Lama Ole Nydahl, what do you think?

[tobes]

I am bringing into question your fundamental assumption that the European enlightenment was successful and needs to emulated in the Islamic world.

It was successful in destroying Christianity, intentionally or not. That is all I said it was successful at doing. Islamic nations need a similar secular revolution.

I grant you that I'm imputing more on your statements than you intend: but that is because you're making rather robust and unfounded claims.

The Enlightenment was deeply theological. When you speak of the turn from Christianity to secularism, probably the most influential figure was Locke, who provided the revolutionary fuel not just for England, but also for both France and America. That is, more than anyone else, he established the liberal political foundations which the west in general leans upon now.

But go and read him. Read his Two Treatises.

He asserts, plain as day: "God gave the earth to Adam, Adam gave it to human kind."

Hence the conception of natural property rights, and the legitimacy of sovereignty based on protecting them.

How secular is this fundamental idea? Not at all.

How removed from Christianity is it? Not at all.

In this sense, the enlightenment did not destroy Christianity, it has rather successfully embedded its core metaphysical and ethical assumptions into a political-economic structure.

[tobes]

-Lama Ole Nydahl

He's making an argument in jurisprudence about the relation between Dutch sovereign law and Islamic minorities in Holland?

Evidence?

What I have read are broad sweeping and categorical statements about Islam, as a religion, and Muslims, as practitioners of that religion.

I am busy today, but I will provide evidence tonight. In the meantime, you can provide his subtle legal arguments.

[/quote]


Here's something worth chewing on:

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-5866 ... lama_.html[/quote]

So your evidence is this:

The Abrahamic religions, the ones that follow our constitution, treat women well, don't blow up people, you know, who are not involved in their problems...Judaism and Christianity are fine. Islam, I warn against. I know the Koran, I know the life story of Mohammad and I think we cannot use that in our society today.

People like the Sufis and Bahá'ís are different, right. They are usually being killed as soon as the mainline Muslims come in, they start killing the other guys. They want you to believe just because it's said, and you should not have any proof. [Lama Ole]

It is very plain that he is saying all Muslims apart from the mystics and Baha'is are violent and should not be accepted in western society.

He is also purporting to "know" the Koran, as if centuries of contested hermeneutical interpreted can be surpassed by 'knowing the life story of Mohammad.'

Really, the depths of ignorance here. An ignorance which is deeply prejudicial, and given his influence, massively harmful and divisive.

The reality is that most 'mainline Muslims' are peace loving, dutiful and moral beings. The only possible way to avoid that conclusion, is to refrain from having genuine encounters with Muslim folk, and use the dark part of the psyche to impute terror and violence upon some imagined mass which exists nowhere but in your own mind.

[freethinker108]

So your evidence is this:

The Abrahamic religions, the ones that follow our constitution, treat women well, don't blow up people, you know, who are not involved in their problems...Judaism and Christianity are fine. Islam, I warn against. I know the Koran, I know the life story of Mohammad and I think we cannot use that in our society today.

People like the Sufis and Bahá'ís are different, right. They are usually being killed as soon as the mainline Muslims come in, they start killing the other guys. They want you to believe just because it's said, and you should not have any proof. [Lama Ole]

It is very plain that he is saying all Muslims apart from the mystics and Baha'is are violent and should not be accepted in western society.

He is also purporting to "know" the Koran, as if centuries of contested hermeneutical interpreted can be surpassed by 'knowing the life story of Mohammad.'

Really, the depths of ignorance here. An ignorance which is deeply prejudicial, and given his influence, massively harmful and divisive.

The reality is that most 'mainline Muslims' are peace loving, dutiful and moral beings. The only possible way to avoid that conclusion, is to refrain from having genuine encounters with Muslim folk, and use the dark part of the psyche to impute terror and violence upon some imagined mass which exists nowhere but in your own mind.

:tobes:

I fail to see your point.

The Islamic ideology is what is dangerous and yes you are right that most people just want to be happy and live their lives. Its the other 10% that screws it up for all of us. Unfortunately there is a tacit acceptance/fear to criticize, of 'extremism' in 'moderate' Muslim groups and there are many major Islamic run countries with instutionalized policies of persecution one can't pretend don't exist or are not in some way 'mainstream'! Were are the rousing criticisms from 'moderate' Muslim leaders against the oppression of women and atrocities that take place in many Muslim nations?

Here are a few instances of Mainline Muslim persecution.

Baha'i
http://www.bahaindex.com/en/news/human- ... phenomenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... A1'%C3%ADs

Sufi
http://21centuryindia.blogspot.com/2006 ... is-in.html

Are major Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. 'mainline' enough? Just look at how some are killing their own people for simply protesting?

The critique of Islam in the quote you mention still holds. Just because someone criticizes another religion does not make them ignorant or a racist.

One could easily say that the Catholics have a big problem with child abuse, and you know what? They would be right and not be called a racist or ignorant.
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/

[username]

Jesus talked of hate too and bringing the sword amongst brothers. Moses was a multi-murderer. Muhamed massacred hundreds of captive men & young teen boys of a Jewish tribe. Three Abrahamic religions, each with many sects and various political thinkings within. Most ancient cultures and languages were destroyed by the Arab sword, massacring many, or imposing impossible taxes on 'infidels'. Only South-East Asia was converted by contact with traders. Those other conquered ancient cultures from Anatolia, Thebes & Egypt to the Indian subcontinent & Central Asia came back, now Muslim, and created the first global enlightenment and one by one took back their independence & national identities. Europe, not just the usual savage north/western parts (later protestants), was all in savagery, Jewish pogroms, mass persecutions of heretics, total ignorance, book burnings (all except The Bible in Latin) etc. for centuries known as the Dark Ages. Most Jews escaped savage Christian Europeans for enlightened Muslim havens in which they lived happily till the formation of Israel in 1948. Then came contact for Europeans with muslims in greed based wars known as the Crusades in which the wise Christian Byzantine Empire (Holy Eastern Roman Empire-modern Turkey) was first tricked by thuggish western Dukes, then massacred, looted and burnt. They even massacred many Christians they 'saved' in the holy lands and sometimes barbecued and ate those fellow Christians!

With these contacts slowly 2 bundles of knowledge found their way to savage dark age Europe. First ancient knowledge from Egypt Greece Mesopotamia Persia etc. that was all burnt by the Europeans and to some extent originally by Arab invaders too but some had been hidden and with Enlightenment in the east they were popular. Originally only the peninsula (current Saudi/Yemen) was Arab and most current (Mid-Eastern semitic/North African) Arab nations were/are not Arab but older cultures. Peninsula tribes were soon civilized by those they had conquered just like the Mongols. Secondly these enlightened Muslim nations, most soon independent or autonomous from centralist yoke despite many having lost their languages, had far surpassed ancient cultures and sciences. Modern science is based on them. Over generations these and enlightened habits in daily living to virtually much else including luxuries we take for granted found their way back to Southern Europe again after a long absence and Northern Europe for the first time. Then renaissance, Glorious Revolution, enlightenment, empiricism, French Revolution, Republics, Secularism, Industrial Revolution, anti slavery and finally late 19th/early 20th century modernism, suffragettes, industrial wars (though US civil war was 1st), Communism/Fascism, Cold War & decolonization. Back then the muslims stagnated and then colonialism made things much worse. Edward Said's brilliant 'Orientalism' hints at much hidden debates within the establishment for those in the know. And there were many secular figures or even thinly disguised atheists like the famous Omar Khayam. Atheists were in different periods, not always & everywhere, allowed to debate openly from the early Amavite & Abbasid dynasties to later Turkic & Ottoman inheritors unlike much much later in Europe. Anyone reading here would think Buddhists are the most ignorant on history and history of ideas not to mention prejudiced.

In the US till 70's, religion was non-grata in intellectual & political circles. After Khomeini it came back, also in muslim countries & Hindu India (BJP) & Israel and elsewhere except Europe. Also the Red (bible belt) vs. Blue states is new. If you study contemporary history you see the roots of neoconservatives are mainly in Southern Democratic Party pre Civil-Rights/JFK/LBJ plus a few Jewish ex-Trotskyite godfathers. Most muslims are decent reasonable people. Let's not simplify whole histories and peoples like an ignorant fascist thug.

Islamic Fundamentalism is an evil mandala but slowly over some generations, short historic term, it will be buried forever. Don't align yourself with a bigger evil mandala of warmongers that will last longer. Enlightened eras and Kaliyugas under various empires will come and go for a very long time. If we don't focus on practice then we will be reborn in one of the near infinite other world systems most of which are not this lucky with teachings. We might spend millions of years wasting time and suffering in those. Samantabhadra did not faint due to fascination and fall into confusion, dualism and habitual karmic samsara of "wanting self & hating others", unlike unlucky us. Trust your instincts. Avoid simplifications, over-generalizations, propaganda, hate, prejudice and war-mongering. We are mainly what we contemplate on regularly. Fill your hearts with our gurus' humanitarian evolutionary advice on these matters, practice and love.

[tobes]

I fail to see your point.

The Islamic ideology is what is dangerous and yes you are right that most people just want to be happy and live their lives. Its the other 10% that screws it up for all of us. Unfortunately there is a tacit acceptance/fear to criticize, of 'extremism' in 'moderate' Muslim groups and there are many major Islamic run countries with instutionalized policies of persecution one can't pretend don't exist or are not in some way 'mainstream'! Were are the rousing criticisms from 'moderate' Muslim leaders against the oppression of women and atrocities that take place in many Muslim nations?

Here are a few instances of Mainline Muslim persecution.

Baha'i
http://www.bahaindex.com/en/news/human- ... phenomenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... A1'%C3%ADs

Sufi
http://21centuryindia.blogspot.com/2006 ... is-in.html

Are major Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. 'mainline' enough? Just look at how some are killing their own people for simply protesting?

The critique of Islam in the quote you mention still holds. Just because someone criticizes another religion does not make them ignorant or a racist.

One could easily say that the Catholics have a big problem with child abuse, and you know what? They would be right and not be called a racist or ignorant.
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/

What you and Ole are failing to see is how crudely and unfairly you conflate the political with the religious, and how you sweep all Islamic persons and states together under one (extremist) brush. You are quick to denounce moderate Muslims for failing to speak up ~ but they do, consistently.

Criticising the Iranian state, I think, is well justified. Criticising the Iranian people on the basis of their state is not well justified. Critising the political ideology of Al Qaeda is well justified. Criticising the billions of Muslim people who do not support or endorse Al Qaeda is not well justified.

To opine publicly on a religion which one knows nothing about is of course an expression of ignorance: as Buddhists, we all know exactly how it feels when some idiot from outside of the tradition makes ridiculous and unfounded claims about Buddhism because s/he flicked through a couple of Sutras.

Islam, as it far as I know, is a deeply scholarly tradition: you can't just pick up the Koran and interpret it literally without reference to the centuries of contested theology. Just like you can't just pick up Nagarjuna and expect to get it.

The Muslims I have encountered in various parts of the world have been almost universally good natured, kind, hospitable, charitable. They deserve at least not be judged on what a few bad eggs have done. If you do not know their tradition, as I assume neither of us & Ole really do, we have no basis on which to criticise. A basic standpoint of respect is warranted.

[Dechen]

YOu can find out other information about Ole and also any other teachers/centers who have had questions raised about them here:
http://viewonbuddhism.org/controversy-c ... e.html#top
it is worth checking and looking for a solid teacher. The path is easily lost.
best wishes

[heart]

I fail to see your point.

What you and Ole are failing to see is how crudely and unfairly you conflate the political with the religious, and how you sweep all Islamic persons and states together under one (extremist) brush. You are quick to denounce moderate Muslims for failing to speak up ~ but they do, consistently.

Criticising the Iranian state, I think, is well justified. Criticising the Iranian people on the basis of their state is not well justified. Critising the political ideology of Al Qaeda is well justified. Criticising the billions of Muslim people who do not support or endorse Al Qaeda is not well justified.

To opine publicly on a religion which one knows nothing about is of course an expression of ignorance: as Buddhists, we all know exactly how it feels when some idiot from outside of the tradition makes ridiculous and unfounded claims about Buddhism because s/he flicked through a couple of Sutras.

Islam, as it far as I know, is a deeply scholarly tradition: you can't just pick up the Koran and interpret it literally without reference to the centuries of contested theology. Just like you can't just pick up Nagarjuna and expect to get it.

The Muslims I have encountered in various parts of the world have been almost universally good natured, kind, hospitable, charitable. They deserve at least not be judged on what a few bad eggs have done. If you do not know their tradition, as I assume neither of us & Ole really do, we have no basis on which to criticise. A basic standpoint of respect is warranted.

Thanks tobes, it is all a question of respect. But also as username said:

Islamic Fundamentalism is an evil mandala but slowly over some generations, short historic term, it will be buried forever. Don't align yourself with a bigger evil mandala of warmongers that will last longer

/magnus

[Dechen]

This topic has been about Ole against Islam, Ole's title(s), Ole and the karmapas. What about Ole and his Buddhism? If there is a teacher to be checked on his status as a teacher, shouldn't it be his teachings investigated first of all? No wonder that it's easy to mislead people when nobody gives a damn about what is actually being taught.

His ACTIONS are what is being taught . So if he lays claim to titles that he has not earned according to the tradition he purports to represent, that is an important fact that people deserve to know when deciding whether his "teachings" are true to the Buddha's intentions.

"It is also too often true that people hide behind the precepts and practice in secret the opposite of what they preach. ... What must be done to retrieve Original Innocence, our natural virtue? I don’t believe it is by putting on something that isn’t who we are. Wearing feathers does not make us a flying bird. ... we lay down the road in the walking. Truth is to be found where one’s foot is. ”
For a Future to be Possible: Buddhist Ethics for Everyday Life
By Thich Nhat Hanh
Parallax Press, Berkeley, CA, 2007. ppviii-xi.

It is better to find out as much as you can about a teacher first, once you have sat in the group with all the others it is harder to see with "beginner's eyes" and notice what is on offer moment by moment.

[Luke]

a friend of mine is interested to attend a lecture given by a guy called Lama Ole Nydahl in Albuquerque next month, he also wants me to come. I am interested in buddhism, but I am kind of just exploring right now. Do you think it is worth going to see this teacher? When I typed in google search Lama Ole Nydahl, immediately I saw Lama Ole Nydahl cult among search options, so I am not sure. What do you think?

Hi Joe,

I'll get back to your original question. If time and money are not scarce resources for you, then fine, go and listen to him while being skeptical and see what you think. Personally, I have never met Ole Nydahl, but I did read his book "Entering the Diamond Way" and was so repulsed that I have never wanted to join a Diamond Way sangha. Some people--especially those who dislike traditional presentations of Dharma--might like his teachings, though.

However, if you are careful about how you spend your time and money, then I would recommend using them to see a greater lama's teachings, as others here have recommended.

Check out this video about H.E. Garchen Rinpoche!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcUqhifbD3o

After you see the great Garchen Rinpoche, go to Frontier and get the breakfast burrito, with red chile.

Just out of curiousity, can you get vegetarian breakfast burritos there? Attending one of Garchen Rinpoche's teachings followed by vegetarian burritos would be like a Pure Land!
Mmm Many Burritos Yum!

[Pero]

I'll get back to your original question. If time and money are not scarce resources for you, then fine, go and listen to him while being skeptical and see what you think. Personally, I have never met Ole Nydahl, but I did read his book "Entering the Diamond Way" and was so repulsed that I have never wanted to join a Diamond Way sangha.

Could you tell why?

[Malcolm]

I grant you that I'm imputing more on your statements than you intend: but that is because you're making rather robust and unfounded claims.

The Enlightenment did not begin and end in Locke. There is for example Voltaire, every bit as important as Locke. Then there is David Hume, more or less an atheist, etc.

The Enlightenment was deeply theological. When you speak of the turn from Christianity to secularism, probably the most influential figure was Locke, who provided the revolutionary fuel not just for England, but also for both France and America. That is, more than anyone else, he established the liberal political foundations which the west in general leans upon now.

And also Voltaire, etc.

But go and read him. Read his Two Treatises.

He asserts, plain as day: "God gave the earth to Adam, Adam gave it to human kind."

Been there, done that.

Hence the conception of natural property rights, and the legitimacy of sovereignty based on protecting them.

...

In this sense, the enlightenment did not destroy Christianity, it has rather successfully embedded its core metaphysical and ethical assumptions into a political-economic structure.

What you are mistaking for Christianity is Roman property law.

In any event, I will grant you that Pilgrims decision to ethnically cleanse New England, and all encroachments of Europeans on the Americas took precedent from the Old Testament, just as Israel often asserts its right to Israel in similar terms today.

N

[gregkavarnos]

...I have been to Italy. In Tuscany, Catholicism is dead. It is completely Socialist there...

And you will see those same socialists in church every sunday morning. Guaranteed! And if they are high level socialists politicos they will be sitting in the front row.

But the last gasp of a dying person does not mean they are alive. Christianity was destroyed by science. No matter how much there may be come reactionary elements that won't let go.

Last time I checked christianity was the religion with the highest number of believers globally.

As for those other places, no. I have no been there. But that does not mean Christianity is vital there either.

Reminds me of kids that think if they close their eyes others can't see them. Oh it is vital my friend. VERY vital.

[Malcolm]

...I have been to Italy. In Tuscany, Catholicism is dead. It is completely Socialist there...

And you will see those same socialists in church every sunday morning. Guaranteed! And if they are high level socialists politicos they will be sitting in the front row.

Nope.

But the last gasp of a dying person does not mean they are alive. Christianity was destroyed by science. No matter how much there may be come reactionary elements that won't let go.

Last time I checked christianity was the religion with the highest number of believers globally.

Yes, in Africa, South America and in Asia.

As for those other places, no. I have no been there. But that does not mean Christianity is vital there either.

Reminds me of kids that think if they close their eyes others can't see them. Oh it is vital my friend. VERY vital.

[/quote]

We can ask Dechen -- how vital is Catholicism in Portugal?

[Aemilius]

You obviously have never been to Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Norway, Ireland...

I have been to Italy. In Tuscany, Catholicism is dead. It is completely Socialist there.

That is only the DC my friend. Who do you think voted for Berlusconi again and again?

/magnus

About Tuscany, you can check it from the Wikipedia or from the Official Italian Statistics, but in Tuscany some 33% voted Berlusconi, and the others are also officially catholic. What matters are the normal rituals of birth, teen age, marriage and death, and they haven't become followers of Wicca or other Pagan societies in Italy, have they ?

[Aemilius]

Ole is a dumb guy. But his concerns, while phrased in right wing terms that I do not particularly admire show that there is an underlying problem with the assimilation of Muslims in Europe. Of course we can point to colonial policies in various colonies, etc., but ghettos form for two reasons, one because ghettoed communities themselves tend to practice cultural exclusion (Muslims and Jews are perfect examples of this i.e. Hallal, Kosher, refusing to eat with gentiles) and are also ghettoized because they are "others". The fact that Christians broke this trend was key to the success of Christianity among Greek slaves in the Roman empire.

Also, I stand by the historical record that shows that Muslims barely tolerated Buddhists in places they conquered and often slaughtered us wholesale and went to great lengths to erase all evidence of Buddhism in Central Asia.

I am pretty sure that the "revolution" in Mulsim countries now will wind up with the creation of Islamocracies like Iran. I don't see these revolutions remaining progressive for very long. The world is in for one long drawn out conflict between the Muslim world and everyone else. You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it is going to happen.

N

How is it progressing in the white Europe and in the Americas? I have the impression that fewer and fewer lamas nowadays really believe that the 4 or 8 Noble Persons exist, and thus their teachings have begun to resemble egalitarian christianity, where you don't have superhuman Higher Individuals any longer, or at all.
Is it the sign of times? The true cause why mr Nydahl is so intensely hated ?

[Dechen Norbu]

We can ask Dechen -- how vital is Catholicism in Portugal?

The sate is laic.
The church has still some political influence, but not much these days. This was a deeply catholic country and the church had tremendous power over society.
Those are long gone days. We used to have an active church in each and every population. Now most are closed.
Of course if you go to a church on Sunday morning, it will be full, but mostly of senior people. Many youngsters are atheists, don't care or believe in their own version of religion. Very few people believe the gospel as it is explained by the church. Those who take it more literally are usually uneducated (so they don't really know what they are buying).
The church has some social charities which play an important role in society, but we have many state public institutions that also do a tremendous effort to help the poor and needed.
I'd say that mostly province is where the church retains some secular influence, mainly in the north and center (south is mostly socialist and communist), but even so it's quite reduced. Of course we have pressure groups like Opus Dei with members in several governments, but it's a small phenomena and you notice their influence only when they take decisions related to social welfare (influenced by a Catholic vision of society). I'd say masons are more influential, overall.
Church is decaying, also due to a crisis of vocation to become part of the clergy. The number of priests is dropping rapidly. I never met someone who wanted to by a priest or a nun or met someone who did. I've always lived in the main cities, so I guess they mostly come from the province.
Comparing the power and influence of the church in Portugal 50 years ago and now is like comparing the sun to a waning moon. After the revolution of 25 of April, 1974, where Portugal became a democracy, it's been always a descending path for the church. You still can see churches everywhere. Closed and empty.

[Anders]

It produced radical materialism resulting in capitalism, communism, nazism and fascism.

These were arguably all predominantly influenced by romanticism, a movement the enlightenment movement itself radically opposed.

As for the French Revolution, if we're to look for ideological inspiration here, Rousseau is a better bet, again a romanticist.

[freethinker108]

I fail to see your point.

The Islamic ideology is what is dangerous and yes you are right that most people just want to be happy and live their lives. Its the other 10% that screws it up for all of us. Unfortunately there is a tacit acceptance/fear to criticize, of 'extremism' in 'moderate' Muslim groups and there are many major Islamic run countries with instutionalized policies of persecution one can't pretend don't exist or are not in some way 'mainstream'! Were are the rousing criticisms from 'moderate' Muslim leaders against the oppression of women and atrocities that take place in many Muslim nations?

Here are a few instances of Mainline Muslim persecution.

Baha'i
http://www.bahaindex.com/en/news/human- ... phenomenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... A1'%C3%ADs

Sufi
http://21centuryindia.blogspot.com/2006 ... is-in.html

Are major Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. 'mainline' enough? Just look at how some are killing their own people for simply protesting?

The critique of Islam in the quote you mention still holds. Just because someone criticizes another religion does not make them ignorant or a racist.

One could easily say that the Catholics have a big problem with child abuse, and you know what? They would be right and not be called a racist or ignorant.
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/

What you and Ole are failing to see is how crudely and unfairly you conflate the political with the religious, and how you sweep all Islamic persons and states together under one (extremist) brush. You are quick to denounce moderate Muslims for failing to speak up ~ but they do, consistently.

Criticising the Iranian state, I think, is well justified. Criticising the Iranian people on the basis of their state is not well justified. Critising the political ideology of Al Qaeda is well justified. Criticising the billions of Muslim people who do not support or endorse Al Qaeda is not well justified.

To opine publicly on a religion which one knows nothing about is of course an expression of ignorance: as Buddhists, we all know exactly how it feels when some idiot from outside of the tradition makes ridiculous and unfounded claims about Buddhism because s/he flicked through a couple of Sutras.

The Muslims I have encountered in various parts of the world have been almost universally good natured, kind, hospitable, charitable. They deserve at least not be judged on what a few bad eggs have done. If you do not know their tradition, as I assume neither of us & Ole really do, we have no basis on which to criticise. A basic standpoint of respect is warranted.

If you don't think that politics and religion have already been conflated for most of human history, I think you may be living on another planet.

Lama Ole is inciting people to THINK, something very important for a Buddhist to do. To practice dharma you have to get the information, contemplate the information, and then meditate. If you skip the contemplation part you are just a believer and instead of getting some wisdom from your practice you superimpose it onto everything. Statements like "Islam is a religion of peace" or "the world is flat" should not be taken at face value without some investigation by intelligent and free thinking people. Superimposing what we would like the world to be (and who wouldn't like it to be a place of tolerance and mutual affinity among everyone?) on top of what it currently is, takes away our ability to make meaningful contributions to the world at large and to those closest to us. Why? because we have no starting point to work with anything, only our fantasies.

I agree that whenever one encounters an individual they should give them respect. I've seen Lama Ole do this every time he encounters someone new, regardless of their background. I remember once Lama Ole was buying pants at an Army Navy store and the store owner, an Egyptian man, came over and introduced himself. They had a nice conversation and immediately became friends. Ole even bought extra pants so he could return them and have an excuse to go and see this man another time. He really liked the guy and saw an opportunity. These are not the actions of a man who harbors hate or doesn't respect people. I've seen countless instances like this.

Showing respect for ideologies is different than showing respect for people. People should get a basic respect until they prove themselves untrustworthy (Lama Ole says alot "Always interact with what's meaningful and radiant within each person, but unless that person can also see it for themselves, its good to have an accountant and a lawyer close by") but ideologies should not get the same. Ironically it really shows how closely identified one is with their religious/political views when they can't see a difference between their views and their own individuality. You have to be careful with people like this because they tend to overreact. Should we mention the murders in Israel over the Danish cartoons or the beheadings of UN workers in Pakistan just because some ass in the US burned a Koran?

The ultimate point here is that ALL religions should be able to stand criticism, even Buddhism. As a Buddhist I don't think its healthy to be offended by those who think differently, we can simply wish them the best and agree to disagree but we should try to do or say something when people harm each other. Religions and those who believe in them at the expense of others, have caused more human suffering on this planet than anything else and where this notion came from that they are 'all good' I have no idea. It just isn't true. Pretending that it is doesn't help anyone, its like believing in fairy tales. I'm always shocked that many Buddhists, especially in the US, have decided its their role to rationalize and apologize for the harmful actions of a medieval religion. In a way its really quite ethnocentric as it seems to come from some view that we, the enlightened and educated western people, 'understand' the other culture better than those within it. I say evaluate people by their actions and I leave it to the other intelligent people on this group to read the news and judge for themselves.

[freethinker108]

Ole is a dumb guy. But his concerns, while phrased in right wing terms that I do not particularly admire show that there is an underlying problem with the assimilation of Muslims in Europe. Of course we can point to colonial policies in various colonies, etc., but ghettos form for two reasons, one because ghettoed communities themselves tend to practice cultural exclusion (Muslims and Jews are perfect examples of this i.e. Hallal, Kosher, refusing to eat with gentiles) and are also ghettoized because they are "others". The fact that Christians broke this trend was key to the success of Christianity among Greek slaves in the Roman empire.

Also, I stand by the historical record that shows that Muslims barely tolerated Buddhists in places they conquered and often slaughtered us wholesale and went to great lengths to erase all evidence of Buddhism in Central Asia.

I am pretty sure that the "revolution" in Mulsim countries now will wind up with the creation of Islamocracies like Iran. I don't see these revolutions remaining progressive for very long. The world is in for one long drawn out conflict between the Muslim world and everyone else. You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it is going to happen.

N

How is it progressing in the white Europe and in the Americas? I have the impression that fewer and fewer lamas nowadays really believe that the 4 or 8 Noble Persons exist, and thus their teachings have begun to resemble egalitarian christianity, where you don't have superhuman Higher Individuals any longer, or at all.
Is it the sign of times? The true cause why mr Nydahl is so intensely hated ?

Lama Ole is mostly disliked and smeared in the US because he supports Karmapa Trinlay Thaye Dorje and thwarted an attempt by the Shambala organization to co-opt the seat of the Karmapas after the 16th passed in the 80s.

[Malcolm]

The Muslims I have encountered in various parts of the world have been almost universally good natured, kind, hospitable, charitable.

Yes.

They deserve at least not be judged on what a few bad eggs have done. If you do not know their tradition, as I assume neither of us & Ole really do, we have no basis on which to criticise. A basic standpoint of respect is warranted.

We can respect Islam and not be blind to a Islamic history, both the good parts and the bad parts, and the imperialistic nature of monotheistic religions in general.

Religion, in the end, is about money and power.