmark we travelled to Norway and the center in Norway. At that time there was a person named Ole Nydahl. One day we went with him and His Holiness Karmapa and some others out on a boat to have an small trip. At that occasion Karmapa told Ole Nydahl that he was allowed to talk a little with people, but he was not allowed to behave like a lama. He could tell about refuge and so, but he wasn't allowed to give any initiations. He told Ole Nydahl: "You are not a lama. You have met many lamas, but you are not one of them yourself. What you can do is telling others about Dharma, but you cannot behave like a lama."


 * 16th Karmapa saying like this contradicts any written letter he left regarding Ole Nydahl. He indeed wanted him to teach, and indeed wanted him to bring buddhism to the west. Many of these letters are reprinted in books like "Entering the Diamondway" and "Riding the Tiger". Siru108 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DBU and the context of criticism
This is referring to a despute with the DBU (German Buddhist Union) in 1999/2000:

“According to Oliver Freiberger, assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin,[18] there is an "ongoing controversy"[19] about Ole Nydahl. Freiberger reports that the German Buddhist Union's periodical Lotusblatter claims that Nydahl's statements and activities offend a number of German Buddhists who claim that his conduct is not appropriate for a Buddhist teacher.[19] "Nydahl has been accused not only of speaking in a conceited and militaristic way, but also of being right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners. His unusual activities (e.g., bungee jumping, fast motor cycles and parachuting) also annoy Buddhists who are not his followers—be they other adherents of the Karma Kagyü school or not."[19][20][21] “

The sourses for this part:
 * Oliver Freiberger, Department for the Study of Religion University of Bayreuth, Germany, in Inter Buddhist and Inter-Religious Relations in the West
 * German Buddhist Union (DBU) Magazine Lotusblätter 13, no. 4, [1999], 64f.
 * Lotusblätter 14, no. 1, [2000], 56-61

They are all referring to the criticism raised towards Ole Nydahl at that time. However the dispute was solved, and the DBU decided to cooperate with Ole Nydahl and DW. The context seems to be totally missing, as well as the outcome. This is to me not NPOV. Oliver Freiberger also puts the criticism out of context, unless of course the article was written at that time (Date of release is missing!).

I would like to rewrite it like this:

'''In 1999-2000 there was a dispute between the DBU (German Buddhist Union) and Ole Nydahl. Oliver Freiberger, assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, notes that Nydahl's statements and activities has offended a number of German Buddhists who claimed that his conduct was not appropriate for a Buddhist teacher. He refers to DBU's periodical Lotusblatter: "Nydahl has been accused not only of speaking in a conceited and militaristic way, but also of being right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners. His unusual activities (e.g., bungee jumping, fast motor cycles and parachuting) also annoy Buddhists who are not his followers—be they other adherents of the Karma Kagyü school or not." The dispute was solved in October 2000 and despite different views, both sides agreed to cooperate. The conversation was described as “a first step” that "should eliminate misunderstandings, and lead to clarity and cooperation.“ '''

Siru108 "10:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs)

Overview in the controvercies section
I think this part is everything but friendly towards readers. I would like to arrange it into subheadlines, so that information about each topic is collected under a headline. Like this:

Main: Critiques and Controversies

Lama Title No further explanation needed I think

Teachings Buddhism Light or Flawless transmission

Dispute with DBU As I suggested in the topic above

Karmapa controversy This also explains itself

Contrvercial statements Controvercial statements and why Ole Nydahl made them

Siru108 Siru108 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems very clear and easy to read to me. It's just a couple of paragraphs, and I don't see any need to break it down into six different sections. Mostly we need to avoid the long history of edit warring and disruptive edits that this article has been subject to, so if you would like to expand the section, any scholarly, third-party, reliably referenced material you would like to have considered can be brought to this discussion page and we'll work out a NPOV version for addition to the article. If it gets long enough to break into sections, no problem.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. But what about the part about DBU? It seems unfair to use an 8 year old source of critism without bringing the context. The "ongoing controversy" was solved 8 years ago. Today DW in Germany is in charge of teaching buddhism in schools for the DBU. Is it NPOV to leave the happy endning and the agreement out? (talk)"Siru108 (talk) 11:45, 13 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) 18:01, 16 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) 08:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I also posted the following on the Diamond Way Buddhism discussion page to explain why we should remove the word controversial from the first few sentences of each 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) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Siru108 (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. Of it have to stay, it has to fit with the source at least.


 * Canada Tibet Committee is removed again. 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.

If you fo not agree, please participate in discussion. Siru108 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Note I see the parts has been replaced again. Why? Please notice that this article should be extra well-sourced, as it is a Biography of a Living Person. I will remake the edits if no objections. Please participate in discussion!

Improper references to self-published sources?
I can't see any, can anyone else find "improper references to self-published sources"? Else the template should be removed. Siru108 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Me neither, removing template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandizzle (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed self-published source template. No arguments to the reason why they are there. Consensus seems to be remove it. Siru108 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed Newsrelease templates: Seem placed for no reason, no explanation given. Siru108 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Replaced NON-ENG template. Non-english sources are used in some sections, therefore this template. Siru108 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Templates readded by Peter Robinson Scott: 11:23, 18 January 2009 Peter Robinson Scott (Talk | contribs) m (19,698 bytes) (added templates because of self-published, non-NPOV sources) Please explain why you concider it a news-release and why you think it contains improper references to self-published sources? I see the parts are a little low on sources, maybe to place this instead:Refimprove?


 * --Siru108 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In Denmark
I added a short notice about the influence of Ole Nydahl in his native Denmark. Since it is significant, and the source is based on scientific research (Borup is the most active researcher in the field of Buddhism in Denmark, often referred to by the newspapers), I cannot imagine anyone has serious objections?

Borup, University of Aarhus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

 * Changed Oliver Freiberger. It was misquoted, text did NOT reflect the source. The quoted part was a footnote.
 * RemovingCanada Tibet Committee, hearsay, fails verification. Discussion about this has also been made on Talk:Diamond Way Buddhism:


 * ''"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)"

Siru108 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lama Title

 * Why is it called disputed in the factbox? It doesn't seem to be a fact, no sources except a letter from Shamarpa, who adresses that there has been "some critism in this regard". However several letters from prominent Lamas confirm the title, as well as any books published by Ole Nydahl are puplished by "Lama Ole Nydahl". Can somebody provide e reliable source  reliable source to confirn that the title is disputet? Else it appears as just another point of view, violating WP:NPOV, and will therefore be removed. The critism are mentioned under controversies, this appears to be enough, as it is not really proved that it is disputed. In the introduction it would also be appropriate to mention "Hi is often referred to as Lama Ole Nydahl or Lama Ole"--Siru108 (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is disputed by many, and has been so ever since he started using the title after the 16th Karmapa's death. This is mentioned in the controversies section. The only NPOV way to do this is to either say it is disputed in the box, or remove it from the box altogether. This dispute is also why the Wikipedia article is (rightfully IMO) called "Ole Nydahl" and not "Lama Ole Nydahl" as it was called at first when created by his followers (see the history). Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "dispute" apperently consists of plain gossip. If you have a reliable source, you may use it. The Burden of Evidence is also really heavily leaning toward the "Lama"-side. It is however fine to mention, however criticism has nothing to do in an infobox, and it clearly belongs to the "Controversies" section. You might want to read this: WP:WEIGHT--Siru108 (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of evidence of this dispute (much of which is linked in the article). If we are not going to mention it in the info-box, then the only other NPOV option is to remove it altogether, because just placing 'Lama' in the titles section lends far too much weight in the other direction, and is not neutral. Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence that the title is disputed, please make a list on this page. Please remember reliability. Besides, we did not come to an agreement on the edits yet. --Siru108 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that even if everyone agreed on the title Lama is would not be included in the name of the article. See NAMEPEOPLE.Billlion (talk)
 * Peter Robinson Scott blocked + no evidence against it = Lama --Siru108 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)--Siru108 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that even if everyone agreed on the title Lama is would not be included in the name of the article. See NAMEPEOPLE.Billlion (talk)


 * Sure, no problem. Siru108 (talk) 12:42, 1 February 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) 19:06, 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) 07:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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..."[]

not only have you edited this quote [] 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


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)

Illicit use of Ph.D title?
There are several publications and flyvers advertising ON as Ph.D. though according to University of Copenhagen records, ON never got a Ph.D. - is ON making an illicit use of the title? That is a criminal offense. 87.63.69.127 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In what Stalinist backwater is lying about someone's credentials on a poster (you don't think Ole makes his own posters do you?) a criminal offense? He never claims a PhD in his books, in fact I don't think he claims that he ever graduated from college, although he does mention attending.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.229.196 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As noted in the section 'Ph.D. claim' below, I have added a reference to a  Thinking Allowed TV program where he was introduced as holding a Ph.D. from Copenhagen University. Regarding your remark about Stalinist backwaters etc., whether or not it's a criminal offence to claim a Ph.D. you don't hold is irrelevant. What is at stake here is his moral integrity. Rinpoche (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do the publications refer explicitly to his doctorate as from Copenhagen? Otherwise, you'd have to consider whether any institution as granted him a doctorate. If you think this should go into the article, it's easier to show a secondary source about this issue than do it on your own original research of the University of Copenhagen records. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * yes you are right. i do find it a little odd that he nowhere lists where he has obtained said phd 87.63.69.127 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is using the PhD title falsely, just like he is using the Lama title falsely and has been for years. 82.13.155.18 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? 82.143.250.145 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted directly above and in the section 'Ph.D. claim' he was introduced as such in a  Thinking Allowed TV program. The program also concluded by directly addressing him as 'Dr.'. Rinpoche (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Ongoing Disputes?
I see that ongoing disoutes are being archieved. Is this normal WIKIPEDIA-practice when the talk page is so short as the present one, or is it an attempt to conceal the ongoing influx of controversies? 87.63.69.127 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The archiving bot is configured such that any discussion, where there has been no activity in the discussion for 30 days, is archived. So while it may be a long-running dispute, it's not an active one. I don't see a problem with the 30-day setting for archiving. (By contrast, some pages archive after only seven days.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, cool that's me who's getting a little paranoid, then 87.63.69.127 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP issues corrected
I corrected a few BLP issues in the article.


 * 1) The implied criticism that other people have referred to him as having a Ph.D. has been removed. There is no evidence that these references were not simply journalistic mistakes. Taking more space to list these than reporting on sourced credentials is giving undue weight to mistakes made by others. Similarly, we cannot say things like "There is no record of..." unless we have a source which says precisely that. That's original research at best and defamation at worst. We can't have it in Wikipedia.
 * 2) I also removed a single sentence sourced to a personal letter from Shamar Rinpoche and a forum at rickross.com. A personal letter is an unverifiable primary source and can't be used unless it been republished in a reliable source. We can't link to an alleged copy of a letter someone has thrown up on a website. Forums aren't even allowed as references on regular Wikipedia articles, much less biographies of living persons.
 * 3) There was no support for the assertion that "For years" there have been accusations of sexual impropriety, so I removed that and reworded the remaining text to more closely follow what the single source cited says. I also changed "sleeping with" to "has had sexual encounters with", because this is what the source says. However, unless there is more information about this issue with reliable sourcing, the whole sentence should probably be removed as giving undue weight to a single issue with a single source.

Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions about this. Yworo (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, I agree with most of your changes, but I disagree about removing the reference to Nydahl's relationships with female students completely. The dispute between the Sharmapa and Ole Nydahl about this issue is documented on two websites maintained by buddhist lamas (http://tilogaard.dk, english, click here for two answers on questions about bodhi path; as well as http://info-buddhismus.de/Ole_Nydahl-Shamarpa.doc). I don't contribute to WP often enough to know wether this suffices by WP-reliability-policy, but I think it renders more weight to the reliable press source, the cited article. Therefore, mentioning the topic is not undue, in my opinion. Best regards, Sceptic Watcher (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, such materials are considered to be self-published. A reliable source must be published by a third-party. If the issue is covered in a book, magazine or newspaper published by an independent publisher, then that material can be added. Really, such potentially defamatory material needs to be supported by multiple reliable sources. Thus my doubt whether it should remain when supported only by a single newspaper article. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I guessed this would be the case. But anyway, the newspaper article is reliable, isn't it? The German Buddhist Union (DBU) also criticized him for his behavior towards women, which is also cited in the current version. The dispute, unfortunately, was carried out in german: the magazine of the DBU, Lotusblätter 13/1999, Nr. 4, S. 64f., is cited on this topic in the german wikipedia entry. I hope two such sources suffice, considering that one of them would be a primary source, being involved in the dispute itself? Sceptic Watcher (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am always dubious about the intentions of competing groups, even religious ones. Could you please both questions on the BLP noticeboard? I think we will get a more informed opinion that way. By both questions I mean (1) can Lotusblätter be considered a reliable source for this information? and (2) is there enough support for keeping the information in the article or are we giving undue weight to something that has little or no reliable sourcing? Given the wording of the quotation in the LaCrosse Tribune, I have some doubts about the accuracy of the quotation. I am trying to walk a middle path here by not removing the info entirely until it's been thoroughly discussed, since there is a source for what we currently have. Yworo (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The German Buddhist Union is not a competing group, but an umbrella organisation of many buddhist groups in Germany. Nydahl's organisation, Diamondway Buddhism, is a member of the German Buddhist Union. Please write a short note if you still think the procedure you proposed is neccessary despite them not being a competing organisation. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, if that's the case, you can use it as a source, I have no objection. Just take care to describe whatever is in it neutrally.Yworo (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Break criticism section into subsections
I moved some sections which are really not criticism of Nydahl but relate to his opinions or history of his organization out of this section.--Mekinna1 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC) The criticism section has been broken into subseqtions. Could the breakdown be improved further? Yes. Does that mean you should remove it all without notive? No. Don't remove, improve! 82.143.250.138 (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't listen too well, Seb az86556 Tell me exactly what it is you want me to source. I haven't added anything to this page, merely broken the Criticism page into subseqtions. 82.143.250.138 (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Scuse me? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That info is already elsewhere in the article. If you have an issue with it, take it up with the people who added it. I only added subsections. 82.143.250.138 (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again we seem to be having an issue with Nydahl-followers removing criticism. Can we please use the talk page before removing criticism? 89.150.118.208 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

sleeping with students
i added this info today. a named journalist at a large newspaper claims to have the information from Ole himself. if that is not a reliable claim it should be settled in court. not on wikipedia 188.177.18.87 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So you should say that Ole Nydahl has admitted to having sexual relations with some of his students, not Ole Nydahl "abuses his authority." One is a fact (sort of, maybe... that LaCrosse tribune article is a sorry excuse for journalsm), the other is a moralistic opinion.Changchub (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

thats right i admit i went too far in my first try. are you disputing that ole nydahl told the journalist this though? 83.89.213.87 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. I'm disputing your representation of what he said. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

i said i went too far in my first claim. 83.89.213.87 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

as nobody has answered, nor offered any solid reasons why the LaCrosse article should not be included, i have re-inserted the critisism, this time in a format that closely follows the original text. i am ready to have a civilized discussion as to why the claim should not be in the article, but keep in my that the fact that the journalist is biased does NOT nullify Nydahl's statement. it is still in there, clearly enclosed in qoutation marks. 188.177.0.6 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim should not be included. First the article/source is clearly biased, and not fit for wikipedia - especially not a biography of a living person. Second, why the obsession with this mans sexlife? This may be of interest for some, but it is not really wikipidia stuff. Pink Python (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not about his sex life, its about abuse of authority as has been clearly stated by other posters elsewhere. Really these arguments are not particularly persuasive. 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What's worse, not only do you and other keep diverting the argument that its about ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, you don't adress the fact that this article - biased or not - has the man himself admitting to sleeping with his students. Furthermore, this article is not the only article which features this claim as other posters have also pointed out.

Now in spite of all this it may be true that such claims are not valid for Wikipedia. But I doubt it, because Wikipedia rarely has any problems featuring other stories concerning abuse of authority. If this is really true I want to hear about it from someone who isn't biased, not the same handful of people who keep straw-manning their way to a white-washed article. 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides, how can this claim be libelous when THE MAN HIMSELF admits to sleeping with his students? 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous related arguments not adressed by the users who want to remove this and other criticism, reproduced below:

[quote] 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)

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) [/qoute] 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the history. Members of the Diamond Way cult have long been trying to suppress criticism and whitewash this article. I'm glad to see this is finally being challenged. 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yearh it was way ridiculous. Lets get the abuse out there. 93.163.54.253 (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe if those of you who are for some reason obsessed with painting DWB in as negative a light as possible were to actually make user accounts instead of this spate of unregistered ip addresses individuals like myself who are fairly neutral on the subject might be more inclined to give you a bit more credence. As it is this has the look of a strange obsession with discrediting a man/organization and that always makes me suspicious of the motivation.  Are you perhaps a disgruntled ex-member?  Why the need to call it a "cult."  It really does not have the characteristics of a cult as far as I can tell... more like Buddhism-lite.


 * To answer some of the above accusations/questions: How do you get from having slept with students to an automatic abuse of authority? Without proof that he actively used his position as a teacher to obtain that sex this is a specious accusation which only serves to make the accuser seem obsessed with denigrating the accusee.  Wikipedia is meant to be informative, not to be a forum for your moralizing.  And finally, I think you overestimate the amount of edits that have been made by actual DW members.  Some of us just actually would like Wikipedia to remain somewhat objective!! Changchub (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, well for my own motivation for being here I am not an ex-member I have read ON's books and seen him talk but was not convinced. I frequent other Buddhist sanghas in Copenhagen. In many different sanghas people have heard the rumours that ON is sleeping with students and SOMETIMES (not always) also that ON pressured or promised advancement of teachings in exchange for sex. As to what the precise relationship is there, I don't know but apperantly, the same rumours have found their way to the US and Canada. These are clearly the rumours that ON is being confronted with in the article, and he responds not by denying it but by saying that there is no teacher-student relationship between them at the moment they are having sex. This means (1) that he admits to sleeping with students and (2) he is granting that before and after sex they are in a student position to him, yes? As to ON's logic here, I might have my thoughts but these are not appropriate for WIKIPEDIA. However, the accusation and ON's response clearly is.
 * As to "abuse of authority" I have kept these words out of the article. But how often does a 65-year-old man that is not a rock star get to sleep with bundles of 25-year-old girls within an organisation which he is the head of without some abuse of autority going on? Do you know what happens in protestant parishes where the 65-year-old male priest sleeps around with the 25-year old female church-goes? This strikes me and others as the same thing, but not you?
 * Finally there is the point about ON preaching fidelity to junior members in talk and in his book on love. A religious figure that preeches A but repeatedly indulges in B, well I would want to read about it in an encyclopedia article. 87.63.69.127 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I second the remarks of user 87.63.69.127. The mundane truth of the matter would seem to be that in reality Ole Nydahl is not sufficiently notable to have attracted reliable third party sources. More than likely sources will either come from his disciples or his critics. It's plainly not NPOV to suppress his critics. Wikipedia is full of articles by disciples adulating their gurus (for example take a look at Lama Yeshe Losal I've recently been editing - not a reliable source in it and the whole thing lifted from a tract written by his students and sold at his centre!). If these articles continue to be censored by his students in the way that is clearly happening here then they must ultimately expect them to be deleted. What alse can they reasonably expect? Rinpoche (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that protestants had started using priests. When did this happen?  Last I knew they generally had ministers and pastors and such... oh yeah... Episcopals.  But seriously, the attitude of Christians to sexual relations really has absolutely nothing to do with this article or with the issue of someone having sex with students.  Furthermore the attitude of Christians to sex varies dramatically from denomination to denomination, making the above hypothetical question even more silly.  All reports seem to indicate that the sexual relations Lama Ole has are with used-up looking middle-aged women who come to his teachings probably hoping for some attention of that variety.  In that context I find it ridiculous and puritanical to try to paint it as a form of "abuse." Changchub (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could cite sources for what you claim. Referencing your own experience (or comically your uncle's in Talk:Buddhist sex abuse cases) is self-evidently an example of the non-NPOV sin you charge all Nydahl's critics with. You coud be one of Nydahl's lovers, Nydahl himself. Are you saying here that Nydahl is not abusing the rights of the 'used-up' women you claim come to his teachings seeking the kind of attentions you claim they do (from a clapped-out 70 year old one might reasonably add)? That Nydahl is behaving more skilfully as a teacher by using them thus? That this behaviour is moral and promotes the harmony and well-being of his communities? That his example does not pose a moral danger to younger less 'used-up' members of his communities? Indeed that these 'used-up' women are not in fact themselves more like 'abused' women, perhaps literally so as we know is common enough or in crisis because a relationship has ended and they have turned to the Dharma as we were taught by the Buddha himself is always the first such impetus for that journey?
 * I should like to extend the courtesies of the Wikipedia community to you and avoid a personal attack but you do not yourself extend the same courtesies in your own posts and on this occasion I should like to remark that I find you as naive, absurd and ridiculous as Ole Nydahl by common consent himself is. Rinpoche (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I am "sinning" by mentioning the things I have in Talk pages. Did I insert any of the information you reference above into an actual entry?  All I was saying by the above is that according to people I have talked to who have attended teachings(hence the word "reports") of Nydahl's is that there were an awful lot of single-looking middle aged women who looked like they were trying to be as attractive as possible and there was also mention of some clamoring for attention.  Why?  I really don't know, but my guess is that they're the ones he's having sex with and that most 20 year-olds in the Diamond Way organization probably are not falling all over themselves to have sex with the man.  (at least not any more, I don't know that there wasn't a time when he was younger that this may have been the case.)  And you may find it comical that I happen to know of a teacher/student sexual relationship that was far from abusive, but I'm really not sure what's so funny about it, again it was not mentioned because I wanted it made into a Wikipedia entry (and the fact that you may have interpreted it as such IS comical) but rather because you made the sweeping statement that "claim[ing] a teacher can have non-abusive sex with his students... isn't an acceptable position." Do you have a reference for that?  Is this a fact?  Why is me giving an example in response to that inherently moralistic statment comical?  I really don't get it.
 * At any rate your ad hominem attack does nothing to clarify anything. I may attack people's notions but try to refrain from just directly insulting them with no point in mind. Changchub (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in British vs. American English and proper grammar.
Could people please use spell check. Also try to make some effort to use standard English grammar, some of the latest posts were very sloppy. --Mekinna1 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Can we agree on the use of British vs. American English in this article? Shall we go with centers or centres? I'm partial toward centers - any one else? Also, dear English language learners please have your native English speaking friends help you on grammar.


 * On the Diamond Way worldwide website they are referred to as "centers." So I for one am more than a little partial to the American spelling in this case.Changchub (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

TC)

Sex life
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".

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 here and especially whether the section should be restored or not. Rinpoche (talk) 14:29, 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 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 Ole Nydahl. Rinpoche (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed as Nydahl himself responds to the criticism in a major newspaper it is verifyable and non-libelous. It reeks of Conflict of interest when people supress the critism on this page. I also think we should restore the subsections, which were removed without giving a reason on the talk page. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ph.D. claim
In the section 'Academic education' I have provided a link 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 and I have removed the "citation needed" template. Hope this is useful Rinpoche (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the section on Academic Education should be changed. In his autobiographic books (Entering the Diamond Way and Riding the Tiger), he provides details on his education: he finished the philosophicum (german word for the final test in the universitary study of philosophy, don't know the english translation) with the best possible grade, and started to write a doctorate thesis on the topic "Aldous Huxley and the joy-bringing vision", but didn't finish it. (Edit: Forgot to Log In) Sceptic Watcher (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So what needs changing? What was at stake here is whether Ole Nydahl has falsely claimed to have a Ph.D. or not. The section originally stated that he had so claimed but didn't provide a citation in support and a 'citation needed' template was added and the section criticised in the Talk page here. The link I have provided makes it clear that he has claimed to have a Ph.D. when in fact he doesn't (as acknowledged in the 'Early life and contact with Buddhism' of his Wiki entry here) and vindicates the purpose of the section, which is of course to question his good faith.
 * It's quite a serious matter I judge because I think it must be a question whether he could have appeared on a program like 'Thinking Allowed' without passing himself off as an academic. Do you know of a source that is not self-publicised (in the circumstances one has to insist on that to be credible) which attests the undergraduate degree your post implies? The opening remarks don't suggest he completed even a first degree.
 * It is a significant issue because if we can't trust his good faith in the matter of his academic credentials why should we trust it in his claim to have been the first authorised by the Karmapa to teach the Kagyu tradition? Rinpoche (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be included that way in the text. The sentence "There is, however, no information available detailing where Nydahl should have obtained his Ph.D. title, nor any MA-degree." is wrong. There is such information. He details in his book that he has the equivalent of an MA-Degree, and that he doesn't have a Ph.D. title. It seems to me that it would be a rather stupid tactic for a fraud to claim to have a Ph.D. in one place and in another source freely admit that he doesn't. Plus, the claim that there are several sources is incorrect. The Thinking Allowed program is the only source containing a reference to Nydahl being a Ph.D. I could find. Of course, if you could name other sources where he himself claimed to be a Ph.D., I would retract my objection. Here, it seems to be more a case where somebody errouneously assumes Nydahl to have that title, for whatever reason, and Nydahl not bothering to correct him. That isn't laudable, but he doesn't actively try to give people the impression he holds that title. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Conserning himself as a source: WP:SELFPUB. I would argue that admitting one has failed to complete one's PhD, but finished the Philosophicum, is not unduely self-serving, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The other 3 points don't apply. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. Here's a second source from the same TV series
 * JEFFREY MISHLOVE, Ph.D.: Hello. I'm Jeffrey Mishlove. Today we're going to explore Tibetan Buddhist meditation -- what is it, and how does it compare and contrast with other forms of meditation, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist? With me is Ole Nydahl, one of the first Westerners ever to be initiated as a Tibetan Buddhist lama. He is a Tibetan Buddhist meditation master of the Kagyu tradition. He also holds a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Copenhagen, and he is the author of several books, including Entering the Diamond Way and Basic Dharma. Welcome, Ole.
 * OLE NYDAHL, Ph.D.: Thank you.
 * MISHLOVE: It's a pleasure to be with you.
 * NYDAHL: It's the second time; I'm glad about that. ...
 * Wouldn't you agree we're maybe seeing a distinctly less than laudable pattern of being careless about denying his Ph.D. here (and will you retract now)? A Google search on "Ole Nydahl Ph.D", i.e. on exactly that phrase as Google does on quotation items, brings up about 50 hits.
 * I mean what is this Sceptic Watcher? Cognitive dissonance or what? What does it take for a Diamond Way practitioner (I accept you're not necessarily one but your response is true to type) to acknowledge that Ole Nydahl has issues? Isn't this reluctance to even entertain doubts about him just the sort of problematic issue people have about the nature of his communities? Rinpoche (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Again. Are you kind of kidding me or something? The link you just quoted is exactly the same you provided above. Quoting the same thing tiwce doesn't make it more true. And unlike you, I actually looked at those 50 google hits. And guess what - most of them link to sites that sell a video or dvd containing the above interview. So we still have only this one source. I want to achieve an NPOV article that doesn't exclude the existing criticism. Feel free to take a look at my contributions to verify that I'm not trying to make this article into a propaganda piece. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the rest of the hits, all of them are either connected to the "Thinking allowed"-Interview, Wikipedia-Mirrors, or non-related sites.Sceptic Watcher (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there back again too. Sorry, just a typo setting up the second reference. Here it is corrected . There were two such programs. This second corrected Ole's original assertion, which he still claims I believe, that he was the first Westerner to be initiated as a Tibetan Buddhist lama, but the claim he held a Ph.D. was allowed to stand. As for the Google hits I mention them to underscore the degree of penetration his claim to hold a Ph.D. has achieved. These are mostly other sources repeating the claim and so the myth is perpetuated. And will you now retract as you said you would? It is a genuinely different source and it cannot be dismissed as an (albeit lamentable and agreedly not laudable) failure to correct a simple mistake. I repeat that it is unikely Ole Nydahl could have got himself onto a program such as 'Thinking Allowed' without passing homself off as an academic. I can add that I didn't raise the question of fraud (it's why I started a new section rather than continue the existing 'Illicit claim' section). What I do raise is the question of his good faith.
 * I looked at your Talk page but couldn't identify your contributions. I do accept good faith on your part but I have to say that Ole Nydahl's entry still looks as if it's been written by a disciple, which is not to say that it fails to be neutral but it is noteworthy that a justification quickly follows every negative criticism. In a sense that you are doing here is to spin the issue in as favourable way as can be in the circumstances for him. Well I don't really have too much of an issue with that, it's only natural after all, but it is spin nevertheless. Rinpoche (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again and perhaps a final posting, if only because we're running out of indents :-). First I have now looked at all those Google hits and confirm they all eventually derive from those two 'Thinking Allowed' programs, which is not however to diminish their significance nor to preclude the possibilty that there are other sources: not everything, even today, even with Wikileaks :-), gets onto the web and Google.
 * Concerning the 'Philosophicum' you mention isn't this just the Examen philosophicum which is a foundation course for a degree and not equivalent to a degree? If Ole does claim, as you say, that is equivalent to an M.A. degree, wouldn't that be false? I repeat I'm not really concerned to show that Ole is a fraud. But it does raise the question of good faith and that must sooner or later be adressed, if not by Ole, then by his communities. And the same incidentally with his womanising which brought me to these pages in the first place via Talk:Buddhist sex abuse cases.
 * I notice this (a Google translation) in his German Wiki
 * From late 1999 to April 2000 there was a public confrontation between the German Buddhist Union eV (DBU) and the Buddhist Federation Diamond Association (BDD), since the DBU Nydahl in an open position because of his attitude to Islam, his political statements, had criticized his speech, his self and his dealings with women. There was a meeting between the two sides on 4 October 2000 and although different views were clear, yet showed both sides of willingness from the past to learn and to encourage common. "The conversation was as a" first step "seen" and was aimed to dispel misunderstandings, to clarify and promote cooperation..
 * Wouldn't it be a good idea to reference this in his English Wiki? Wouldn't that be in the long term interests of his communities? Rinpoche (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As suggested by Sceptic Watcher I have updated the section 'Academic education' to reflect the discussion here. Hope that's useful Rinpoche (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As suggested by me I have added details of the DBB/BDD confrontation in the 'Criticism' section as well as remarks from Baumann and Scherer, of which the latter (favourable to Nydahl) seem to me to be extremely pertinent, albeit presented in pretty opaque academic terms which I have tried to make more acessible. Hope it's useful. Inevitably a broth from so many cooks needs tidying up a bit and I will do this in time if not attempted by before by other editors. Rinpoche (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in my answer. I'm not sure how two sources by the same person/organisation are usually handled by wikipedia. I think we should ask some more experienced editor. As for my opinion: It doesn't tell us anything new - we already knew that Nydahl was falsely referred to as a Ph.D. on "Thinking Allowed". I hoped you would have other cases where this happened. Concerning the Philosophicum: As Nydahl tells in his book that he began his doctorate thesis, I assume the Philosophicum back then was equivalent to an MA - otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do that. Can you tell me a bit more about the significance of that? You said that he likely wouldn't have been interviewed if not for the title. Do you know for a fact that only scholars were interviewed on this show?
 * You can look at my contributions at the top of the page: Go to "My Contributions" and then enter Sceptic Watcher instead of your own user name.
 * @Things not getting in the web: That may be true, but Wikipedia has a policy against including things that are not firmly based on fact. If you manage to find a source that is not available on the internet where Nydahl is purported to be a Ph.D., please bring it on ;)
 * @Controversies This is an excellent idea. I hesitated to include it in the article because I didn't know wether it was relevant for the english version or not. If you're interested in the specifics of this disagreement, you may find more information at http://info-buddhismus.de/lama_ole_nydahl.html. The details weren't considered relevant enough for the german wiki, because the conflict didn't garner any outside interest, but it's an interesting read.
 * @Scherer It should be mentioned that Scherer is a pupil of Nydahl and Thaye dorje (source: http://www.randomhouse.de/author/author.jsp?per=156968). Sceptic Watcher (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't propose to labour this Ph.D. business. As I stressed I wasn't concerned to reveal Nydahl as a fraud (that was your slant). A "citation needed" template had been added and I provided the relevant citation. I have to say that I think you are naive indeed to suppose that the issue is merely one of "Thinking Allowed" wrongly attributing a Ph.D. Do you have any inkling of the research that goes into a TV program like "Thinking Allowed" with its tradition of interviewing the leading intellectuals of the age? Of course they were led to believe that Nydahl was an academic with a doctorate in Philosophy. If there were no other sources (as you claim) where then can they have sourced the claim but from Nydahl or his associates?
 * Regarding your remark that you 'assumed' Nydahl had the equivalent of an M.A. degree {added: I've removed 'and is the equivalent of an M.A. degree from the section 'Academic education' which in addition I've renamed 'Academic credentials' Rinpoche (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)) that troubles me and is at odds with the standards you set for yourself when you stress Wikipedia has a policy of not including things that are not firmly based on fact. You said that 'philosophicum' is the 'German word for the final test in the university study of philosophy'. Why did you say that (does Nydahl say that)? It's not so. There is no such word in the German language. Rather the examen philosophicum is exactly what its Wiki entry says it is - a foundation course for university study but not a degree in itself. If you Google the terms 'examen philosophicum copenhagen' you will find examples of CVs where people quote it but not as a degree. I have no idea how Nydahl came to be preparing a Ph.D. thesis (a 'druggy' title incidentally, doors of perception and all that LSD stuff) without (it seems) a first degree. I assume the whole thing is a fiction. [... added on reflection: that's a bit harsh, or at any rate I don't want it to be understood as a harsh judgement. I can imagine that's what he was planning except the inconvenience of having to do time in a Kathmandu prison intervened and the rest, as they say, is history ... splendid really, I'm not knocking it by any means :-}]
 * @Things not getting in the web. If I happen to come across another source and it's notable and relevant (though frankly I don't see why we need to list a catalogue of claims, surely one is sufficient) I'll bring it on. Are you trying to suggest the "Thinking Allowed" one is not firmly based on fact?
 * One for the road. Here's another source I noticed, genuinely independent of 'Thinking Allowed', which repeats the story that Nydahl has a Ph.D. . By all means cite it if you think it notable :-) but it is easy to see how these stories propagate and in the generally deferential culture surrounding a teacher become fact rather than fiction. Rinpoche (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Contoversies. As mentioned above I have now referenced the DBU/BDD conflict and given the reference you mentioned.
 * @Scherer. I don't at all see why Scherer should be referenced as a pupil of Nydahl and I'm inclined to think that he might rightfully regard that as a gratuitious invasion of his privacy. Go ahead if you think you must (you will have to find a source).
 * Again people revert the criticism edits even though this HAS BEEN DISCUSSED and as far as I can see they do not adress the prior arguments. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've concluded such remarks I should wish to add about Ole Nydahl. I do think Shamarpa's remarks about the Bodhi path and Nydahl should be addressed at some point but I don't have the time right now and I gather some of it at least was contentious for Diamond Way, so perhaps it's best handled by existing editors who may know more about that. If on a return I find no mention has been made and I have time I might add some remarks.
 * Thank you for looking at my edits. Take care. Rinpoche (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have provided enough sources to show that this is more than a misunderstanding on Mishloves part. I will edit the passage accordingly. Nydahl states he started writing a doctorate thesis, I think we have no reason to doubt this claim, and will change the passage accordingly. The second source you quote says he did a graduate thesis, which is correct, he just didn't finish it successfully. He isn't referred to as Ph.D. on that page. There are all sorts of strange claims, I'm sure you have heard that some people claim Obama is a Muslim. Just because something is claimed on the web doesn't mean it is true, wikipedia has some standards. It is important in the context that Scherer is a pupil. He might be more inclined to hold a favorable view than an external observer. And I already did provide the source above. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In your original post here you said "he finished the philosophicum (german word for the final test in the universitary study of philosophy, don't know the english translation) with the best possible grade " but the philosophicum is not the final test in the university study of philosophy in either Denmark or Germany. I invited you to address this issue above and you have not. I have therefore reverted my edit and ask you to address the issue of the philosophicum here before editing it again. I repeat my only concern is disinterested accuracy, it is you who is raising issues of fraud etc. and if I may so is abusing Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps it would help should you persist  were you to quote exactly what Nydahl writes about his academic studies so we can judge what assumptions you have in fact made. Rinpoche (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now edited the section 'Academic credentials' to include material appearing earlier about his starting a Ph.D. thesis and I trust this is more acceptable to you regarding your 'Nydahl states he started writing a doctorate thesis, I think we have no reason to doubt this claim ...'. I would add on reflection that I neither in fact nor substance sought to show anything in the article about what Mishlove might or might not have understood but merely showed that the claim that Nydahl been credited with a Ph.D. thesis for which a 'citation needed' template had been added was well founded and provided the necessary citation. Rinpoche (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've provided a copy-edit of 'Academic credentials' which should address all our concerns. I would be obliged if you could confirm that is so as you have put me to a lot of trouble. Regarding your infantile Obama reference above I suggest the issue is more O'Donnell than Obama though of course Obama one gathers would be a natural tropism for the BDD Rinpoche (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As suggested above by me I have added a brief reference to Shamarpa's remarks about the Bodhi path and Nydahl in the 'Criticism' section directly after the sentence concerning Nydahl sleeping with his students. I'm not sure the euphemism 'sleeping with his students' is very satisfactory but leave it assuming good faith. If the reference to Shamarpa's letter proves contentious I can provide an expanded version should that be more useful. Rinpoche (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

sleeping with students
I renamed this section "Personal Life" from the former title of "Tantric Relationships." There is no evidence that the relationships with students are tantric and no quotes from Nydahl to that effect, he has actually stated the opposite. Personal life seems to be the most neutral title. Obviously there is some controversy about consensual adult sexual relationships between teachers and students, but normative, ethical judgements about it are outside the scope of this bio. - There is already a wiki page about sexual relationships between teachers and students that with various academic opinions.--Mekinna1 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There was some unsubstantiated opinion posted on this page that was removed. It's not necessary to post every opinion of every lama or academic of Nydahl on this page. This is not typical of other teachers and is simply cluttering the page with opinions. - this violates Wikipedia's policies on pages that relate to living people.--Mekinna1 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Its great that people are finally using the talk page. So lets have some opinions. Now, as I and others have stated countless times, THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANYBODY'S SEX LIFE. This is about potential student-teacher abnuse of authority. Within the Buddhist community Sharmapa, fellow Lamas, Academics, and Journalists at major newspapers have all raised this issue. It is quite possible that this issue should not be included on Wikipedia but the arguments given when reverting tend to circle around unsourced (which they are not) and that it is undue interest in his sex life (again, if you read the sources provided, *all* of them are concerned with potential abuse of authority). 69.198.169.163 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

People deleting criticism and not using the talk page
again people, its nice that you want to clean up, but you cant just delete statements referenced in a newspaper without giving any reasons. wikipedia is a collaborative effort. im thinking of you Mekinna1 but numerous other users have done the same in the past, always with the criticism section. i dont know of it is the case but the obvious speculation would be that you have some personal interest in the subject. 82.143.250.201 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Standalone criticism sections are discouraged. Wikipedia standard is that criticism should be integrated into the sections to which it applies and not pulled out into a separate section. Therefore, I've merged the criticism where it seems most appropriate. Yworo (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)