Talk:Ole Nydahl/Archive 2

Whitewashing
I have no special interest in this subject, yet I have looked into the matter some years ago. Back then, a few critical voices were trying to bring up some sourced criticisms of Nydahl but the criticism kept getting supressed and edited out. Checking back on the article after some years, it seems again that a few critical voices are ignored and their contributions diluted by people with an agenda. I especially notice how the people critical of Nydahl want the whitewashers to use the Talk Page, while the whitewashers just revert and edit. 71.202.153.174 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * VERY skeptical... about the "no special interest" part that is. Most with little interest would not be likely to title a section "Vandalism by Nydahl-followers" or even bother editing this page! Hmmmm? Changchub (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Uhm, okay it depends upon what you define as special interest i guess. Im a zen buddhist and I was active in denouncing the actions of some of the zen masters who slept with their students. Also I know a guy in DWB who says that sleeping with students is okay because its like Mick Jagger sleeping with groupies and that opposition to Nydalh sleeping with students is just a case christian moralism. When me and some other friends pointed out that the DWB puts special status on its teachers, which meant that sleeping with students was was _potential_ abuse of authority he exploded. Since then I've had an interest in getting the story out there, about how Nydahl is sleeping with his students and how major newspaper have raised questions about it, stressing, like me, the potential abuse of authority. So when I say that i have no special interest in the topic, what i mean is that I am neither a DWB-follower, nor a "DWB is a Cult"-denouncer. That is my declaration of interest, and, might I add, I am using the Talk Page trying to argue my case, rather than the people who just come in and whitewash. 71.202.153.174 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh... alright then. I'm actually Karma Kagyu... have some very dear friends who are DW Buddhists. It doesn't seem to me that short of clear forms of sexual imposition that his sex life is anybody's business really, and I'm pretty sure given the ferocity of detractors that the reports are conflated and that in many cases it has more to do with the Karmapa Controversy and a general sense of sectarianism than any reality of the man posing a real danger. He is a hobbled old dude at this point. I think more people should actually focus on the lack of real substance in DW (I referred to it quite awhile ago below as Buddhism-lite). Btw, do a little more research on some of those historically critical here esp Rinpoche... more than one have been banned for basically being obsessed trolls. Changchub (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 71.202.153.174, the material you are reverting into the article has incorrectly formatted citations. In particular, "[Citation: Morgenbladet 24. desember, 2009]" is meaningless. Please supply a full citation as well as a supporting quotation. A full citation includes the author's name, the title of the article, and the page number (or a link to the article if online). If there is no author, the source is not considered to be reliable for sourcing information about a living person. Unless this citation is improved and shown to be reliable, the statement it is supporting may not be included in the article. If you continue to add it back, it may result in your being blocked from editing. Clear and full supporting citations are not optional in articles about living people. Quotations (in the original language and in English) must be provided upon request or the material may be removed, which I have done. Yworo (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am not a Nydahl-follower, I am a Wikipedia editor. Further unsubstantiated accusations of this type will lead to warnings about personal attacks, which again if persisted in may lead to being blocked from editing. Please discuss in a collegial manner without wild and false accusations. Yworo (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well you didn't use the talk page even though people requested you to. In any case, Morgenbladet is a respected newspaper. Others may have formatted it wrongly, but its a good source. 69.198.169.163 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because when I followed the links to the supposed source articles, the pages linked had little or no substantive content. There weren't any articles of any sort there. Only a couple of bullet points. Again, if you intend to use non-English sources, please provide the original language text of the sentence or paragraph in the source that supports what you'd like to add to the article, along with an accurate English translation. You must also provide a full citation preferably with a link to the article online. Again, "[Citation: Morgenbladet 24. desember, 2009]" is meaningless. It does not enable other editors to find and verify the text. There is no author's name, there is no page number, there is no article title. Material which is not properly cited to allow verification will be removed. Yworo (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Academic reception
I'm not sure reversing the order of presentation of Baumann and Scherer is the best idea. Take a look at Scherer article, he was in part responding to Baumann. Here's the paragraph immediately preceding the first of the two Scherer quotations, referencing Saalfrank (1997) and Baumann (2005):

"The few more recent references to Nydahl in academic research also mention the mixed reception of Nydahl's personal style, political views,(18) and his alleged spiritual elitism.(19) Martin Baumann has asked legitimate questions about some Western peculiarities of the Diamond Way, such as the election and education of the so-called Traveling Teachers. In this context, he criticizes the Diamond Way and its "Westernization" of Buddhist transmission and warns of diluting the teachings "into a form of 'instant-Buddhism'" (Baumann 2005: 377). In an earlier sociological study devoted to Kagyu converts in Germany, Eva Saalfrank noted the same criticism of "instant-enlightenment" and "instant-Buddhism" referring to Nydahl's teaching of advanced tantric practices (Saalfrank 1997: 138)."

We should probably add material from Eva Saalfrank, and order the presentation chronologically by publication: Saalfrank, Baumann, Scherer. Since this is "Academic reception" we should also be citing Baumann's actual academic article rather than a newspaper "sound-bite". Yworo (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Baumann and Saalfrank articles are in German and I don't think there are any official translations. --Mekinna1 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite Yworo's opinion above the article does not have to be in English. I think s/he means to cite the translation if there is an official one.Billlion (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never claimed sources have to be in English: they don't. However, an editor using a non-English source must provide quotations and translations on request. Yworo (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a translation for these sources as of yet. --Mekinna1 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Added NPOV Warning
I added a NPOV warning for these reasons:

1. The article states the Karmapa as "Trinley Thaye Dorje" - this is a minority view and so that point of contention should be mentioned. Since it isn't, it lacks a neutral and objective point of view. The majority of Tibetan including the Dalai Lama don't agree with this claim in any case.

2. The article deals with smuggling and criminal activity in a PR mannner, it doesn't describe his previous criminal activities in detail, drug possesion, drug use etc. Too much spin here.

3. His comments of Islam are widely known as derogotary, unlike mainstream Buddhist teachers. The article attempts to whitewash this. He is often accused of hate speech in countries like Germany and Austria for example but no mention of this.

4. His Karmapa meditations are practiced by only him, and no other Buddhist lama in the world practices them. They have no clear lineage or sucession. The article attempts to rationalise this in a biased way.

5. Mr Nyadahl has been widely known to be involved in affairs with married women, his sexual behaviour is not generally regarded as acceptable for a lama, regadless of his martial status or vajrayana qualifications. The section marked "Personal Life" is spin and not objective, it attempts to rationalise this.

6. In general, Nyadahl is not held in high regard within mainstream vajrayana circles, yet the article attempts to whitewash all this. At worst he is commonly regarded as a cult leader, at best a lama who sleeps with married women and publically dislikes Islam. He's very much on the fringe of Buddhism and this article attempts to obscure the controversy around him. For this reason, it has a problem with it's neutral pojnt of view and I've marked it accordingly. Others may disagree with my comments, but the tone of the article is too in favour of him given such great controversy. One can for instance easily find pages of pages around him accusing him of being a cult leader, sexual abuse etc. For this reason, the article lacks objectivity, and so I think it needs to present the counter argument to the spin and apologetics around him.

--58.166.25.159 (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Given Ole Nydahl's above-mentioned controversial status within modern Buddhism, you'll have to forgive some people for being rather suspicious of an editor using only an IP address whose only few edits are about this subject. It sounds to me more like a very biased individual with an ax to grind with some aspect of Nydahl's teachings and/or behavior than a person wishing for an NPOV portrayal of the guy.  Nobody has any idea what percentage of Tibetans support this or that lama and statements such as that have been completely removed from the Karmapa Controversy entry here on Wikipedia for that very reason. And what the Dalai Lama's opinion happens to be on the subject is completely specious. That having been said the point about the article calling Thaye Dorje the 17th Karmapa is a good one and it should be changed, since that is a subject of dispute. Changchub (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the article clearly lacks neutrality. The karmapa issue is just one (tedious) aspect of that. As a side note given your comments Changchub, I personally don't care one way or the other about the karmapas and their politics. I'm not personally vested for or against this teacher, I simply want an objective article. My credibility is irrelevant - the article lacks a neutral tone. Whether my comments are correct about the Dalai Lama etc are also not relevant, the article is PR and not objective. This is my real point, my personal opinions are perhaps incorrect, but I hope you can see that the problem is the neutrality of the article. If it were against him I would say the same thing. I prefer to make my own mind up by being presented facts... I don't need someone telling me what to think. --101.160.196.220 (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am undoing your NPOV tag. Your stated reasons are all conjecture and personal opinion. Complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased" "it is widely known this and that". If you have legitimate points to make I suggest bringing up the topic and adding some citations to specific points in the talk section that you want addressed. Second, your credibility certainly is relevant to your actions on wikipedia. If you are a new user using multiple IP addresses, I suggest exploring the tutorial and reading WP:NPOV before making large controversial edits to pages.Joshgreene (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. the initial statements made above on the NPOV tag - 1. the article does not refer to Thaye Dorje as the Karmapa anywhere, only to the dispute over 2 candidates. point 4. There is a recording of the 16th Karmapa giving the guru yoga meditation practice that is used in Nydahl's centers. The origin of the meditation is clear. Guru yoga itself is also practiced widely in several schools of Tibetan Buddhism. None of these accusations are sourced so they should not be used as a basis for an NPOV tag or any changes to the page. --Mekinna1 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy Quotes and Criticism
A number of people edit this page and sometimes add lengthy quotes to the page. This is unusual compared to other biography pages in Wikipedia. I understand that people have strong opinions about Nydahl, however, I'm not sure if adding all these quotes really helps to inform the average reader that much. There has been a problem with the page becoming cluttered with numerous opinion quotes, so that over half the page was criticism of Nydahl and there was relatively little information about his actual life and work. The section pertaining to Nydahl's political views is becoming very lengthy, but the essential points seem to be that he has some critical views of Islam and that these are not related to his function as a Buddhist teacher. Additional quotes are basically unnecessary. In addition, the quote that was removed was not an official statement of Nydahl. --Mekinna1 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The recently-deleted Nydahl quotation from "Buddha by Nature" should likely not be cited here as it was taken from a pre-premiere viewing sample of the film. According to the director, Berno Kürten, the quotation will not be included in the official release of the film; it is therefore a rather weak and questionable reference to include here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahakala108 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Guru Yoga by 16th Karmapa
Hi Mekinna1, the source you provided is behind a paywall. I'm uncertain what Wikipedia's policy on this kind of source is. Do you know and could provide a short link? Sceptic Watcher (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the wikipedia policy on this issue, but I think there is a transcript of this lecture published somewhere. I will see if I can find that and use it instead. --Mekinna1 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced gossip in a biased opinion piece
Interesting to come back to this article and see that the references to Nydahl sleeping with students has been edited out AGAIN without use of the talk page AGAIN. This has been discussed before and a consensus was reached between both proponetns and opponents. The consensus was that we should include the accusation that it is problematic that a "master" sleeps with his students but then also include Nydahl's reply that "there is the teacher-student-relationship is not "involved" in their having sex.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.26.24.200 (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are references, please provide them. Otherwise, unsourced contentious information like that will be removed per Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. - SudoGhost 07:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * this has already been discussed. http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_bc6ed916-d197-11de-85b7-001cc4c002e0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.26.24.200 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you so obsessed with Nydahl's sex life? Perhaps you could tell us about yours, instead. There's nothing sacred about some specific version of the article on which a consensus was acheived at some past time. Consensus is ongoing, and this article can be changed to reword or even omit it if the consensus develops in that direction. In other words, harping on past consensus is not a very good argument. Stay in the moment. Be here now! Cheers! Yworo (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a teacher having sex with a student, as long as the student has been given the proper empowerments.Merigar (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is PoW. Other people think differently. LOTS of other people. We should cover both sides of the debate and as the archives will show, this has already been discussed and a consensus has been reached. 46.26.24.200 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia functions very much on reaching consensuses. As the present edit is not based on discussion, but on people editing the article to suit their own preferences, the past consensus takes precedence. Furthermore, as you can read in the archives, other people tried to make this matter into a discussion concerning an undue interest in somebody's sex life. Yet that is not the matter. The matter is about sleeping with students, which is controversial, which has been covered by third party reputable sources and which Nydahl has adressed himself. The Nydahl fans in here need to stop whitewashing, start using the talk page, and stop deflecting the issue by inserting errorneous arguments. 46.26.24.200 (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article, since it just you versus atleast three people. Merigar (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about arguments, not a show of hands. If you can't offer up arguments, you should go away. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum 89.150.118.208 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad pupulum may be a fallacy, however WP:CONSENSUS IS policy here. I suggest that there is a distinct link between the 46.26 IP address and the 89.150 address based on the set of articles (Ole Nydahl and The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute) both pushing the desire to push less than favorable unsourced assertions in the articles. Hasteur (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem that the consensus now is to err on the side of caution as we are instructed to do in WP:BLP. I recommend that IP editors consider creating accounts because, rightly or wrongly, refusing to do so gives the impression that one is not really committed to improving Wikipedia and leaves doubts as to whether one or more individuals are involved when the editor moves about or their IP dynamically changes. I agree that we seem to be dealing with one dissenter here. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am the same person. I have never denied that. But can we please get back to the matter at hand: Are any of you denying that there has been controversy in the media about Nydahl sleeping with his students? No, you are not. There is at least one English-language newspaper article explicitly referencing the claim. Also, I don't think non-English sources are prohibited on Wikipedia, as the person who removed the edit stated. Nydahl is a Dane. Most articles about him are in Danish. That should come as no surprise. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As for what seems suspect, well, what seems suspect to me is that there are always Nydahl-followers in here who try to divert the argument by appealing to inserting straw men and non sequiturs into the discussion, or simply removing critical information without using the talk page. Read the arhives. I am not the first person who has pointed this out. I won't be the last. It is possible that under the current WIKI rules we cannot include a reference to the controversy but people using straw men, removing edits without using the talk page, and fallacies like Argumentum ad pupulum does little to add to that credibility. As for your comment on Argumentum ad pupulum being a consensus, well the way I understand Wikipedia is a consensus reached by ARGUMENT, rather than edit-mobs with no arguments but personal recriminations and fallacies.
 * So now that we have this out of the way, I propose that this article http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/joe-orso-lama-ole-buddhist-teacher-or-charlatan/article_bc6ed916-d197-11de-85b7-001cc4c002e0.html, which we are already citing, and which many Nydahl followers tried to remove in the past, is enough to merit the mention that Nydahl's pattern of sleeping with his own students has stirred controversy:
 * When I asked him the next day about claims that he has sexual encounters with his students, he didn’t deny this.
 * “There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that,” he said by phone. “They’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners.”


 * I am interested to hear your arguments to the contrary.
 * 89.150.118.208 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for admitting you are the same person. The reference doesn't use the word controversy or anything even close to it regarding Nydhal's sexual activities. And I also agree with the comments of the other three editors.  Merigar (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do please stop with unfounded accusations of the affiliations of Wikipedia editors. I'm a Buddhist, yes, but have no affiliation with Nydahl or his organization. And I've been a supporter of caution in BLP issues for some time and adhere to the "do no harm" policy. Merigar is right, you can't call something a "controversy" unless a source has. And you haven't provided a source which calls this a "controversy".
 * One interviewer asked him a question about his sex life, he answered it clearly. The interviewer refers to "claims", but doesn't tell us who made these "claims" or where the "claims" can be verified. So we can't talk about the "claims", they are unsourced gossip or hearsay. The question itself is pretty much of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety. The article does however accurately report the answer given by Nydahl when asked about these vague and unsubstaniated claims; we have no reason to believe that the quotation is inaccurate.
 * How you get a "controversy" from this article, which is clearly an opinion piece and not a news article, is beyond me. We can't go beyond what is said in the sources, but that is what you are urging us to do. That's not very objective, and makes it seem you have some sort of ax to grind where Nydahl is concerned. What'd he do, steal your girlfriend from you?
 * Personally, I feel we should remove the entire section, as it's based on repetition of gossip in a clearly biased opinion piece, does not make even the slightest attempt to substantiate the gossip, asks a "wife-beating"-type question based on nothing but unsubstantiated rumour, and then tries to make something of Nydahl's non-denial response. If it was intended to be reporting, it's extremely bad reporting, and I see no reason whatsoever to consider it a reliable source. And really, the only reliable source for such a claim would be a real news story about a complaint or lawsuit by one of the students allegedly "slept with", and not a report possibly based on nothing but a rumour started by a disgruntled ex-follower.
 * Finally, I reviewed the archives and your claim of consensus is false. There was never any consensus to include the material. There is only you, repeatedly pushing to do so. If you disagree, please point to the specific section of the archives where this consensus was made. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I support all of Yworo's comments and actions. Merigar (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also entirely support Yworo's position. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its good that you are all in agreement. I will still contend that the first line of responses in this exchange did not sufficiently address the arguments I raised. I also think its slightly ridiculous to say things like "who cares about the past, be in the now!" as if that constituted an actual argument. Now, I will remain open to the possibility that this information should not be featured,
 * It is commendable that you looked in the archives and while yes - there is no consensus in the sense that everyone agreed that the prior edit was the best solution, but what there is is people who vented their best arguments in order to have this information suppressed from the article, and had to give up, as they could not produce sufficiently good arguments for doing so. In -that- sense, there is/was a concensus.
 * Furthermore, I fail to see any reply to why references in Danish and English are removed without using the talk page. The subject is from Denmark, so it is understandable that the majority of the sources are going to be in Danish or English. Also, THE SOURCE I REFERENCED IS ALREADY REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE (^ Borup, Jørn (24 April 2009). "Pral med åndelige evner er en alvorlig brist". Religion.dk. Retrieved 24 November 2012.) - - how can you contend that you are following WIKI's guidelines correctly when you dismiss a source out of hand (without using the talk page!) for being "non-English" when that same source is already referenced there? I already raised this issue once, saying: "Also, I don't think non-English sources are prohibited on Wikipedia, as the person who removed the edit stated." - to which I got no response. And to make matters worse, this rejection of non-English sources harps back to the main point about there being *serveral* journalists who find it problematical, which would build the case, which would - by the arguments presented so far - make the controversy about systematically sleeping with students (as well as Nydal's response) admissable in the article. Here I am specifically referring to some pieces in the Norwegian paper Morgenbladet, which have previously been referenced in this article, but which have been removed. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Full citations, quotations and translations were never provided. You were asked for them, and you never responded. Now get lost. Further slander against this individual on the talk page will be reverted as well. This was taken to the BLP Noticeboard, where my analysis was agreed with and the recommended actions given were protecting the article, then blocking you if you persist. If you disagree, the BLP Noticeboard is the place to continue the discussion, not here. Yworo (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum
Hi Yworo, why should it matter where the claim originally came from? In his phone-conversation with the Lacrosse columnist, Nydahl not only didn't deny having sexual relations with his students, but also provided a clear rationale - “There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that,” he said by phone. “They’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners.” The article is still around, unlike many defamatory pieces that unfairly decry Nydahl. This implies that the phone conversation indeed took place that way. I would be glad to discuss that on WP:BLP, but I am not very active. How do I do so? Also, your analysis was very one-sided (you didn't provide a link to Orso's text), and exactly one other poster agreed. I don't think that this is sufficient for taking out the entire piece. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I pulled the discussion back out of the BLPN archives and copied this there. Will respond shortly. Yworo (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I answered you there. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I support Yworo.Merigar (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ole Nydahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613164656/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/10/scherer09.htm to http://www.globalbuddhism.org/10/scherer09.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/arts-humanities/theology-and-religious-studies/Staff/Profile.aspx?staff=bb106075f34e0f0a
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216085021/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/9/borup08.htm to http://www.globalbuddhism.org/9/borup08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ole Nydahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222231656/http://www.sappho.dk/Den%20loebende/nydahl-english.html to http://www.sappho.dk/Den%20loebende/nydahl-english.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External link added
I will add a link to a scholarly paper, published by Routledge, available as an extended web-version by the author:

Scherer, Bee (2018). ‘Neo-orthodox Tradition and Transition: Lama Ole Nydahl and the Diamond Way’ (Extended version of ‘A Neo-orthodox Buddhist Movement in Transition: The Diamond Way’, in E. Gallagher (ed.) 2017. Visioning New and Minority Religions: Projecting the Future. London: Routledge, pp. 156-165), available online at https://info-buddhism.com/Ole_Nydahl_and_Diamond_Way_B_Scherer.html

Kt66 (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

First Students of the Karmapa?
The article claimed that the Nydahls were among the first Western students of the Karmapa. In fact, they arrived only 9 years after the first Westerner became a student of the Karmapa, Freda Bedi in 1960. Tenzin Palmo another British woman and student of the Karmapa, arrived 1963 in India. The Karmapa ordained Bedi in 1966 and Tenzin Palmo in 1967. So when the Nydahls met the Karmapa there were already Westerners long before them. I changed the passage respectively. For Tenzin Palmo ordination see her website: "In 1967 she received the sramanerika ordination at Rumtek Monastery in Sikkim from H.H. the 16th Karmapa." http://tenzinpalmo.com/jetsunma-tenzin-palmo/ and "Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo was the second western nun to be ordained by His Holiness the 16th Karmapa." http://tenzinpalmo.com/the-world-needs-yoginis/

Kt66 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream Muslims
I've removed the quote regarding 'mainstream Muslims', as this was a misquote of the article, where Nydahl used the term 'mainline Muslims'. As it is not clear exactly what mainline Muslims means - this is not a standard English phrase - and may be due to confusion of terminology by a person whose first language is not English, I think it would be better to remove this phrase. There is no way to confirm what he actually meant now. There is other information in this section which adequately describes his views on this subject so this quote seems extraneous.

Mekinna1 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
I am proposing that the section on Ole Nydahl's page title 'Academic Reception' be deleted. I have not been able to find a section similar to this academic reception section on any other wikipage of any other Buddhist teacher, living or dead. For instance, for Karmapas, Shamarpas, Dalai Lama, the Panchen lama, Namgyal Rinpoche, Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo, Chogyam Trungpa, Thubten Chodron, etc. there is not a single instance of Western academic opinions on those teachers mentioned on their wikipedia pages.

This is probably because western academics are not authorities within the Buddhist tradition. Some of the academics who are quoted on Nydahl's page (Borup and Baumann) don't even have any particular expertise in Karma Kagyu Buddhist traditions. These quotes seem to have been chosen by editors who don't like Nydahl, just because the quotes are critical of Nydahl, although the authors are not truly experts. This is unfair treatment of Nydahl.

I would argue that the authority who can decide whether Nydahl's teachings are authentic and whether he is a lama is the head of that lineage of Buddhism, the holder of the transmission of those teachings. For this lineage, that is the Karmapa, or his delegate. Western academics have no authority to make claims about the authenticity of teachings or who is or is not a lama. To suggest that they do is a gross form of Western imperialism over Tibetan traditions.

Mekinna1 (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The section "Academic reception" is celarly not about academic reception, but about his influence and the (dis)qualification of his role as a Buddhist teacher. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to - I can only find references from within the Buddhist tradition that would speak to his qualification as a lama. No one with any authority to do so has 'disqualified' him. There is also no basis for the statement that he has 'departed' from traditional Buddhism. Every statement in this article about his teaching points to the fact that it is very traditional and based on the teachings he received from his teachers. Having translated it into European languages doesn't change that - Marpa translated many teachings in to Tibetan, that didn't inauthenticate them.

Mekinna1 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I am adding a request for comments to this talk page to solicit additional, objective expert opinions about the authority of western academics to assess the authenticity of Buddhist teachings, and to say who can or cannot represent Buddhist teachings. In the meantime I deleted this section, as no counter-argument has been presented. (It does not make sense to retitle this section 'Departure from Traditional Buddhism' in my opinion, since he teaches only the ngondro of the 9th Karmapa, and Mahamudra teachings from Tilopa, the third Karmapa and Lama Zhang. These are all very traditional teachings. I see no evidence to indicate teachings that are in any way a departure from traditional Karma Kagyu Buddhism. In future, please use the talk page before making so many drastic edits to a controversial page.

Mekinna1 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I can hardly follow your "arguments"here, what I do understand is that you removed information which you don't like. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS; primary views are allowed, but are not the main source. I've restored the sourced info you've deleted.


 * What you removed is the following:






 * Your only argument to remove this is I see no evidence to indicate teachings that are in any way a departure from traditional Karma Kagyu Buddhism. Well, I see; Borup and Scherer are quite clear. If you don't like the word "departure," propose another term, but don't delete info from WP:RS. See also WP:CENSOR.


 * Regarding your Request for comments, please follow the proper procedures for a WP:RFC:
 * WP:RFCBEFORE: Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. You didn't even await any further response, but deleted the info and (mis)added the RFC.
 * WP:RFCST: Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page.; Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section


 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Joshua Jonathan, I think the subheader "Departure from traditional Buddhism" is less than ideal. The content of this section appears to be no problem and reliably sourced. Mekinna1, if you think Nydahl is treated unfairly in this BLP, please consider to take your concerns to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. JimRenge (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * please feel free to change it to a more apt title. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps my earlier points were unclear. What I was trying to say is that, with the exception of Scherer, the academics quoted are not actually experts in Karma Kagyu Buddhism. Quoting them on this page is the equivalent of quoting a biology professor's opinions about quantum physics - he or she is, of course, welcome to their opinions, but those opinions carry no particular weight or authority and have no place in an article about quantum physics. In the same way, Baumann's and Borup's opinions of Nydahl are inconsequential. It does not therefore make sense to quote them on this page. The current title of the section is clearly biased, and does not follow the guidelines regarding neutral point of view. However, the main problem is that the body of that section is quotes from people who have no actual expertise in this subject. Joshua Jonathan, you deleted sourced material without consulting any other editors. You also completely restructured the page without consulting any editors. Please follow the wikipedia guidelines for editing articles about controversial, living persons. It would be much appreciated. :-) Thanks very much.

Mekinna1 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I find your rejection of acedemic research problematic; Wikipedia, and especially BLP, is based on WP:RS, not on primary sources and personal opinions, as also noted below at the RFC you requested. Jørn Borup is professor of religion, and a recognized expert on Buddhism; see Jørn Borup Associate professor, head of department. Martin Baumann is professor of religion at the University of Lucerne; see . On the other hand, the Karma Kagyu sect itself is divided on judging the qualifications of their highest lama. The quote you added, from Khenpo Choedrak Rinpoche, is a primary source from a supporter of Trinley Thaye Dorje; that can hardly be qualified as a neatral source. Personally, I think the quote is WP:UNDUE, and merely added to support a specific point of view.
 * I've changed the header to "Academic attention"; "academic reception" usually refers to the academic reception of academic research, which is not the topic here.
 * And I didn't delete sourced material; in line with the guidelines for BLP I deleted unsourced material which was clearly editorialized. In contrast, this edition was unsourced; while this addition


 * turns it into WP:OR. NB: the source does not state that Nydahl teaches the ngondro of the 9th Karmapa and Mahamudra using texts from Tilopa, the third Karmapa, and Zhang Yudrakpa Tsöndru Drakpa, nor does it state that the traditional nature of his teachings has been confirmed by other Buddhist lamas. I've removed the comment on Baumann.
 * Regarding this edit: you added


 * Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche: - Shamar does not state that he himself appointed Nydahl as a "Buddhist Master" (itself a shallow "title"); I've corrected this accordingly. NB: the source is from Nydahl's website; that's as primary as you can get it.
 * Jigme Rinpoche: - also from Nydahl's website, and not stating what you claim it states: Forty years ago His Holiness the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa asked you to create Dharma centers in the West so that Westerners could have access to the teachings. This is WP:OR; I've corrected this.
 * Khenpo Chodrak Rinpoche: - His Holiness Karmapa personally asked Ole Nydahl to spread the Dharma everywehere. Also from Nydahl's website, and not Khenpo Chodrak Rinpoche, but His Holiness Karmapa, who "asked Ole Nydahl to spread the Dharma everywehere." How vague can it be? I've corrected this too.
 * 16th Karmapa: - also from Nydahl's site. Quotes: ...they are linked to me by the Samay Bond of Lama adn disciple; I have reappointed Ole Nydahl as the head of the Dharma Centres of the Karma Drub Dyiling Association; I have authorised both Ole and Hannah Nydahl to continue to be Instructors to the people who are first entering into the understanding and practice of the Buddha Dharma. Quite revealing; a fancy letter saying that Ole Nydahl is authorised to teach people just entering into Buddhist practice - and nothing more... I've corrected this too.
 * So, lama seems to mean no more than "Buddhist teacher" or "religious instructor" (Alexander Gardner, Encyclopedia of Buddhism), c.q. meditation teacher for beginning western students. Please stick closer to the sources. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Borup (Buddhism in Denmark, JGB ) writes: "After he had been given the title of lama by the Sixteenth Karmapa of the Kagyu lineage, he established together with Hannah Nydahl (died 2007) the Buddhist Centre Copenhagen in 1972." This is an independent, reliable secondary source, the letters hosted by Ole Nydhal and his organisation are redundant and not acceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. JimRenge (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
There are a few things to consider: [1] - There are no 'academic reception' sections on any biographies not just on the pages of other Buddhist teachers, but also not on any other living persons that I can find anywhere on Wikipedia, even other academics, so it is doubly odd to have this section on Nydahl's page. I think this is because academics typically study ideas, not people, unless they are historians doing a biography. If anyone can find any other articles about living persons, or dead persons, or any individual, on Wikipedia, with a similar kind of academic reception section, I would be interested to see it. It looks like this academic section has just been added by Nydahl's critics as a way of adding negative comments about him and to turn this into an attack page. It is unfair treatment. [2] - The opinions of the academics belongs on the Diamond Way Buddhism page, because they are more about the organization itself, as a 'movement' per se. [3] - Buddhism is a rather vast topic, and even if someone is a professor of religious studies or has published papers on Buddhism, doesn't necessarily make them an expert on a particular lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. Baumann has not published anything on the specific subject of Karma Kagyu Buddhism, this doesn't appear to be an area of academic concentration for him. In any case, the quote from him on Nydahl's article seems to be an off-the-cuff comment he made in a newspaper interview, not a thoroughly researched statement. Is there a copy of the article available? The link in the footnote goes to his bio, but there is no link to the actual article. If the original article cannot be sourced, then it should be removed. [4] - User: Joshua Jonathan it seems like you have a personal aversion to Nydahl. You are entitled to dislike whoever you want, but I'm concerned that you are trying to use Wikipedia as vehicle for your aversion. For instance, why have you added this information about Nydahl's romantic partners? Nydahl is not a public figure, he falls more into the category of people who are relatively unknown, as such the article should focus only what has made him notable - which in this case is his activity as a Buddhist teacher. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE WP:NP [5] - One of the letters is from a Khenpo, who says that "We have checked the quality of Ole Nydahl's teachings from recordings and have found nothing which is not in accordance with or against the Buddha's teachings." A Khenpo is a Buddhist scholar in the Tibetan tradition. Typically a person does not become a Khenpo until they have studied Buddhism for over 20 years, so they have much more expertise than someone who has done a doctorate for a few years. That is why I used this letter as a reference to show that Nydahl is teaching traditional Buddhism. [6] - in terms of the support for Nydahl coming from other lamas on one side of the split in the Kagyu lineage, i.e. other lamas who follow Thaye Dorje - yes, of course this is the case. The followers of Thaye Dorje are not praising the lamas who follow Urgyen Trinley either. If you wanted to publish their opinions of each other, it would just be an endless argument that no one would win. I think a better approach is to consider that Nydahl is a lama with authority within this tradition, that tradition being the one under Thaye Dorje. Other lamas may have authority under the tradition of Urgyen Trinley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekinna1 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

[7] Joshua Jonathan, you did delete a quote from Manfred Seegers, who is an academic with actual expertise in Karma Kagyu Buddhism. The letters are posted on Nydahl's German website but are from secondary sources who are also Buddhist lamas. As one of the quotes from Scherer points out, there are few academic sources of information on Diamond Way Buddhism. No one has written a book about Nydahl other than Nydahl. There are relatively few secondary sources to work with. However, the texts of the meditation booklets used in Diamond Way Centres have the original Tibetan texts from the 9th Karmapa, and their translations, and Nydahl's website shows his travel schedule and that he is teaching only Mahamudra courses. These are facts, but no academics or journalists are commenting on them. Since this is the case, I think it's better to rely on factual information.

Mekinna1 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

[8] Re. your comment - Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche: Shamar, Kunzig. "Rinpoche". lama-ole-nydahl.de. Retrieved 6 November 2019. - Shamar does not state that he himself appointed Nydahl as a "Buddhist Master" (itself a shallow "title"); I've corrected this accordingly. NB: the source is from Nydahl's website; that's as primary as you can get it. The letter says "This is to certify that Mr. Ole Nydahl, Denmark, is appointed Buddhist Master" - I'm not sure how you can interpret this statement as meaning anything other than that Shamar Rinpoche was appointing him a Buddhist Master.

Mekinna1 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ad1: see D. T. Suzuki for a comparison. Maybe you're right, and some of the section "Academic attention" was added by Nydahl's critics as a way of adding negative comments about him and to turn this into an attack page. Yet, the introducing remarks are counter-balanced by Scherer's scholarly remarks. Which are WP:RS.
 * ad2: would be interesting too, but the "opinions" presented here are specifically about Nydahl.
 * ad3: Baumann's remark can also be found at Lama Ole Nydahl – Diamantweg Buddhismus. Kritische Informationen zu Lama Ole Nydahl und seiner »Diamantweg Buddhismus«-Bewegung; Propaganda: The making of the holy Lama Ole Nydahl. Clearly not a fansite, so you may have a point regarding Baumann's quote. Nevertheless, he's a scholar.
 * ad4: No, I don't have a problem with Ole Nydahl; what I do oject to is giving people an overrated status due to "titles" take from a non-native context. Regarding "romantic partners": I'm not aware that I added any such info. When making statements about what I've supposedly added or removed, please add diffs.
 * ad5: so they have much more expertise than someone who has done a doctorate for a few years - see WP:RS, again. And note that khenpo's and the like are not objective observers, but people with a personal investment.
 * ad6: it's a good approach, I think, to explain the 'weigth' of this authority. To quote from Kritische Informationen, which quotes Scherer: Ein hoher Karma-Kagyü-Lehrer bezeichnet den Diamantweg als buddhistische »Grundschule«, that is, a primary school, from which students can move on to more advanced studies at other places. See Scheerer, Eine neo-orthodoxe Tradition im Umbruch: Lama Ole Nydahl und der Diamantweg, who explains how important this transmission-narrative is for Nydahl. I'll read it, and add more from it. It's interesting. NB: English publication Neo-orthodox tradition and transition: Lama Ole Nydahl and the diamond way.
 * ad7: was Seegers responding to Scherer's comment? Unverifiable, yet Buddhism Today Magazine is published by Diamond Way Buddhism...
 * ad8: where does it say that Shamar Rinpoche "appointed [Nydahl] Buddhist Master"?
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that there are few neutral secondary sources about Nydahl, as Scherer points out, and this article has had a note that stating that it relies too heavily on sources closely associated with the subject for awhile (the note currently says Nov 2019 but I remember seeing a similar message here for several years), perhaps the best course of action is to delete the article. I agree that the article is too heavily reliant on primary sources. Pursuant to that idea, I don't think this article actually meets the guidelines for notability WP:BLPNOTE, since there isn't significant coverage of Nydahl in multiple, published, reliable secondary sources. Obviously there are a few secondary sources but the bulk of this article does rely on primary sources, and as noted, some of those secondary sources may be questionable. Some of the content could be merged on to the Karmapa Controversy article and the Diamond Way Buddhism articles. The Dispute with the German Buddhist Union section seems to really belong on the Diamond Way Buddhism page, for instance. I am wondering if I should propose this article for deletion.

Mekinna1 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The first couple of sentences of the page were edited recently to indicate that Nydahl is only a teacher for beginning Western students - this was a statement from the 16th Karmapa in 1972, but since Nydahl has been teaching Buddhism for almost 50 years since then, it does not seem reasonable to limit his qualifications to that statement alone. I've removed that part of the statement. Since then he's been called a lama and Buddhist master with no qualifications, by other Buddhist masters, and those statements are also valid. It's difficult/impossible to avoid the issue of these people having a connection with Nydahl, just because of the way that this type of Buddhism works. Only realized masters can judge whether or not someone else has realization. It's a rather small group of people who have that qualification, and many of them know each other. If your issue is that they are too closely connected to each other - Nydahl was a close student of the 16th Karmapa, so then the Karmapa's statement from 1972 should also be discounted - then we are left with no statements other than those of academics with no meditation experience or realization, who really don't know what they're talking about... Also I added in the statement from Khenpo Choedrak Rinpoche about having checked Nydahl's teachings and found them to be in accordance with what the Buddha taught. If you want to use the statements of Western Academics, then you should be willing to accept the statements of Tibetan scholars as well, otherwise this just seems like forcing a Western perspective onto an Eastern tradition, and trying to make Western voices the authorities over that Eastern tradition. Khenpo Choedrak Rinpoche does know Nydahl, but so do Borup or Baumann - simply Borup and Baumann don't like him, but that doesn't make their perspective more neutral.

Mekinna1 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So, you want to delete the article because you think that there are not enough secondary sources, and because Nydahl is not notable? But you use primary sources again to argue that Nydahl is a bona fide Lama. And next you argue that those scant secondary sources cannot be relied on with regard to Nydahl's qualifications, because only realized lama's can judge the qualifications of a Buddhist teacher? It looks like a silly attempt to WP:CENSOR; see also WP:TE and WP:DONTGETIT. I'll repeat myself: Wikipedia is based on WP:RS: you're rejection of WP:RS is inappropriate. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes he is a lama, and the only authorities who can decide he is a lama are other lamas. This is simply how this tradition of Buddhism works - it does not fit well with the Wikipedia model. That is my point. I'm just reading what it says on the guidelines for biographies and this bio doesn't seem to fit - nobody has written books about it and there are scant articles. The secondary sources that you're relying on are academics who have no particular expertise in Tibetan Buddhism or Karma Kagyu Buddhism (other than Scherer), and who have a personal dislike of Nydahl. For that matter, although Scherer has more actual knowledge of Buddhism, he's a former student of Nydahl's and, as far as I understand, did not leave on good terms, so he is also far from a neutral source. I'm not really sure why you think that quotes from disgruntled former students and people who have blogs devoted to expressing their dislike of Nydahl are neutral, valid sources, but anything which is positive is not valid, unless it's 47 years old. Regardless of my personal views on the matter, none of them are neutral, reliable sources (in the sense of not knowing Nydahl personally anyway) per the Wikipedia model, so this page does meet the criteria for a biography.

Mekinna1 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Qualifications as Lama- three-year retreat
User:Joshua Jonathan, I don't understand why you removed well-sourced information from the article. That was not original research, the analysis was from the secondary sources. Also, if you could lay off the hostility, that would be great! Thank you.

Mekinna1 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Analysis indeed; that's WP:OR. You first added this diff:
 * Note the term "however"; you're building an argument here, against the statement that the three-year retreat is "the traditional qualification as a lama." That's WP:OR: doing your own research. What's more, the text does not say that a three-year retreat is not necessary, but that "those who wish to do so must fulfill additional requirements." That's not an 'however'; that's also an 'what's more'.
 * Next you added this diff, edit-summary Added references regarding alternative qualifications for lamas and Tibetan definitions of lama.:
 * Next you added this diff, edit-summary Added references regarding alternative qualifications for lamas and Tibetan definitions of lama.:


 * and again diff, edit-summary This is well-sourced information providing an alternative viewpoint - deleting it seems like you are pov pushing.
 * The "alternative viewpoint" is, again, WP:OR, and point of view-pushing. Those sources are not about Ole Nydahl; you're presenting them here to build an argument that Scherer is wrong. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that these edits are crossing over into building an argument rather than summarizing or reflecting a documented disagreement. A general discussion of what is or isn't proper qualification for being called a 'lama' is OR and beyond the scope of the article/Wikipedia. I still have a concern that Scherer's personal connection with Nydahl leaves us in need of a better, independent source with respect to disagreement on his qualifications or any dispute over the use of the title 'lama'. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to present an alternative viewpoint to Scherer's, that's why I used the term 'however'. It's a common misconception that the three year retreat is necessary to be called a lama; most Tibetologists would disagree with that, so it's surprising that Scherer would say that. Scherer's point also does not seem to specific to ON, if he's talking about the general qualifications for lama. The two sources cited on this point, Yamamoto and Chos-gyi talk about alternative qualifications for a lama - not specific to ON but Scherer isn't really either in my view.

One of the issues in this article is that there are several ideas presented which would be ludicrous to a Buddhist practitioner in this lineage, but there aren't really references available within Tibetan sources or academic sources that speak to those ideas because they're so obvious as to be assumed - e.g. the idea that only other realized lamas can decide who also has realization or who is a lama. This could be inferred from many texts - but that would be WP:OR. I think it's just not an issue on pages for other Tibetan Buddhist lamas because they are less controversial than ON. If the average Wikipedia reader had a lot of knowledge about Buddhism then those ideas wouldn't be WP:OR, they would be like saying that Paris is the capital of France. But Wikipedia's audience is mostly Westerners with a Western background - I'm just saying that there's an inherent bias there and I don't see a way to resolve it easily within the existing Wikipedia model. So then this article ends up being unfair to this individual I think. Just to publish a bunch of people's opinions of him becomes like a gossip column, whether they are academics or not -and again, I haven't found any other biographical articles on Wikipedia that have this type of academic attention section.

Can anyone suggest a solution?

Mekinna1 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at the references for this quote from Scherer now and it looks like the original problem is that Scherer has been misquoted a bit - in the 2009 article, he doesn't actually say that the three year retreat is a traditional qualification for a lama, what he says on p. 35 is, "His [ON's] legitimate place within the living transmission of the Karma bKa' brgyud as a lay and yogi teacher in the tradition of the Mahāsiddhas, smyon pa's and their crazy wisdom. This addresses Nydahl's unconventional spiritual formation and education outside the prescribed curriculum of three-year retreats." So he calls it a "prescribed curriculum" not a "traditional qualification", which I think is an important distinction. That makes more sense, Scherer would know better than to say it's a traditional qual. The references to two different articles by Scherer appear to be being used here to construct an argument.

Mekinna1 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Wiki-article says the following:


 * So, you're definitely right that this source says that the three-year retreat is prescribed; I don't see the difference with "traditional qualification"; Scherer also explains that Nydahl presents himself as a lay yogi siddhi, circumventing traditional qualifications.
 * The relevant point here is Nydahl's slef-presentation, and this narrative of himself as a lay siddhi-yogi, which legitimizes his position as a lay teacher in the western world. NB: the story is pretty coherent, actually, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you're definitely right that this source says that the three-year retreat is prescribed; I don't see the difference with "traditional qualification"; Scherer also explains that Nydahl presents himself as a lay yogi siddhi, circumventing traditional qualifications.
 * The relevant point here is Nydahl's slef-presentation, and this narrative of himself as a lay siddhi-yogi, which legitimizes his position as a lay teacher in the western world. NB: the story is pretty coherent, actually, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant point here is Nydahl's slef-presentation, and this narrative of himself as a lay siddhi-yogi, which legitimizes his position as a lay teacher in the western world. NB: the story is pretty coherent, actually, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant point here is Nydahl's slef-presentation, and this narrative of himself as a lay siddhi-yogi, which legitimizes his position as a lay teacher in the western world. NB: the story is pretty coherent, actually, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant point here is Nydahl's slef-presentation, and this narrative of himself as a lay siddhi-yogi, which legitimizes his position as a lay teacher in the western world. NB: the story is pretty coherent, actually, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Letters
are you sure about the removal of those letters? WP:BLPSELFPUB does not forbid the usage of those sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose the use of these letters, certificates etc. because they are not articles/books but documents written by authorities of ON´s lineage. These are not third party sources, they are self-published primary sources lacking editorial control by a reputable publisher. We should leave the checking of authenticity and interpretation of such questionable primary sources to the experts and use peer-reviewed secondary sources. These letters are intended to legitimize Ole Nydahl as a teacher of his lineage. The inclusion of such letters and certificates appears unusual and may raise questions about the legitimity of ON in interested readers (red flag). Our neutral point of view policy states: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." (WP:BESTSOURCES) WP:BLPSOURCES recommends to avoid the use of self-published or primary sources because they can be misused. I think we should follow this recommendation: Fortunately we have reliable secondary academic sources which interpret these documents. Rawlinson writes "Then there is Lama Ole Nydahl, who was appointed as a teacher by the sixteenth Karmapa and has a letter authorizing him to use the title "lama"." Scherer (2014), p.101-102 discusses the legitimization of ON in detail. I understand that Ole Nydahl is not a monk but a layman and that he is a teacher, authorized by the peers of his lineage to use the title lama.

JimRenge (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew Rawlinson (2001). Western Buddhist teachers, Journal of Global Buddhism 2: 123 - 138 (see p.128)
 * Lewis, Todd (ed.); Scherer, Burkhard (author) (2014). Conversion, Devotion, and (Trans-)Mission Understanding Ole Nydahl. In Buddhists: Understanding Buddhism Through the Lives of Practitioners. Wiley. pp. 96–106.
 * Agree with . The whole section about the dispute over his qualification does not seem to be sufficiently motivated by independent non-primary sources. If there is or was a substantive disagreement over his authority to teach or call himself a lama, we need a third party source for that, not just the view of a former student or an undocumented claim of 'criticism from the internet'.--Spasemunki (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still don't get it, do you? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't find your response constructive. What am I missing? --Spasemunki (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You "agree with JimRenge," but you insist to reject Scherer as WP:RS. You're WP:CHERRYPICKING to push your pov. The letters which Ole Nydahl in support of his claims to the title of lama clearly qualify as a teacher for beginning students; that alone should suffice for you. But you just don't want to use any source which is not in accord with your views of Nydahl, even if you want to use those exact same sources when they do support another aspect of your pov. Please, read WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any views of Nydahl- I had never heard of him before the RFC and don't care about him at all. I am just observing problems with sources in the context where they were mentioned. The letters are an issue because they are primary sources and lead quickly into OR and POV pushing. Scherer is also an issue because of a specific connection with Nydahl. We need a source that makes it clear that this is a publicly acknowledged and discussed dispute, and not just a disagreement between two colleagues/former teacher-student. That isn't my POV, that's Wikipedia policy. I have very clearly not done anything disruptive. I was commenting on the letters with respect to Nydahl because that was how the discussion was framed; I have no objection to excluding them entirely and replacing them with the sources that were suggested. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of Spasemunki pushing a pro-Nydahl POV or anything else contradicting our rules of behaviour. Spasemunki´s concern about Scherer´s connection to Nydahl does not appear to be unreasonable (see Scherer 2014, p. 107-108 about his connection to Nydahl and Thinley Thaye Dorje). He states "I am viewed as a friendly abject in the Diamond Way and a suspected sectarian analyser of a controversial contemporary Buddhist movement in a (now decreasing) part of academia." IMHO, he is transparent about his simultaneous insider/outsider role and the content of his article in the 2014 book published by Wiley, a reputable publisher, does not appear to be unduely partisan. I think it would be unfortunate to exclude Scherer because he seems to be a reliable secondary source, perhaps the best source available. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and NPOV bias in sources recommends to attribute potentially biased sources and gives advice how to handle these publications. It depends on the content and context, the use of undue promotional statements or attacks should be avoided. (Scherer, B. (2014). Trans-European Adaptations in the Diamond Way - Negotiating Public Opinions on Homosexuality in Russia and in the U.K., online, Heidelberg Journal on Religions on the Internet 6, 103-125) JimRenge (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC) corr. JimRenge (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Another point regarding Scherer is that he is now not Nydahl's student and did not leave on positive terms, sometime after this 2014 quote. Still a primary source but now could probably be characterized as less friendly. The quote that is currently in the article from 2018 does seem to indicate a wounded ego - "Scherer qualifies Nydahl as an "introductory Tibetan Buddhist teacher," quoting a "high Karma Kagyu master" who "called the Diamond Way a Buddhist ‘primary school, from which you can graduate to more substantial teachings’" - if Scherer cannot stand behind this quote enough to name the 'high Karma Kagyu master' who said this, does this really qualify as a reliable source?


 * Mekinna1 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * my apologies, I read your thread to hurriedly, amd mistook you for Mekkina1 - who added all those letters as sources, and keeps suggesting that Scherer is not reliable. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, so it's only ok to be rude to me? Good to know Joshua Jonathan, that says alot about you. Mekinna1 (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it says a lot about how annoying your insistent pov-pushing is. Scherer is fine as a source. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You disagreed just because you thought it was my edit. You're not even reading what's being written - you're obviously not exactly neutral here. Mekinna1 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I read what was written; I didn't take proper notice of the signature. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Teacher for novice western lay students
you twice diff diff removed the following information (in bold) from the lead:

The edit-summaries you provided were as follows:

Read carefully: there are three sources; one from 1978 (not 1972, as you state, not 1979, as Nydahl's website states); one from 1995; and one from 2018. Not one, but three sources. Which all state that Nydahl is a teacher for novice students. Your removals are WP:DISRUPTIVE; please stop it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes - read carefully, neither the statement from Khenpo Choedrak nor Shamarpa say anything about "novice Western students". That is your editorialization.


 * Mekinna1 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree- two of the four original sources mention 'introductory', but one of them also establishes him as qualified to establish Dharma centers and head them up. One of the other sources referring to him as 'introductory' is an opinion being provided by someone who seems to be a former student(?). Two of the sources simply establish that he has authority to teach and say nothing about him only being qualified to provide introductory teachings, or only for Westerners. Nothing in the sources suggests that he is only allowed or qualified to teach Westerners. I've also cut the purported translation of 'lama' as 'layman-teacher' because that does not match any translation I've ever seen.--Spasemunki (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As it stands now, the article introduces ON as "a lama providing introductory teachings", and this is based on two of Scherer's articles. I think as it stands the article has gone from being very reliant on primary sources to becoming a description of what Scherer thinks of ON, at various points in time over the past two decades. The issues with Scherer as a potentially non-neutral source are already described, so it would make sense to be cognizant of that (potential) issue. I think it would be a more neutral approach to move the idea of 'introductory lama' into the Qualification as a Lama section and to leave the intro simply describing him as a lama. Mekinna1 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Mekkina1, I find your rejection of Scherer WP:TENDENTIOUS; you're merely suggesting that Scherer may not be neutral. We've discussed Scherer before; Scherer is WP:RS. Please drop it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The limitations of Scherer as a source have been discussed here, not just by me, since he is a former student. There's a whole, recent thread about it in the Letters section. If Scherer is the best source available, fine, but I don't think that means that the limitations of that source should be simply ignored.
 * Even if you want to rely on Scherer for this initial definition of ON's role, the idea that he is only providing introductory teachings is not consistent throughout Scherer's work - in the 2009 article he does describe ON teaching Mahamudra and Phowa, both of which are also described as advanced practices. The discussion of what type of teachings he provides seems to be better positioned in one of the other sections of the article that already deal with that.
 * Help me understand what your underlying concern is here - why do you feel so strongly that ON must be referred to as a lama providing introductory teachings? Mekinna1 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's the same as the discussion on his Lama-qualification: making more of him than he is. But actually, that discusson is besides the point. NB: I'm happy to see that you're using Scherer; what he describes of Nydahl's self-narrative seems to be quite coherent. According to Scherer, Nydahl doesn't present himself as a monastic, but as a lay yogi, a modern "crazy siddha." In that context, it's quite okay that he may not have all the "formal" qualifications; monastic traditions and "free" practitioners have always existed in Buddhist history. What Scherer says about Nydahl's Mahamudra-teachings is interesting in this regard; it seems to deviate from the more traditional teachings, somehow emphasizing direct experience. Scherer's comment on the "instant" or better "co-emergent", "simultaneously-arising" (sahaja) shows that he is well-informed; I'll bet that most western Buddhists have no idea that "co-emergent", "simultaneously-arising" is a better term than "instant" (c.q. "sudden"). Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, so your perspective is that he is not special - "It's the same as the discussion on his Lama-qualification: making more of him than he is." If you say "making more of him than he is", it implies your opinion of what he is or isn't. That is not a neutral POV. You have an opinion about him and you're structuring the page according to your opinion. This isn't intended to be a snarky comment at all, I'm just trying to call your awareness to this.

Right now there are full quotes critiquing Nydahl on the ideas of Buddhism Light and Instant Buddhism. I added some quotes from Scherer that contradict those claims, but you removed them and shortened the reference to a paraphrase. I had added

You took that out and replaced it with

I don't think your version gives the reader enough information to actually make their own decision. Mekinna1 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am adding a request for comments to this talk page to solicit additional, objective expert opinions about the authority of western academics to assess the authenticity of Buddhist teachings, and to say who can or cannot represent Buddhist teachings. Mekinna1 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a non-brainer: Wikipedia, and especially BLP, is based on on WP:RS. Western scholars can have opinions about and assessments of these qualifications, based on their expertise as academically trained scholars and neutral outsiders. What's more, insiders can diagree wholehaertedly on those qualifications; see Karmapa controversy. And Burkhard Scherer is himself a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism. NB: anyone can give comments, not only "objective experts." "Objective" implies that you think I'm not objective; and as for "expert," look at my edit-history. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be a bit more specific what issue is at stake here, ?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

- Wikipedia is based on independent, secondary sources, indeed. My point here is that some of the sources quoted are not experts in this lineage of Buddhism and therefore their opinions are not actually reliable. They are academic sources, but as I mentioned above, this is like quoting a biology professor on his opinions of physics. His expertise lies elsewhere. I was hoping that some people with actual expertise in this subject could comment, that was the purpose of this RFC. Mekinna1 (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joshua Jonathan, wikipedia is based on independent(!), reliable secondary sources, if available academic sources are generally preferred (WP:RS). The rules in WP:BLP and WP:BLPRS are relevant. Requests for comments should present a clear question, this is not the case here. I don´t expect this rfc to lead anywhere. Mekinna1, please see WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:Writing requests for comment. JimRenge (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that you should not rush through this. Think of what the Rfc is doing. You say that those who comment on Nydahl know too little about him, and then you try to widen the discussion to those of us who know nothing about him. Please take one issue at a time with those who have the time and background to respond knowledgeably to each specific issue you raise. Jzsj (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS and WP:BURDEN, if you think that those sources are not reliable, you have to explain, no prove, how. Otherwise, please stop promoting your personal preferences. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Look at the CV for Baumann - https://www.unilu.ch/fileadmin/fakultaeten/ksf/institute/relsem/Dok/cv-baumann-rw-web-2013.pdf
 * There isn't a single article about Karma Kagyu Buddhism that he has published. Look at Borup's CV - he is mainly writing about Zen Buddhism, which is very different from Tibetan Buddhism, and on religious diversity and immigrant Buddhism - https://cvupload.au.dk/uploads/AU2225/curriculum_vitae_eng.pdf


 * Mekinna1 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Those are solid CV's, with due expertise on Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 Joshua Jonathan. In addition, that is not a full listing of his published papers or classes taught. Vassyana (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joshua Jonathan . Unfortunately, Mekinna1, if you start second guessing WP:RS, then you start down a path where people subjectively decide if a reliable source is "good enough" to comment on a topic. Who will make those decisions? Scholars and academicians aren't two dimensional people, relegated to a single field. Really, if you pursue this any longer, you'll need to go to WP:RS and advocate for a change in policy, this article isn't the place for that, until it changes, we follow those rules on every article. StarHOG (Talk) 15:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I see your point User:StarHOG, for Wikipedia articles in general, it could be difficult to manage which sources are more authoritative than others. In most situations, there is probably a good faith effort to use the best available sources, but unfortunately that hasn't been the case here. For biographies, it does seem like a different standard should apply or it can in effect become an attack page made up of academic or other personal criticisms. I'll take this up on WP:RS. Thank you.
 * Mekinna1 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A reputable professor of religious studies is a reputable source on religious topics, unless there's contrary evidence. This **appears** to be more about disapproval of the POV than a question of reliability. --Vassyana (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sexual abuse by Ole Nydahl
Please can someone add some information about Ole Nydahl's sexual abuse?

His reponse was simply: "When confronted about this, he replied “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.”" which I think is important to add to the article.

Sources below:     

It is important that the Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way articles become more neutral worded, as they seem to be being brigaded by followers of the Ole Nydahl cult.

Thanks. ფანდური (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please also see https://diamondwaycult.netlify.com/ ფანდური (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted the section that was added along your lines. My problem with it is that it is a whole section (on a possibly controversial area) but it consists of one sentence a short quote and a lot of references, so this seems unbalanced. Perhaps the sources cited discus the issue at length in which case it might deserve a section. Be careful though to abide by WP:BLP. Billlion (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding information and sources about Ole Nydahl's sexual abuse and his cult he's built up around himself
The part which was removed by other editors. Please help to bring up to scratch for the article:

86.188.14.152 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging you, since this looks similar to what you deleted before. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Blogs and personal opinions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

My edit was reverted without explanation
I created a sub-topic on "Stupas" in the "Involvement with Buddhism" category and it was reverted by Joshua Jonathan without explanation diff. Joshua Jonathan In the spirit of collaboration, could you please make a good-faith effort to reword this section instead of reverting? --Thehittite (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Thehittite: Based on the edit summary, it would appear that there are two concerns with your addition: undue weight and blatant promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My explanation was quite clear. When you cut the irrelevant details (height, number of lamas), gathered from tourist information sites, what we've got left is the following:


 * Apart from the WP:COPYVIO, what's the relevance of those stupas for our readers? It's completely WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The information does not appear to be relevant in an encyclopedia (might be relevant in a Diamond Way newsletter). Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."


 * Encyclopedic content should be based on the best sources available (WP:BESTSOURCES), theculturetrip.com and verlomar.net are blogs, not reliable sources. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (WP:BURDEN) JimRenge (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If there are sources that more clearly describe ON's role in the stupa building and inauguration, that would be more relevant to this article. For instance, there were some photos from the 1994 inauguration of the Kalachakra stupa in Spain that would suggest that he became a holder of the transmission at that point, but not sure if this was explicitly documented anywhere.

Mekinna1 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting the conversation!, thank you for the feedback. I agree about WP:COPYVIO the way it was written. , thank you for noting that the sources are low quality WP:BESTSOURCES. I didn't realize that the standards were so high. I'm a bit of a Wikipedia Newbie WP:DNB :) I plan to edit BOLPs, please let me know what you would consider good sources. I'd appreciate it!  I'm not sure who holds the Copyright on those photos, where they are, or if that's sufficient info to add a Stupa section, but I appreciate the suggestion.Thehittite (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A good article ruined by cult members
it's such a shame that groupies from ole nydahl's cult have whitewashed this and other articles. ole nydahl is a very controversial figure and this deserves to be included in thids article, not ignored. this is not one of ole nydahl's centres, you can't just ignore and exclude information on wikipedia like you do there — Preceding unsigned comment added by ფანდური (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)