Institutional Buddhism

[DGA]

The DC is like any sangha ... but what makes the difference is the teacher and the teachings.

Sönam

hahahaha "my teacher is the best, better than yours!!" hahaha how's that for tribal?

Easy now. I think Sonam's point that the DC is a bit different from other Buddhist* groups because the teacher and the teachings are rather unique is a fair one. I don't think Sonam is making a mine's-bigger-than-yours kind of claim here. It doesn't look like one to me anyway.

[Malcolm]

But any so called "Buddhist" or "Nyingma" would never consider themselves really[/i] a Buddhist or a Nyingma, etc. . . because the whole point is not clinging to anything, especially to self identifications or labels...

I saw pages and pages and pages in this thread alone where people were furiously insisting that Dzogchen was Buddhism, etc., people strongly proclaiming their identities as Buddhists and so on -- all because a stalwart bastion of Buddhist sectarianism on the internet, a guy name Namdrol, decided to let people know he had dropped it.

The teachings just have one structured framework or another... the DC is one kind. You often say you are a member of Dzogchen Community.

Yup, a card-carrying one. Dzogchen Community is a fraternal organization. You pay dues to belong.

It can be that certainly, but it can also be a cup that holds the sacred Dharma, just as the DC with all it's global centers and books and sangha is. Just because there are people who call themselves Buddhist who don't really understand Dharma or do any practice or who screw up or act sectarian does not degrade the many noble beings who are actually practicing Dharma and accessing their Buddha nature, at whatever capacity or yana they may be able to relate to. Same as DC. It just seems like a different conceptual framework to me, is all. But maybe we will just have to not see things eye to eye on this point.

Dzogchen Community is an autarchy. It is self-governed. All practitioners are equal. We all have the same state. We are working toward the same goal. Some of us are further along, like ChNN, some of us are not, like me. But in the DC all practitioners are equal, we all have the same state.

In my opinion, in Buddhism the insitutions have become more important than the people. Actually, it has been this way for centuries -- Buddhist Institutions have functioned to support a priviledged elite in a very feudal manner. Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism, is an oligarchy. Tibean Buddhism functions based on a system of vassalage and fealty. It is actually the same in other Buddhist cultures as well. The reason for this has to do with the way Buddhism has adapted itself for the past 2300 years to various aristocracies.

I used to think that since democracy and Buddhism were not compatible, we needed to subordinate ourselves to hierarchy of monks, lamas, tulkus, etc because it was necessary for the survival of the Dharma, because they supposedly represented the work of the Dharma in the world. I no longer believe that. There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc. This completely wrong. But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money. Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations. Of course, they have to, because they are expected to, it is their job. But frankly, I am fatigued by it. I could go on and on about my gripes about the way Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps I have just seen one corrupt lama too many.

I am not saying that there are no good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and tulkus, genuinely spiritual people who mean nothing but the best for everyone. Of course there are. Not all catholic preists are pedarests either. But I am pretty toasted on the worldy ambitions of Tibetan Buddhism.

I do not beleive that traditional Buddhism is in any way capable of addressing the problems we face in the world today. I am sure that it was never capable of addressing these issues. I regard the Shambhala vision of an enlightened society to be a total fantasy, and I regard Thurman's call for a rule of Buddhist philosopher kings a farce -- it completely failed in Tibet, from the beginning. Since it failed there, it will not succeed here.

The only way we can solve the problems we have in the word today is to put down our socio/religious/culture banners. We must be like Angulimala -- we must stop. If we human beings cannot get along as one human family, there will be no chance for Dharma let alone Buddhism, no anything -- just war, famine, sickness and death.



M

[Josef]

But any so called "Buddhist" or "Nyingma" would never consider themselves really[/i] a Buddhist or a Nyingma, etc. . . because the whole point is not clinging to anything, especially to self identifications or labels...

I saw pages and pages and pages in this thread alone where people were furiously insisting that Dzogchen was Buddhism, etc., people strongly proclaiming their identities as Buddhists and so on -- all because a stalwart bastion of Buddhist sectarianism on the internet, a guy name Namdrol, decided to let people know he had dropped it.

The teachings just have one structured framework or another... the DC is one kind. You often say you are a member of Dzogchen Community.

Yup, a card-carrying one. Dzogchen Community is a fraternal organization. You pay dues to belong.

It can be that certainly, but it can also be a cup that holds the sacred Dharma, just as the DC with all it's global centers and books and sangha is. Just because there are people who call themselves Buddhist who don't really understand Dharma or do any practice or who screw up or act sectarian does not degrade the many noble beings who are actually practicing Dharma and accessing their Buddha nature, at whatever capacity or yana they may be able to relate to. Same as DC. It just seems like a different conceptual framework to me, is all. But maybe we will just have to not see things eye to eye on this point.

Dzogchen Community is an autarchy. It is self-governed. All practitioners are equal. We all have the same state. We are working toward the same goal. Some of us are further along, like ChNN, some of us are not, like me. But in the DC all practitioners are equal, we all have the same state.

In my opinion, in Buddhism the insitutions have become more important than the people. Actually, it has been this way for centuries -- Buddhist Institutions have functioned to support a priviledged elite in a very feudal manner. Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism, is an oligarchy. Tibean Buddhism functions based on a system of vassalage and fealty. It is actually the same in other Buddhist cultures as well. The reason for this has to do with the way Buddhism has adapted itself for the past 2300 years to various aristocracies.

I used to think that since democracy and Buddhism were not compatible, we needed to subordinate ourselves to hierarchy of monks, lamas, tulkus, etc because it was necessary for the survival of the Dharma, because they supposedly represented the work of the Dharma in the world. I no longer believe that. There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc. This completely wrong. But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money. Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations. Of course, they have to, because they are expected to, it is their job. But frankly, I am fatigued by it. I could go on and on about my gripes about the way Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps I have just seen one corrupt lama too many.

I am not saying that there are no good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and tulkus, genuinely spiritual people who mean nothing but the best for everyone. Of course there are. Not all catholic preists are pedarests either. But I am pretty toasted on the worldy ambitions of Tibetan Buddhism.

I do not beleive that traditional Buddhism is in any way capable of addressing the problems we face in the world today. I am sure that it was never capable of addressing these issues. I regard the Shambhala vision of an enlightened society to be a total fantasy, and I regard Thurman's call for a rule of Buddhist philosopher kings a farce -- it completely failed in Tibet, from the beginning. Since it failed there, it will not succeed here.

The only way we can solve the problems we have in the word today is to put down our socio/religious/culture banners. We must be like Angulimala -- we must stop. If we human beings cannot get along as one human family, there will be no chance for Dharma let alone Buddhism, no anything -- just war, famine, sickness and death.



M

[dorje e gabbana]

I regard Thurman's call for a rule of Buddhist philosopher kings a farce -- it completely failed in Tibet, from the beginning. Since it failed there, it will not succeed here.

I agree

But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money.

It is the same also for DC. DC asks for membership card you pay cash, if you attend a DC retreat you pay cash. What is the difference between DC ond other Tibetan Buddhisy Instition regarding this point? please explain

Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations.

CNNR do the same. in 20yrs I have never seen not even one Namkhai Norbu retreat ending without Rinpoche lead a lottery where you pay cash, they raise money and people around sell you lottery tickets. Don't tell me please that lottery is a primary Dzog chen practice, neither a secondary practice......
I am not saying it is bad from CNNR, everybody is free to ask and everybody is free to donate, but asking for money in DC it is non dissimilar to other Tibetan buddist Insititution.
BTW CNNR has been accepting donations troughout the yrs for his projects from his students exatly like other tibetna buddist lamas has done and I do not see the difference.

I

[dorje e gabbana]

The last retraet I attended In Merigar in 2009 Summer ended with a lottery as usual, hold personally by CNNR, and from 1990 on, I've seen the same staff every year.
As I told you I do not judge if it is bad or not, it is not my business. I just think that regarding the quest for cash DC is not different from other Tibetan buddist Institution, as Malcolm instead claims.

[Malcolm]

I regard Thurman's call for a rule of Buddhist philosopher kings a farce -- it completely failed in Tibet, from the beginning. Since it failed there, it will not succeed here.

I agree

Good we can agree on something.

But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money.

It is the same also for DC. DC asks for membership card you pay cash, if you attend a DC retreat you pay cash. What is the difference between DC ond other Tibetan Buddhisy Instition regarding this point? please explain

It does not support a feudal elite.

Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations.

CNNR do the same. in 20yrs I have never seen not even one Namkhai Norbu retreat ending without Rinpoche lead a lottery where you pay cash, they raise money and people around selling you lottery ticket. Don't tell me please that lottery is a primary Dzog chen practice, neither a secondary practice......

Generally speaking, Rinpoche gives %100 of money to the Gar for its various projects. Like a good gardener, he turns the crop right back into the soil, he leaves it right where it is to keep that that garden growing and rich.

One of his strict personal samayas is to never accept money for Dzogchen teachings, to use it as means of fame, etc.

But in general, Tibetan Buddhism uses the West as a wealth pump (so do Hindus, etc., just to make sure that people understand that I am not being selective). Now, I have no problem with this when Lamas are completely up front about it like Kunzang Dechen Lingpa ("I never came here to teach, only to raise money, but then I found out there were some interested people, so I am teaching Dzogchen to those of you who are interested"). People are free to do with their money what they like. But one thing I particulary don't like is Lamas who use the name "Dzogchen" to support themselves.

I am not saying it is bad from CNNR, but asking for money in DC it is non dissimilar to other Tibetan buddist Insititution.
BTW CNNR has been accepting donations troughout the yrs for his projects from his students exatly like other tibetna buddist lamas has done and I do not see the difference.
I

Yes, sure, if people want to donate money to this or that project, there is no problem.

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself. He had a regular job his whole life. He did not spend his life living on the donations given to monasteries. In that he is a completely different.

M

[Josef]

I don't know about elsewhere but he never held a lottery in his last two retreats here -- I think it's usually the local centres which organize those anyway.

RIght.
Rinpoche being there is an incentive for people to participate and the funds generated go directly to support the projects of that center.
They are not personally run by Rinpoche and they are not at every retreat.

[Josef]

It does not support a feudal elite.

I think this is a key point. And it illustrates a huge problem with how Tibetan Buddhist structures function in the west.

We are often treated at best as placeholders for the teachings until the next generation of Tibetans come of age and at worst we are expected to be serfs with American dollars and a good exchange rate.

When Tibetan teachers are busted sexually abusing or ripping off their American students its called crazy wisdom or they just get a free pass. When an American teacher does this kind of thing they are excommunicated and publicly ruined and turned into an example of how "we arent ready" to be real holders of the lineage.
Its feudalism and racism, nothing more.

[Malcolm]

It does not support a feudal elite.

I think this is a key point. And it illustrates a huge problem with how Tibetan Buddhist structures function in the west.

We are often treated at best as placeholders for the teachings until the next generation of Tibetans come of age and at worst we are expected to be serfs with American dollars and a good exchange rate.

When Tibetan teachers are busted sexually abusing or ripping off their American students its called crazy wisdom or they just get a free pass. When an American teacher does this kind of thing they are excommunicated and publicly ruined and turned into an example of how "we arent ready" to be real holders of the lineage.
Its feudalism and racism, nothing more.

Yes, and when Someone Rinpoche and Tulku So and So gets into trouble, the putative hierarchies in Tibetan Buddhism act with complete impotence, because Someone Rinpoche and Tulku So and So are "recognized" to be some enlightened yogin, and it is all such total intolerable bullshit.

M

[dorje e gabbana]

When Tibetan teachers are busted sexually abusing or ripping off their American students its called crazy wisdom or they just get a free pass. When an American teacher does this kind of thing they are excommunicated and publicly ruined and turned into an example of how "we arent ready" to be real holders of the lineage.

It is absolutely correct!

[dorje e gabbana]

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself.

This is true, His a retired Professor who taught many yrs in the Eastern University of Naples, in Italy, and he has always lived in simple but decent conditions without using his student money

[Malcolm]

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself.

This is true, His a retired Professar who taught many yrs in the Eastern University of Naples, in Italy, and he has always lived in simple but decent conditions without using his student money

Yes, there is no class of indigent mendicants who have an excuse not support themselves in the DC. This alone makes it a very different proposition. I know a Lama who won't visit India, at least not where there are any monasteries because if he feels required to bring a minimum of $10,000 merely to make tea offerings.

I mean, fine, this is Tibetan culture, and I am not judging Tibetan culture on its own merits. But this is completely at odds with Western culture.

But the above is not, as far as I can tell, what the Buddha intended for his Sangha of monks. Heck, one of the reasons Ashoka cracked down on the Bhikṣu Sangha and purged tens of thousands of monks from the ranks of bhikṣus is that within 150 years the Bhikṣu Sangha had become a haven for all kinds of negative people.

Poor Langdarma was murdered because he wanted to tax the monasteries, so the revisionists who rewrote the history of Imperial era cast him as a Dharma destroyer. Actually, a better read is that he saw the monasteries as an economic drain on the people and wanted to rein it in. For that he was murdered even though he has a Buddhist and wrote Buddhist texts, as the Tunhuang documents prove.

M

[Blue Garuda]

'Gurus for Hire, Enlightenment for Sale'?

In the burgeoning market for Gurus it is definitely 'caveat emptor'.

It's sometimes very hard to work out what their 'recognition' or lineage is actually all about.

I think it is more important to examine what a Guru is actually doing right now and use the old journalistic questions of who, what, where, how, why, when, where and to whom it is being done.

I've lost count of the Gurus with world peace, temple, stupa and statue projects and now many Tibetans are rubbing shoulders with Indian local corruption the money trail is hard to follow.

Anyone who lifts Dzogchen out of that sweet sticky saviour-syrup has my vote.

[Paul]

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself.

This is true, His a retired Professor who taught many yrs in the Eastern University of Naples, in Italy, and he has always lived in simple but decent conditions without using his student money

He must be pretty unique in having had a proper job, then slowly drifting into teaching Dzogchen. Are there any other Tibetans like that out there?

Also, I think this must do wonders for a person's ability to teach.

[kalden yungdrung]

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself.

This is true, His a retired Professor who taught many yrs in the Eastern University of Naples, in Italy, and he has always lived in simple but decent conditions without using his student money

He must be pretty unique in having had a proper job, then slowly drifting into teaching Dzogchen. Are there any other Tibetans like that out there?

Also, I think this must do wonders for a person's ability to teach.

Tashi delek,

How bigger a Dharma Centre, the more are the costs.
Sometimes it is not so clear which amounts of anual income regarding Dharma Centres are normal......
Remembering the 8 000.000.000 from Sai Baba, Dharma money?

For many it is a question to impress others with their Dharma Centres and spiritual materialism is allways in many centres like walking over the edge.
And many Rinpoches have so their special wishes which have to be paid by the rich westerns like: Richard Gear,this Aikido Tulku from Nyingma and many more. These wishes are sometimes bottomless.......

My i have a look in the bookkeeping of Dharma Foundations?


Mutsog Marro
KY

[Paul]

How bigger a Dharma Centre, the more are the costs.
Sometimes it is not so clear which amounts of anual income regarding Dharma Centres are normal......

Having been involved with setting up retreats, it's amazing how much money is needed to run one. I don't think many people realise how much it can cost to hire a venue etc.

[kalden yungdrung]

How bigger a Dharma Centre, the more are the costs.
Sometimes it is not so clear which amounts of anual income regarding Dharma Centres are normal......

Having been involved with setting up retreats, it's amazing how much money is needed to run one. I don't think many people realise how much it can cost to hire a venue etc.

Tashi delek,

In these heavy finacial days of recession is counting not to own buildings.
Cheaper would be renting a location for the anual big Teaching those costst are payable.
But the case is allways that the Rinpoches do need more money for their projects and that is bottomless.
One can easy meet here amounts about 100.000 Euro / Dollar which is collected for every teaching whereas the rent etc. would be a fith of the income.

So what would be the price for a teaching that is realy questionable.

So a new Geshe without a Dharma Center is content with a ticket and housing. If the location can be rent then the costst are very low for the students.
In case of the Dalai Lama we speak about other amounts.

I have seen that a pool Polish student was sent back because he could not pay the teachings, he was hitchhiking vice versa. The income from that teaching was enormous.......

Mutsog Marro
KY




Mutsog Marro
KY

[Sherlock]

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself.

This is true, His a retired Professor who taught many yrs in the Eastern University of Naples, in Italy, and he has always lived in simple but decent conditions without using his student money

He must be pretty unique in having had a proper job, then slowly drifting into teaching Dzogchen. Are there any other Tibetans like that out there?

Also, I think this must do wonders for a person's ability to teach.

It definitely influenced some of what he teaches I think, especially the principle of integration into your daily life (every retreat ends with teaching how you can apply it to your daily life) as well as night practice.

[Adamantine]

Dzogchen Community is an autarchy. It is self-governed. All practitioners are equal. We all have the same state. We are working toward the same goal. Some of us are further along, like ChNN, some of us are not, like me. But in the DC all practitioners are equal, we all have the same state.

It's great that you can idealize things like this, but I don't see that. If it was truly an autarchy and not an oligarchy then why would ChNN's son Yeshe need to be preened as the one to take over?
All major decisions of any center are involved with the input, advice, and
at some point I am sure the command of one of these masters.
Saying all are equal is no different than the constitution of the US saying
all it's citizens are equal. It doesn't make it automatic in the social organizing.
All beings seem as having Buddha nature is the ultimate equalizing factor, it is not
different in other Buddhist communities. But certainly there are heirarchies based on who is
qualified to teach, just as there are in DC. In DC, there are an elite of senior students of
Rinpoche who have more access to him and who tour centers and lead teachings and retreats.
It is not different at all, despite what you claim. I am happy for you that you
feel so content with your teacher and sangha but it is really silly to use that as an excuse
to trumpet it's superiority and denigrate all others, under the banner of
their evil association with the "Tibetan Buddhist" designation.

In my opinion, in Buddhism the insitutions have become more important than the people. Actually, it has been this way for centuries -- Buddhist Institutions have functioned to support a priviledged elite in a very feudal manner. Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism, is an oligarchy. Tibean Buddhism functions based on a system of vassalage and fealty. It is actually the same in other Buddhist cultures as well. The reason for this has to do with the way Buddhism has adapted itself for the past 2300 years to various aristocracies.

I don't know what your experience is Namdrol, but that doesn't even remotely
relate to mine. Of all the Nyingma or Drigung Kagyu teachers or centers
I am familiar with, none are big institutions with corrupt heirarchies, they are relatively
humble places where realized beings reside or visit, to help and share the Dharma
with others. Any money exchange is simply to keep things running. Perhaps things are different
in big monastic institutions, and I agree there are many problems with these, but you are making
giant sweeping generalizations with 0 subtlety or care, and
without any recognition of the many great teachers and situations that don't at all
reflect your cynical views. This is just as myopic as any other type
of racism or cultural imperialism as you may be trying to critique.

I used to think that since democracy and Buddhism were not compatible, we needed to subordinate ourselves to hierarchy of monks, lamas, tulkus, etc because it was necessary for the survival of the Dharma, because they supposedly represented the work of the Dharma in the world. I no longer believe that. There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc. This completely wrong. But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money. Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations. Of course, they have to, because they are expected to, it is their job. But frankly, I am fatigued by it. I could go on and on about my gripes about the way Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps I have just seen one corrupt lama too many.

Perhaps that's your unfortunate karma. I've got wind of some very human beings dressed
up like monks or Khenpos too, however, they don't detract from the incredible virtuous
and realized ones that I have had the great fortune to encounter.
Of you think the DC is immune to human downfalls I think you are either
being naive or just fantasizing. I have heard plenty of unpleasantness and witnessed
unbelievable arrogance from devoted DC card carrying members. All-equal my butt.
In essence yes... in practice, I don't see it. Same as anywhere else.

I am not saying that there are no good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and tulkus, genuinely spiritual people who mean nothing but the best for everyone. Of course there are. Not all catholic preists are pedarests either. But I am pretty toasted on the worldy ambitions of Tibetan Buddhism.

That's just sad, you would bring it that. You claim a good monk or Lama is the exception to
the giant quantity of corrupt, sexually abusive monsters... That is far from the truth, and you exaggerations
are a sad expression of a cynical inflammation of aversion.

I do not beleive that traditional Buddhism is in any way capable of addressing the problems we face in the world today. I am sure that it was never capable of addressing these issues. I regard the Shambhala vision of an enlightened society to be a total fantasy, and I regard Thurman's call for a rule of Buddhist philosopher kings a farce -- it completely failed in Tibet, from the beginning. Since it failed there, it will not succeed here.

You are again sweeping a vast quantity of different possibilities under the rug "traditional Buddhism".
I don't have much regard for Thurman's idealisms either but yours seem almost parallel.
You may regard Shambalas vision of enlightened society as a fantasy but
many may think the same of your vision of a perfect world made up of all Dzogchenpas.
Actually, CTR's vision was always supposed to be in the same
direction you are heralding: beyond religion or creed, the essence of the
dharma, Dzogchen without the dogma for a modern society-- so it is ironic you write it off so
carelessly.

The only way we can solve the problems we have in the word today is to put down our socio/religious/culture banners. We must be like Angulimala -- we must stop. If we human beings cannot get along as one human family, there will be no chance for Dharma let alone Buddhism, no anything -- just war, famine, sickness and death.



M

Malcolm, let's look at this clearly, without emotion: 

It is a simple fact that it is not identification itself which creates conflict, it is clinging to identities with pride, superiority, or fear which creates conflict whether it be global or local. This starts at the age of four year olds on up as soon as cliques begin to form. It is a type of samsaric social organizing. I have seen this countless times among proud "Dzogchenpas" who identify with the DC and patronize anything else. It is no different. 

Grasping to an idea of no-grasping is no different, it's still grasping, especially when you are making sweeping statements that denigrate what many others find very valuable to try and make your point. You don't like sectarianism in Tibetan Buddhism, or conflict between Muslims and Christians, etc. etc. So you insult all of them and declare your fledging tradition superior and supreme 

Cultural differences, language differences, religious differences, these are all important I believe for a healthy global social ecosystem. It is the idea of a monoculture that is truly frightening. Being Buddhist, being Hindu, Sufi, Christian,  Atheist or whatever is not the problem, the problem is not being accepting and supportive of others views or traditions. You are happy it seems that the DC contains people with a variety of different religious views.. But you don't want that to extend to the rest of the world? You're either not making any sense at all or I am having a hard time interpreting you curt remarks. 

[Adamantine]

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself. He had a regular job his whole life. He did not spend his life living on the donations given to monasteries. In that he is a completely different.

M

None of the Tibetan Lamas I know have spent their lives living off the donations
given to monasteries. Some, like Lama Dawa Chhodak, had to work various jobs and save money
to do three month retreats and receive further teachings from their own wandering yogi Lama etc.
My heart teacher was a wandering Chodpa, spent over 30 years in retreats,
in caves and charnel grounds...often with hardly enough to feed himself.
No thought of grasping to money, just the preciousness of the Dharma.

I think ChNN is great, and I think what he is doing is great. And I think it does him a disservice
to attack Buddhists, including other Dzogchen teachers in his name, with these grandiose generalizations
you keep making