Buddhism, Rigpa

by tenpelMarch 1, 20181:30 am

Some Reflections on Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s Talk at Rigpa Berlin

Some days ago, on Sunday 25h of February 2018, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche spoke for three hours at the Dharma Mati Rigpa centre in Berlin. A student asked him:

What the Dalai Lama and Mingyur Rinpoche are saying and what you and Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche and Khenpo Namdrol Rinpoche are saying are two different things. Can you please clarify?”

Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche at Dharma Mati Rigpa centre, Berlin

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s response:

Very good. Orgyen Rinpoche is there also? Yeah, OK. [laughter] How do I begin? First, I want to say this. I think there’s a lot lost in translation, misinterpretation, editing, remember I said? Editing, sound effect, I feel there’s a lot.

From my side, I have never said that the moment you walk into a Tibetan Vajrayana temple, you bump into a guru and then you end up receiving whatever teaching and then you do not analyze, don’t criticize. I never said this. Never. You have to analyze. Remember, this is the subject that I’ve been repeating so much today. You have to analyze, you have to really prepare. Jingme Lingpa said this also. You know, the classic tantra talks about analyzing the guru and student twelve years. You don’t have twelve years because you don’t even have time for nineteen pages. But at the least you should analyze. Really. From both sides, not only from one side. But once you consciously decide to take somebody as your tantric master—and please, again I repeat tantric master, from whom you receive a complete initiation, then this is the path you have chosen. It’s like this: you want to be an ordinary soldier, then be ordinary soldier. You want to be—what?—navy seal?—well then, that’s your choice. You want to be, you know, special, then you choose this path. But you have to decide this first.

I mean there are, there is, one mention, I have to clarify—if you choose this tantric master, thoroughly examin[e], everything, but you ended up bumping, you realize that this man is not a good man, he’s a lunatic, he’s crazy, he’s harming everyone, then what do you do? Try your best to have the pure perception but if it is not working, quietly distant yourself. There is a mention like that in the Karma Chagme teachings and stuff like that—quietly—you don’t want to make a big mess. And then do the Tsok offerings and so on and so forth.

But other than that, you cannot. This is the path you have chosen. Now I think the question is about what His Holiness the Dalai Lama said.

[Questioner adds: “And Mingyur Rinpoche”]

OK . Mingyur Rinpoche is one—I don’t know—I’m a little bit puzzled with this one because HH Dalai Lama not once, not twice, [but] many times he has said—and it’s even written—and it’s made into books—I don’t know whether you have read it—when he gave teaching, he said general teachings you know, talk, philosophical talks is OK, everybody can listen. But anyone who is about to receive a vow, he said this—‘vow’—and especially Vajrayana initiation from him and if they are practicing this protector—do you remember—any one of you remember? This [unintelligible] there was a little bit of issue a few years ago? Anyone who practices this protector he requested them to leave.

Why does he have to do that? If you keep on receiving the initiation, keep on scrutinizing the guru, keep on criticizing the guru, keep on having the pure/impure perception whenever you want or whenever you can or whenever you need it—then no need to go through this analysis. Not only that, if you can still have that kind of analysis—and what, impure perception—then why does the tantra have to emphasize on analyzing the guru in the beginning? Do you understand what I mean? Why do you have to analyze first? I mean they are talking about twelve years of analysis. Skip that—because you can still analyze later. You know what I mean?

And then I will tell you something which is sort of puzzling for me. As I said, guru devotion, pure perception is a practice that you have to choose, you choose, consciously, because you are supposed to choose this. I know many people may have not. But that’s how the tantric, this is why I wanted to explain—the tantric—according to the tantric rule, this is the path. You choose and then you practice that pure perception—no matter what happens you try to see this is your projection, this and everything is pure, so on and so forth. There’s a lot of instructions.

OK, let’s say you are not a Vajrayana practitioner. Let’s say you are a Mahayana practitioner. Let’s say Vajrayana is too strange—cultish, you know, feudalist. Let’s forget Vajrayana. Let’s practice Mahayana, OK, so you have become a Mahayana practitioner, what is the essence of the Mahayana practice? Compassion, isn’t it? And you are supposed to have compassion to all sentient beings unconditionally. You can’t say, Oh I will have compassion towards some Africans in Rowanda, but not Donald Trump. You can’t. That is the path you have chosen. And you can’t also choose I will have compassion towards this man when as long as he behaves. You are supposed to have compassion no matter what he does. Is he a good boy? Have compassion. Bad boy? Compassion. Tail growing suddenly? Compassion. Horn growing suddenly? Compassion. This is the path you have chosen. It is the—it is—that’s how it is!

And you know, I’m sorry, you know I can’t, you know, you can’t change that. People seem to think that some lamas can change this– because now the time is modern, you know. You can’t because you know what? If you ask a lama to change that rule, you are making him into a cult leader. Can you see the logic? Because a cult leader does this—they don’t go by the book. They do whatever they want. OK, what do people want to hear? Ahhh. That’s what people want to hear. Then they make it up. You can’t do that. You know, as I said right at the beginning, I’m not an enlightened being, I’m a sentient being. I have desire, I have anger, I have ambition. I have—what do you call it? agendas. I’m very, you know, like, ambitious. And in this day and age, if I follow my ambition, I should be saying, oh yeah yeah yeah, whatever people want to hear. I make it up. Mindfulness—breathe out—breathe in. You know and then, after a week later you read maybe a magazine and see what is the current trend, current fashion, and then change the meditation method a little bit. I can make millions .But if you want to really follow by the book, it’s not possible.

So what I’m saying is—there must be a missed information or mis-translation.

First, it should be made clear that HH Dalai Lama has been a significant influence on the Rigpa landscape for decades. When I was a Rigpa student in the late nineties, I remember Sogyal Lakar mentioning His Holiness every teaching. In 2007, he wrote this in his introduction to a text on HH’s teachings given at Lerab Ling:

For me, it is the greatest possible privilege to introduce this book and also an immense blessing as His Holiness is one of my principal teachers; and for all Tibetans, he is our leader, our guiding light, and our inspiration. (Sogyal Lakar, 2007)

And he wrote this in 2000, in his introduction to another publication of Dzogchen teachings given by His Holiness:

The years during which His Holiness gave the teachings in this book were also a time when truly great exponents of Dzogpachenpo were still among us, masters born in the early part of the last century, whose soaring realization embodied the full force of the wisdom and mystery of the Dzogchen teachings. I think of Dudjom Rinpoche, Tulku Orgyen Rinpoche and Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorje. They are gone now, though of course their presence is always with us, and their wisdom lives on, in the disciple they cared for with such compassion. These extraordinary masters had been instrumental in establishing these teachings in the west, so enacting all those prophecies that the practice of Dzogchen would take root here. And as they left this world, I am sure that as they prayed for the teachings of Buddha to benefit countless beings, they will have invested those prayers, and all their aspirations, in His Holiness the Dalai Lama. For now that this generation of masters is no more, a teacher like His Holiness becomes even more precious, his role in securing the future of the teachings and their authenticity of even more vital and urgent significance. (Sogyal Lakar, 2000)

Rigpa also used Sogyal Lakar’s close connection to His Holiness to navigate through past scandals about abuses. I heard that they told inquirers, reporters and others, that His Holiness is fully supportive of Sogyal Lakar, using His Holiness’s good name to justify Sogyal Lakar’s actions.

In that spirit, when the eight, former senior Rigpa students came together to write a letter that would expose the serious abuses of Sogyal Lakar, then it was fitting they should follow the advice of Sogyal Lakar’s most senior, living teacher. They did this. They looked into their hearts and their motivation and they did the right thing, by all standards, in my opinion.

And His Holiness has supported their actions on several occasions. He spoke in English for all to hear his support. Now, however, he seems to have vanished from the Rigpa landscape. As far as anyone can see, neither Rigpa nor Sogyal Lakar have consulted His Holiness for guidance on the path forward during their darkest hour. Instead, they are consulting Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, who has just shrugged off His Holiness’s heart advice as mere “missed information”, mere “mis-translation.”

And, wasn’t it the glorious past plan to appoint Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche – a fully qualified and respected Dzogchen and Mahamudra master – as the successor of Sogyal Lakar? Now his name seems to be similarly removed from the official Rigpa narratives after he expressed a clear stance which includes that the safety of victims comes first.

Am I missing something? Isn’t this hypocritical?

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche is right. When a lama strays too far from the religion he is meant to represent, creating his own rules, then he has created a “New Religious Movement”—and is at risk of becoming a cult leader. However, black-and-white, rigid thinking is also a characteristic of most cults. Nowhere does His Holiness promote a new Vajrayana where samaya doesn’t matter—where it isn’t central and critical. Nowhere does he say that Vajrayana students can feel free to criticize their masters at will.

When Western Buddhist teachers met with His Holiness two decades ago and reported the rampant abuses that were occurring in Western Dharma Centers, he acknowledged the harm.¹ Then he worked with those teachers to lay down a path forward. He provided students with an approach that was not perfect—how can there be perfection in these times?—but that would cause least harm. This is something that leaders do. If any other Tibetan Buddhist lama laid down such an approach, then perhaps we could be wary. But this is a leader who has proven himself capable of advising students in ways that will mitigate harm, a teacher who has done more to protect and preserve the Tibetan Buddhist tradition than any other. And I would remind Rigpa that His Holiness is a holder of the Dzogchen tradition.

Is it good that a student who has samaya with Sogyal Lakar must speak out and criticize him? No. Would it be good for the student to stay silent while fellow students are harmed? No. Is it good that students consult a senior-most, Tibetan Buddhist teacher when the situation becomes critical and challenging? Yes. Only a true leader can give advice during such a time, a leader who can acknowledge harm and address complexity.

I am sad that Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche will not even begin his own advice to students by acknowledging harm. In fact, he has said on several occasions that abuse might even be a necessary part of the Vajrayana. In my opinion, when you disregard harm, for the cause of some greater religious practice, this is also a dangerous cultic practice.

And when you tell students to believe what you say (e.g. that His Holiness’s advice to students was misinformation or a mis-translation) instead of what they can see and hear with their own eyes and ears, (e.g. he spoke in English) then this is also a dangerous, cultic characteristic in my opinion.

Cults shut down the voice of students’ critical discernment and moral conscience. This is the essential means they use to control. Rigpa right now is caught in a dilemma. If they are going to lead students forward in a way that honors the great Vajrayana and embraces reform, then it seems they need to start with honesty. Stop fooling students. And then they need to honor what they teach. If they want to uphold the principals of samaya and guru devotion, then perhaps they could start by seeking guidance from Sogyal Lakar’s most senior, living teacher, His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

¹ This sentence was edited March 5, 2018 because it contained a wrong claim.

Additional information & thoughts for further analysis

The Dalai Lama about breaking Samaya:

Western Buddhist Teacher: Many students are afraid of breaking samaya—the commitment and bond with their guru—if they speak openly about what they perceive to be abuse. Does a teacher’s abusive behavior destroy the samaya and release the student?

H.H. the Dalai Lama: I don’t know. Although the guru has in a sense broken the samaya, that does not allow the student to break it as well. If the guru kills, that does not mean I can too! We shouldn’t emulate bad examples! We should respect the common perspective of the world in terms of what is right and wrong. Earlier I spoke of the situation with my two regents. Even though I have deep faith and respect for my teachers and consider them high spiritual beings, I did not hesitate to criticize their behavior because those actions were wrong no matter who did them. I didn’t speak out of hatred or disrespect, but because I love the Buddhadharma and their actions went against it.

It is essential to distinguish between two things: the person and their action. We criticize the action, not the person. The person is neutral: he or she wants to be happy and overcome suffering, and once their negative action stops, they will become a friend. The troublemaker is the afflictions and actions. Speaking out against the action does not mean that we hate the person. For example, we Tibetans fight Chinese injustice, but it doesn’t mean we are against the Chinese as human beings, even those who are ruthless. In meditation, I try to develop genuine compassion for these people while still opposing their actions. Thus, we may criticize a teacher’s abusive actions or negative qualities while we respect them as a person at the same time. There are still some beneficial aspects of the guru. A mistaken action doesn’t destroy their good qualities. If you criticize in this way, there is no danger of hellish rebirth as a result. Motivation is the key: speaking out of hatred or desire for revenge is wrong. However, if we know that by not speaking out, their bad behavior will continue and will harm the Buddhadharma, and we still remain silent, that is wrong.

Shortly after the letter from the eight, former senior Rigpa students was distributed, His Holiness made this statement at a Buddhist conference in Ladakh:

I feel some of these lama institutions have some sort of influence of the feudal system. That is outdated and must end – that feudal influence. Then eventually a lama institution creates lama politics [DL laughs heartily]. That’s very bad.

An individual lama’s disgrace doesn’t matter, but it gives a very bad impression about a monastery or a monk. Very bad. So we must pay more attention.

You should not say, ‘This is my guru. What guru says I must follow.’ That’s totally wrong! Buddha himself mentioned, ‘You must examine my teaching’. Similarly if one particular lama says something, you examine whether this goes well according to Buddhaʻs teaching or according to the circumstances in society. Then you must follow. If the lama says something; if you investigate and it’s not proper, then you should not follow the lama’s teaching. Even Dalai Lama’s teaching; if you find some contradiction you should not follow my teaching.

As far as Gelugpa is concerned, Lama Tsonghkapa clearly mentioned: if a lama teaches something that is against the dharma it should be avoided and opposed. If the lama’s teaching is in accord with the dharma it should be followed, if it is in discord with the Dharma it should not be followed.

Many years ago in Dharmasala at a Western [Buddhist] Teachers Conference, some Western Buddhist teachers mentioned some Zen masters and Tibetan Buddhist masters had created a very bad impression among people. Then I told them then; these people do not follow Buddhaʻs advice, Buddhaʻs teaching. We cannot do. So, the only thing is to make it public, through newspapers, through the radio. Make it public!

These lamas, although they don’t care about Buddha’s teaching, they may care about their face [points at his face, indicating shame]. I told them at that conference, almost 15 years ago I think. Now, recently Sogyal Rinpoche, my very good friend, but he’s disgraced. So some of his own students have now made public their criticism. (See here)

The conference he refers to was actually twenty-five years ago, but he clearly still abides by the advice he gave at that event. And certainly, the issues discussed at this conference are as relevant today as they were twenty-five years ago. There is a full video copy of this conference available, so that DJKR and others can check for themselves whether His Holiness has been mis-represented. His Holiness spoke in his (often broken) English and sometimes he spoke in Tibetan. His translator was the venerable Thubten Jingpa-la and His Holiness would listen closely to the translations and correct Jingpa-la if he felt the translation wasn’t exactly what he meant. I believe that we can rely on the translations, particularly in light of the fact that His Holiness today still abides by his advice. We can rely on what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears.

The afternoon of the first day was devoted to lamas and ethics. The first presenter was from the Zen tradition but he spoke about abuses across all Buddhist traditions and His Holiness responded at length on the need to speak out and criticize, publicize the lama’s misbehavior in newspapers if necessary etc. In his own words, he concludes,

Anyway, worthwhile to publicize these things. And make other people know. That’s the only way. Meanwhile, make very clear, clear distinction what is true Buddhist teaching. Then these individual behavior totally against Buddha’s teaching. So—no longer considered as a teacher. That’s the only way.

However, during this same session, the subject moved on to what a student should do if the misbehavior occurred by a teacher to whom they have committed and His Holiness responded in a very traditional manner on minute 48:15:

Now this is the problem now. Now, as a Buddhist, as a Buddhist who practice Tantrayana, now I can only say is before receiving teacher [before you] consider as your teacher—before that, no problem. Receive teaching, then see something wrong, then no more respect. Perfectly all right. Should be. Once you receive teaching, with realization, recognition as your guru, and particularly tantric teaching, after that you saw some problem there, then it is very very difficult to develop disrespect to that person. And best thing in the meantime, no need to keep receiving teaching or something, become distance. Just ignore. Not showing disrespect. Simply close on that side. That’s the only way.

So here, the advice he gave is the traditional advice that is in some scriptures, advice that DJKR gave recently. It is also the advice he gave in a teaching on Mahamudra that has been published (HH Dalai Lama, 1997, The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra, Snow Lion Publications, pp. 209-210).

However, two days later at the conference, he was questioned about this particular advice and his position changed. This happened towards the end of a discussion on Women and Buddhism. The discussion returned to the subject of how students should respond to mis-behaviors on the part of their lamas. This is session 6 of 8, starting at minute 113:00:

First, a Western teacher questioned His Holiness on crazy wisdom behaviors and speaking out.

His Holiness: “As I mentioned earlier about my own example, two tutors you see, due to hunger for power, they fought, even utilize army, Tibetan army, disgraceful. On public, I took firm stand, these are wrong! But my individual practice—to me—both very high lama, doesn’t matter.”

Western Buddhist Teacher: “This was not the point. Students will think that he IS the exception, so it must be OK that he does that.”

His Holiness: “But even, I think, the individual student, the belief, this is something really marvelous, the Buddha—sort of siddhi, mahasiddhis you see behavior. This should not—public—“

Thubten Jingpa translating: “But one should not take it on the public sort of level. One may individually view such actions of one’s guru as skillful means of a mahasiddha, but one should not take it as a public stand and try to sort of explain it—justify it.”

His Holiness: “In public, we must follow the general you see Buddhist—unless you see that lama [perform] some really genuine, authentic, miracle things… Then all right. With some scientist, carry test, of genuine miracle, we can I mean we have to accept. Otherwise, we cannot allow these things.”

Skip a few minutes of tape, then:

Western Buddhist Teacher speaks of a crazy wisdom-type tradition in the Korean Buddhist tradition and concludes: “So it seems every tradition [has] created a loophole.”

His Holiness: “As I mentioned earlier—Professor Joshi, the Indian history, so I think we must take every care, every care. Every precaution.” [Professor Joshi claimed that the demise of Buddhism in India was partly due to the mis-practice of Tantra, particularly due to non-ethical behaviors.]

Western Buddhist Teacher: “Your Holiness, two days ago, I believe you said that it would be a good idea to publish in a newspaper if a teacher would not respond and change his behavior. Then it would be best to make it a public issue. I thought you said with a higher initiation of tantra that if one accepts a lama as guru, then he should not publicly publish it in a newspaper—“

Martine Bathchelor interjects: “He’s your guru—if you have taken him as your guru—then can you still publicize? What you said before—before you take as a guru, you can criticize, but after you take as a guru [hand gesture indicating ‘no ccriticism’]”

His Holiness: “Now, I think, now one example, my own case—I received many initiations from one of my regents, yes—yet when I talk—“

Thubten Jingpa translating: “Let me give my own example. I’ve taken many initiations from one of my regents. And yet, at the same time, on a number of occasions, I have made public statements where I am criticizing, pointing out the wrongdoings of this teacher, especially my autobiography.”

His Holiness: “I also mention—I think I mention. But one thing is quite sure, I never praise these wrong things as good. Now, what our aim is—purify Buddhadharma. The interests of the Buddhadharma and interests of one individual lama—other is much bigger. Isn’t it? So, with sincere motivation, in order to save Buddhadharma, in order to save at least a few hundred disciples of that particular lama, with sincere motivation, with salutation, then criticize. I think that’s the proper way.”

“And if you can, that individual disciple, go… go straight to the lama, ‘I’ve done this’ with sincere motivation and I apologize.’ Then that lama, very sincere lama, then he or she will—Thubten Jingpa translating: “Will acknowledge.”

His Holiness: “If that lama—furious, then that also another indication. Then just say [His Holiness waves his hand] ‘Hello, bye-bye.’” [And] go.

[Laughter, session ends]

Students can make what they want of the two positions held by His Holiness. For myself, as a follower of His Holiness, the two statements are fine, no contradiction. One speaks of the optimum situation, one in which speaking out is not necessary for the future of the Buddhadharma or to reduce harm and protect the welfare of other students. The other statement addresses the less-desirable situation, one in which students and the Buddhadharma are being harmed. Motivation and critical discernment then become key factors on determining right behavior, which are totally congruent with the Buddha’s teaching overall.

line-gothic

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s Take on abuse, Vajrayana, Sogyal Rinpoche and Rigpa & Responses to it

Guru and Student in the Vajrayana – by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse
- The merit of pointing out abuse in Buddhism: Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche – Justin Whitaker
- On Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s Statement From a Reader of the New York Times 2017/08/18
- A Heartfelt Response to Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche on “Guru and Student in Vajrayana” – What Now Blog
- Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche On the Situation in Rigpa – What Now Blog
- Is Vajrayana Buddhism a Cult Religion? Part 1 – What Now Blog
- Is Vajrayana Buddhism a Cult Religion? Part 2 – What Now Blog
Calling Out the Guru from Afar: Dzongsar Khyentse’s ‘Sex Contract’ and the Subsequent Backlash from the Buddhist Community – Erik Jampa Andersson (see also Justin Whitaker’s In Wake of #MeToo, a Tibetan Buddhist lama Offers a Teacher-Student “Sex Contract”)
A Letter to Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche Concerning “Guru and Student in the Vajrayana” by Bernie Schreck
- Response to Bernie Schreck from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche
  - Don’t Believe Purely out of Respect – What Now Blog
Talk at Rigpa Berlin February 2018
- Vajrayana Buddhism in the Modern World – What Now Blog
- Some thoughts on Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s talks – What Now Blog
- Another View on Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s talks – Topden
- Just to Clarify: What H.H. the Dalai Lama Said About Criticizing a Vajrayana Lama – Joanne Clark
Talk at Lerab Ling France February 2018
Talk at Rigpa London Part I // Part II
A good summary of key issues of all the talks given by DJKR at European Rigpa Centres: THE ELEPHANT, THE MOUSE AND THE SCARY WORDS – What Now Blog

Update 2021

Dzongsar Khyentse & his Dance with Nihilism – Joanne Clark

234Comments

Add yours

1

Franz (@kabajef) on March 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
Reply

Hello,
Is there a way to send this to H.H. and ask about the – misinformation [or missed information] and mis-translation ? We know it’s not the case, but a clear answer would put D.K.R definitly in the corner. Not ?
- 2
  
  tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 2:31 am
  Reply
  
  Ha ha ha. Well said. I fear we have to use our intelligence to discriminate who brings in distortions and who doesn’t. I fear we can’t push HHDL or any lama to express an opposing view to another lama. It’s already very edgy and I see a risk for sectarian divides etc.
3

Carol McQuire on March 1, 2018 at 2:59 am
Reply

Joanne,

Just a few points for now. I understand that DJKR is stating what the fundamental practice of tantra is – to see reality as purity with the teacher as the finger pointing at the moon, showing the method that goes towards the result – the student’s inner purity – showing the student how to achieve this. The teacher has to be ethical, effective and trustworthy – possessing a true basis for that confidence and ‘pure view’ – as a real danger of creating a mess lies in taking on a teacher for this Vajrayana path without checking (DJKR says ‘analysing’) that the teacher actually has the necessary qualities. DJKR and HHDL agree on this – I can send quotes. And DJKR is pointing out that HHDL cannot change the basic pratice of ‘purity’ as that is the tantric path. Asking followers of Shugden to leave when vows & initiations take place is an extension of that ‘setting up’ of a trusting relationship. If you don’t trust HHDL’s understanding of the dangers of Shugden then how can you see HHDL as an expression of primordial purity?

Can we see Sogyal as having ‘gone mad’ and harming others instead of taking responsibilty for their enlightenment? And therefore it is within tantric method to ‘leave quietly with no fuss’? HHDL told ex NKT in person to ‘keep respect’ for Kelsang Gyatso when leaving the NKT having been mistreated. What does that mean?

DJKR reiterates that students choose a path they are aware of, consciously. Without their own decision, coerced by a teacher, there is no conscious choice and therefore no samaya to break by leaving. This must be a relief to many.

Samaya therefore occurs within a very specific voluntary relationship in which the teacher takes responsibilty for the student’s enlightenment. Properly taken up it should not be given up by the student – this would mean breaking their own vows. This is what DJKR expressses doubt about HHDL giving up on – as HHDL is not a cult leader.

This is why DJKR repeatedly stated that Sogyal had created a mess, causing students to break vows through lack of preparation and from not behaving according to the Shravakayana.

The gap between HHDL and DJKR’s views is, I think, smaller than you seem to see. DJKR noted how Sogyal was beyond his control, refusing to listen to advice. Let’s see what structures are put in place and how DJKR supports upset and abused students in person. He has offered to meet the person who made the ‘edited’ video on Facebook already.

Does it matter what level of ‘noise’ is made if the end result is beneficial – for Dharma and for its followers?
- 4
  
  Joanne on March 1, 2018 at 11:03 am
  Reply
  
  Carol, you say, “Does it matter what level of ‘noise’ is made if the end result is beneficial – for Dharma and for its followers?”– and I say yes it does, because if the result is more mess, then it’s too late. And be careful of statements like that, they are ground for much trouble! (e.g. the end justifying the means) The means being used by Rigpa right now are deeply flawed– so our best bet is to be concerned with the result. Calling the means “a level of noise” diminishes the importance of critical and moral discernment. And if the gap between HHDL and DJKR’s views are similar, why has HHDL not been involved for guidance and advice? And why didn’t DJKR clarify how he has a similar view to HHDL, instead of denying HH ever gave the advice he gave? As I said, HH was very important to Rigpa while he could play a political role– but now he seems to be less important. Why is this?
  - 5
    
    Carol McQuire on March 1, 2018 at 11:57 am
    Reply
    
    The new talk from Lerab Ling is clearer. Let’s give this time. The original signers didn’t ask HHDL for help, they only informed him. So who would bring HHDL in? Trying with DJKR seems more sensible. There are more talks to come. I hope the level of noise eventually works to make Rigpa safe.
    - 6
      
      tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 12:53 pm
      Reply
      
      I acknowledge the courage of DKR to go into this deeply unpleasant situation. I also appreciate and respect his many many good works & projects. I respect him also as a Buddhist master and for his knowledge about Buddhism and meditation. But sorry I can’t take those inconsistencies and the absence of compassion + the victim blaming or belittling those been seriously harmed. I can’t accept that.
      
      I found the invitation to the event at Rigpa Berlin already manipulative. Now, adding to the deeply complex, rotten, twisted, manipulative, often dishonest Rigpa cosmos concepts or views which increase or perpetuate fuzziness and ambiguity; and adding to that also a type of denigration of the basic Buddhist teachings (“Cindarella teachings”) – which actual form the foundation of Vajrayana and are integral to it – how can this bring any good? How can this dispel confusion and increase clarity?
      
      Hope should be based on something existent that enables positive change. As far as I can see there is no certainty that hope has a basis. DKR, OTR + KNR form rather a team that perpetuates concepts and understandings that formed the basis of the abuse within Rigpa.
      
      However, I would be more than happy history or the outcome of all of this proves me wrong. On the other hand. It’s good to have these discussions and opposing views. At the end, basically we want hopefully the same: not harming others and progressing on the spiritual path + supporting others on their spiritual path.
7

tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 3:13 am
Reply

For the time being I also share my initial thoughts after having watched the first 70 minutes. See it rather as a thesis or collection of thought than any attempt to claim a truth:

In the beginning DKR, uses the term “projection” (in the context of criticism of his writing) and he seems not to make a connection that Vajrayana is the biggest projection of all.

What else is it to think a human being with faults is a Buddha than a projection? IMO DKR denigrates in the beginning the basic Buddhist teachings (conventional reality, the four noble truth, including ethics) as “Cinderella teachings” – told for kids to have a better sleep (!) and equates the Vajrayana with the real thing, the ultimate. Thereby he is placing Vajrayana over the basic Buddhist teachings and I wonder: What is so ultimate about seeing a non-Buddha as a Buddha, what is so ultimate to project an enlightened being onto a violent, sexually greedy narcissist? (There is a general way of thinking in DKR’s writings: he pushes back ethics by phrases like “going beyond conceptual” “being non-dual” but he seems to miss that seeing a human being (a Buddhist teacher / guru) as a Buddha and to deny all the obvious faults he manifests or performs in his actions and interpreting these to be enlightened activities (see his recent letter to Bernie) is conceptual, it is dual, its not beyond that. And to see the Vajrayana guru as a Buddha and to avoid even to think “abuse” is nothing more than an ethical guideline. Actual, as we all know “to brainwash” yourself to see the guru as a Buddha needs a lot of concepts and is not a means beyond concepts, and since you struggle with your daily awareness it’s also not non-dual. Its the biggest cindarella teaching from all, isn’t it? The Four Noble Truths are far less Cinderella 😉

In the beginning (minute 11) he speaks of “alleged victims”. He claims he cares about them a lot, that he cares beyond emotional or physical hurt, he claims he cares for their seed of enlightenment and continuous spiritual path. He cares about their doubts with respect to the Buddhadharma and Vajrayana. “I care so much“, Then he adds: “by caring you just don’t want to lend your shoulder to cry upon and pad, you want to do something more.”

At that point, my feeling, also in the context of his former writings, I feel that this is basically insulting the victims because he reduces their needs and the means for healing as giving a shoulder to cry and to pad a victim. For me in this part he basically belittles their needs, he starts talking about “alleged victims” whereby their suffering is not even acknowledged, and then reducing the harm and what has to be done to help them to heal to a comforting, shoulder resting compassion. If I were a victim – there are two women in psychiatry in Germany because of Sogyal’s sexualised violence – I would feel this as an arrogant, ignorant denigration of my situation and sufferings.*

What I got from this part is, that DKR is referring to a compassion which sees the needs for the victims in understanding Vajrayana correctly and to overcome their doubts with respect to Buddhadharma and thereby he is taking care of them. Well this might be a case of placing doctrine over the actual need of a person … it could indicate a certain type of fundamentalist attitude (the doctrine is more important than the human being).

Remember that he belittled also the victims in his past 10.000 word post for not been able to come out earlier, for not been able to have had the intelligence to see through (the deceptive) Rigpa system or to understand the deeds of SR beforehand properly. But basically, its DKR’s fault if he doesn’t understand the deceptive / manipulative cult recruiting dynamics, indoctrination, the inner-cult dynamics and processes which make it hard for a victim (or survivor) to come to clarity and to speak up.

* I got the following video link from one of those who were harmed. Another one wrote, though the video is not perfect it expresses how he feels:
- 8
  
  Kata on July 2, 2019 at 9:18 am
  Reply
  
  It is beneficial to look at this with out Buddhist eyes. Dzongsar Khyentse sees things in a very limited way. He is conditioned by his upbringing, education, culture and his role. It is obvious he has not put himself in the position of those who were abused. His comments and attitude would change, if for example his own child was abused, one would hope. But then again it is difficult to say. Humans are complicated. The book ‘Ordinary Men’ is testament to that. Their I’d a lot of big talk by Lama’s in Buddhism but when the rubber hits the road, they can’t back it up with action. This is what people have to realize. Don’t talk about it, show it to me, if you can’t then shut up.
9

Carol McQuire on March 1, 2018 at 3:55 am
Reply

The second talk from Lerab Ling is up. People may find this much clearer.

Also Talhia states on her blog some quite positive views of the first talk, Tenzin. She says how it’s important to listen to the full talk.
- 10
  
  tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 1:17 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you Carol. I noted that Tahlia found a lot of good things by listening until the end. Need more time to go through all of this 😉
  - 11
    
    Carol McQuire on March 2, 2018 at 1:34 am
    Reply
    
    Thank you for being open minded, Tenzin.
    - 12
      
      tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 1:47 am
      Reply
      
      He has many valid points too. I focus rather from POV of what I would find helpful and unhelpful respectively for healing from and preventing further abuse. It seems a common way of him to have a mixture of questionable views and acceptable or reasonable views and thoughts. So I do cherry picking of those things which I find unacceptable or increasing confusion or forming a basis for future manipulations, indoctrination and abuse.
      
      In a way I find this dangerous to haves such a mix of acceptable with rather problematic or unreasonable views (very different to YMR OR HHDL who are so utterly clean clear) because if you have 80% acceptable / reasonable / well thought out points but 20% questionable or unreasonable views – e.g. “why not offering sex to the guru? No where it is stated in the tantric texts you can’t offer sex to the guru“ – people will swallow such questionable or unreasonable views without knowing. Having entered their minds these views perform their functions and be it a function that you also adopt a denigrating or belittling view to survivors of abuse, media, critical minds etc.
      - 13
        
        Joanne on March 2, 2018 at 11:49 pm
        Reply
        
        Absolutely, Tenzin, that is what I see that is concerning. Confusion, because of the mix of acceptable and unacceptable– and leaving the door to nihilism just a little open. It’s dangerous in my mind.
        
        14
        
        Joanne on March 3, 2018 at 12:07 am
        Reply
        
        Also, I am concerned with DJKR giving students an “out” with their samaya by telling them that he didn’t think SL prepared students well enough etc. Many ex-Rigpa and current Rigpa students are very certain that they have legitimate samaya with SL. So they are needing help with ways to move forward in that context (and HHDL has given some guidance there). To deny their samaya altogether simply adds more confusion as students move forward.
        
        15
        
        tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 1:38 am
        
        This might be true. Some of the questions which might need to be answered are: Do SL’s students have Samaya or not? How does the student know if he has Samaya or not with SL? What must be the qualifications from SL’s side to provide a condition that Samaya is established? If SL broke his Samaya already, can the student have a Samaya still?
        
        If they have Samaya, DKR’s advice in the beginning of the quote in your article is very correct. According to the tantric texts, if Samaya is established the way out is to take a silent, neutral distance without saying any bad word. It is also recommended in the oral tradition – also by HHDL – to not loose or respect (in the sense of looking down on the teacher as far as I understand that). DKR is right if he stresses that this is the way and that the tantric texts don’t explain any other way. We have to say also, that HHDL deviates from the tantric texts when he suggests to make the misbehaviour publicly known, if there is not any other means to stop a gone astray or abusive teacher and if there is evidence of the abuse and if all attempts to stop abuse by addressing it with him fail.
        
        To be fair. DKR just sticks to the tantric texts in that point while HHDL doesn’t.
        
        However, since DKR is not too literal with other issues – the Cindarella teachings – its a bit of a “mystery” that he is sticking here so much to the books. At the end, Buddhist ethics, are your own choice, they are a direction, you are in charge in how you live them. You are in charge to see how you can put them into practice. You are in charge to deal with your ethical dilemmas which are not in the books!
        
        So for instance, if there is a person (or an animal) who has extreme pain, which can’t be cured, the being is on the edge to die, and – if its a human – he or she asks you to help him or her to die (or out of genuine compassion you bring the animal to a veterinarian to put the animal to sleep), from pov of Buddhist ethics, this is not correct, but if you really care, if you checked thoroughly, if there is no other, no better way, you might take on the consequences it has to do an action which you shouldn’t do. If you have thought out this for yourself carefully, if you did your best, if you are guided by genuine compassion and a wisdom as best as you can, who is the judge to condemn you?
        
        16
        
        tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 12:00 pm
        
        A correction from my side! I wrote:
        
        To be fair. DKR just sticks to the tantric texts in that point while HHDL doesn’t.
        
        I wrote this because obviously HHDL has different times recommended that if Buddhist teachers (which implied tantric teachers) misbehave, and they can’t be stopped and if there is evidence for the misdeeds, to go to public is a good way—no matter how beneficial the other deeds of the guru might be.
        
        However, on the first day of the conference with Western Buddhist teachers, HHDL is asked the question about what a student should do after taking on a teacher and then discovering he/she is misbehaving, he is very traditional in his response—saying students must distance without criticism, staying neutral “that’s the only way.”
        
        http://meridian-trust.org/category/conference/?sub-categories=the-western-buddhist-teachers-conference
        
        17
        
        tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 1:57 am
        Reply
        
        Yes. To give an example of such a mix from his The Guru Drinks Bourbon? book:
        
        SEX AS AN OFFERING
        
        In the tantric texts there is not one single shloka that says a student should offer gold but should not offer sex to the guru. Similarly, there is nothing that says you should offer tomatoes but not onions.
        
        The value of the practice of offering very intimate things like sex depends so much on the individual. If you encounter a master who has a reputation for roving eyes and flirtatiousness and you find that unacceptable, simply don’t get close, or wear a blanket or fluffy clothes. This advice may bring to mind the attitude of men who blame the victim: “Oh, that girl shouldn’t have been wearing a miniskirt—of course she was molested.” But unfortunately in many parts of the world, especially in Asia, causes and conditions such as skimpy dress are misinterpreted as an open invitation. Those causes and conditions need to be changed. It’s definitely possible. Just look at places like Brazil, where skimpy dresses are accepted, even expected. In the meantime, if you don’t want something to happen, you should try not to create that situation. I wonder how people got turned on during the Stone Age.
        
        Of course, it’s mind-boggling that in India—a land with so much culture and thousands of years of discourse on ethics, morality, compassion, and love—even those who protest against the rape situation wonder if the victim may have been asking for trouble. Deep down they are thinking, “She shouldn’t have worn those clothes.” I don’t know about other cultures, but generally speaking, in Asia there is so much sexual repression, especially in certain parts of the Middle East, India, and Tibet. As a result, it’s possible that many Arabs and Tibetans think Western women are loose. The respect they offer to their own women is not offered when they talk to Westerners, and that’s not acceptable. Bikinis on television don’t help; it just confirms their thinking. Yes, as a principle, it’s completely wrong to think like that. But the fact of the matter is that it’s likely seekers will search for a guru in Asia, and this is how the mindstream of some people works there. This is why a fluffy blanket might be useful, especially if you don’t want this lama gazing at you as he is about to orgasm. – Khyentse, Dzongsar Jamyang. The Guru Drinks Bourbon? (S.175). Shambhala. Kindle-Version.
        
        It follows, in the tantric texts there is not one single shloka (verse) that says a student should offer gold but should not offer sex with a cow to the guru. Therefore, why not offering sex with a cow to the guru?
        
        Also, an old man or old woman can offer sex to Sogyal or DKR because the texts don’t say you cannot. Moreover, since the gurus abide in a non-dual, non-conceptual world (surrounded by Dakas and Dakinis), being beyond the samsaric likes and dislikes (attachment and aversion), Sogyal and DKR can enjoy similar sex with an old man or old woman in exchange for their teachings, isn’t it?
        
        You might disagree with the beginning while reading this chapter by DKR. But when you agree with the rest, at the end of this chapter, you forgot the initial doubts in the beginning and swallowed on the way that offering sex to the guru is perfectly fine.
        
        18
        
        Kata on July 2, 2019 at 2:56 pm
        
        This is an excellent example of his warped logic and arrogance. The thing is, this quote is seen as profound only by those who lack reasoning, logic and sufficient knowledge of the teachings. This is the big problem that beginners face. Dzongsar Khyentse often says vajrayana should be kept secret, but he continually presents the view of non duality and often uses it in an unskillful way. He also uses it in an arrogant way, indicating that ethics and morals are merely relative and if you have the view you are beyond them which is not the case and is another example of talking the talk but not being able to walk the walk.
        
        19
        
        Kata on July 2, 2019 at 9:45 am
        Reply
        
        Yes. If someone’s communication and it’s content is confusing then it indicates they are confused and lack skill. Don’t project profound qualities onto it even if you are supposedly practicing purr view. This is where everything goes wrong. The projection of purity destroys their ability to think critically.
        
        20
        
        tenpel on July 2, 2019 at 10:02 am
        
        Thank you Kata and Adamo. Just a brief addition: the projection of purity can also block compassion. That’s why Vajrayana groups in the west have a deep ideological problem to deal with abuse properly. Being reminded (or threatened) to keep “pure view” critical thinking and compassion for the victims is blocked or knocked out. Cultish behaviour takes the lead.
- 21
  
  tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 11:35 am
  Reply
  
  Much clearer? A friend found this distorted and dangerous view:
  
  First he quotes from Tahlia Newland:
  
  Some lamas do place Vajrayana above the law and this belief that Vajrayana has its own rule separate to the rule of law is the single most dangerous aspect of Vajrayana for both students and society.
  
  Then he says,
  
  I’m sorry to say, not only Vajrayana, whole Buddhadharma is above the law. If you want [to] put one foot firmly on the ground of samsara and have the little advantage of Nirvana, I would suggest you download mindfulness APPs. Don’t become—don’t follow Buddha—it’s really, it’s a bad news. I actually don’t understand why there’s this question, because if people like Martin Luther King—”Human law that is not rooted in eternal law”. You know he believed there’s more beyond human law. I’M TALKING ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING.
  
  Fact is, Martin Luther King was an activist who worked to change laws to make them more compassionate!
  
  Fact is, the Buddhadharma is not necessarily above the law either! Many of the rules for monks and nuns the Buddha gave in order to avoid that people loose faith in his followers – and subsequently to not loose faith in his teachings. The reason been given in the Vinaya is: because if the followers of the Buddha behave badly and not in accordance with the society, the people will loose faith in his followers and subsequently they will also loose faith in the Buddhadharma and then there is no opportunity for them to get the benefits of the Buddhadharma, the benefits of higher rebirth, the avoidance of lower rebirth, Nirvana or full enlightenment – or just the benefits of cultivating a more peaceful, loving, wise and compassionate mind; or – by the practice of ethical discipline – a cooled down mind. Just check how un-cool SL is. If you read the reports of survivors, it seems obvious that SL is overpowered by an untamed mind, overheated with greed and violence due to his lack of ethical discipline.
  
  If the Dharma cannot tame him, maybe the laws are going to tame him.
  - 22
    
    Carol McQuire on March 3, 2018 at 11:39 am
    Reply
    
    None of the 8 wanted to go to court so how will the law contain Sogyal?
    - 23
      
      tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 12:27 pm
      Reply
      
      Good point. Lets see, things might change in that regard …
  - 24
    
    Joanne on March 3, 2018 at 11:53 am
    Reply
    
    Here’s an excerpt from the 1993 conference with Buddhist teachers and HHDL about ethics and the Vajrayana. This trouble has been going on a long time!!
    
    Western Buddhist Teacher: Unlike the Theravadans, who take the Buddha and the Arhats as their role models, and who therefore have a clear code of behavior, knowing even precepts in a slightly dualistic way, what is right and wrong, very clear. In the Vajrayana traditions, it’s much more complicated because some practitioners take for example Guru Padmasambhava, Tilopa, Gantripa (? Unclear) etc. as their role models and look on their sometimes wild and unorthodox behavior as an excuse for indulging themselves in sex and drink and so on. I mean that’s their excuse, well Tilopa did it, why not me?
    
    So stories told about mahasiddhas like Drukpa Kunley can create this condition where some teachers consider themselves above and beyond ordinary, moral laws—due to their deep realization of shunyata and nonduality. So, what is actually meant by this idea of crazy wisdom and is it ever valid to break the precepts? Stories of the mahasiddhas of the past show that their wild behavior resulted in a spiritual benefit to the object of their seeming abuses. For example, their sexual partners gained realizations and those that they killed were liberated and so on.
    
    However, in the present time it seems so often that the unrestrained behavior of certain lamas leads to pain, humiliation, confusion and conflict—even to the rejection of the Dharma. So how can this be skillful means or compassionate activity? And again, sometimes women are forced into a sort of “Dakini role”, which leads to jealousy, competition, and also, this shuts a Dharma door for them. Right, it does not help them. And also, even if the lama himself is above ordinary, moral restraints, as a result of his higher realization, even if—does he not have a responsibility to his lesser developed students to set an example of how a Dharma life should be lived? For example, in Chogyam Trungpa’s organization, many students became alcoholics, in addition to indulging in promiscuous sex, which simply created a lot of chaos in their lives.
    
    Afterall, Padmasambhava himself said: “One’s view should be as wide as the skies and one’s conduct as —
    
    Whereupon His Holiness interjected “Yes, exactly!”
    
    And the teacher continued “fine as barley flour.”
    
    His Holiness: Yes, yes. Really it is a serious matter. It reminds me of the late Professor Joshi.
    
    Thubten Jingpa translating for His Holiness: “The late professor Joshi in his book he sites one of the factors that led to the degeneration of Buddhism inside India was the popularization of tantric practices—particularly leading to unethical behavior.
    
    His Holiness: So therefore, basically the tantric teaching as itself is called the “secret doctrine” so must remain secret. So secret means only those few individuals who really have the basic foundation, core basic qualifications, then give them that practice. Not for public or many people. Then basically as Buddhadharma now I think the—
    
    Thubten Jingpa translating: One of the more clear cut things that we could do as a Buddhist, which does not require any complicated philosophical justifications or explanations is to simply site the example of the Buddha and say, ‘how did the Buddha act? What did he do?’ And then follow this example. So as a Buddhist, we cannot maintain that Buddha did not know tantra, nor did he not practice tantra, but the Buddha’s own lifestyle depicted, demonstrated a very serious respect to the ethics.
  - 25
    
    tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 2:28 pm
    Reply
    
    To differentiate a bit. Its not so black and white either as I say myself:
    
    Yes, Buddhism leads you beyond Samsara; and yes, the laws don’t reflect necessarily Buddhist values. And yes, according to Mahayana texts, a Bodhisattva could kill under certain circumstances out of great compassion for the perpetrator a perpetrator who performs harmful actions. And yes, its good to have thought provoking statements to let go narrow thinking.
    
    Its not totally wrong to say Buddhism is above the law in a way, BUT here it’s been said in a context of a culture that is highly manipulative, ambiguous, fuzzy, indoctrinating – a culture or environment which includes a gaslighting “therapy” (the harm the victims of SL experienced is not due to his deeds but the victims’ own childhood) and the presence of different kinds of harmful abuse. In such a context, I see such a view as dangerous. I can’t see it as thought provoking but a means to perpetuate a fuzziness that is the mark of cults and the basis of the abuse which happened in Rigpa for decades.
    
    In that context it might be good to see how DKR’s view adds to another Rigpa Lama’s view, Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche who said:
    
    * Sebastien: “About beating. Is it appropriate or not?”
    
    OTR: “There is no Tibetan, European or Indian Vajrayana. Vajrayana is Vajrayana. Inconceivable trust and wisdom of the great masters. When a lama has mastered a great primordial wisdom, everything he does is for the benefit of sentient beings. Such great beings, whether it coresponds to Western ideas or not, if they kill somenone, no problem.
    
    “The back scratcher? I don’t find anything extraordinary. There are countless stories of students who gained realization for being beaten, cf. the benefit of being cut with knives.
    
    “Some masters fired, used their rifles to teach. JKCL has beaten a lot of people. He did that to remove obstacles, to bring blessings. They had immense devotion and pure samaya. Penor R walked into a room and beat all the people who had come to receive empowerment. Blood flooded from their heads. After taking 6 steps, there was no blood left.
    
    “Ane Damcho: Why didn’t she leave immediately? Why did she stay for 15 years? Why didn’t she go to the police immediately? Why did he strike her on that day? Ask SR. Beating hard increases wisdom. It seems you don’t have that tradition in Europe. If a great mahasiddha came to Europe, nobody would have devotion for him and people would say he is mad. You need a master who talks gently and makes you feel special. SR hugs you. I don’t.”
    - 26
      
      Kata on July 2, 2019 at 10:05 am
      Reply
      
      Orgen Tobgal I which text does it say hitting someone helps them achieve enlightenment? If that is true, then Buddha should have beaten all his studentd. Orgen Tobgal is known for being angry and acting tough, saying beating students is good, but I bet if he was in a real street fight he would curl into a little ball.
      - 27
        
        tenpel on July 2, 2019 at 10:38 am
        Reply
        
        When I remember correctly there was a video or transcript or so. The source should be linked here somewhere in the blog.
  - 28
    
    Joanne on March 3, 2018 at 11:20 pm
    Reply
    
    Fact is, this statement of his is not going to help Lerab Ling with their court case, trying to prove that there are not cultic activities occurring at Lerab Ling. Statements like these are red flags. Suggesting that your religion is above the law is simply not skillful and very very dangerous.
    
    I also feel like DJKR is somewhat confused. They say that the biggest challenge for a bodhisattva is emerging from a meditative insight into emptiness and then being able to constructively interact with the conventional world. From DKJR’s strange Cinderella stories in the name of pure perception to his nihilistic claims that the Vajrayana is above the law– and his inferences that ethics are not part of the Vajrayana– he seems to be maybe struggling with this? Certainly, if I were a student of his, I would be struggling now.
- 29
  
  tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 4:41 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi Carol, I read now Tahlia Newland’s blog post and also reflections of her in an email. I appreciate her balanced, clear attitude and how she fairly put this all together.
  
  I stated my thoughts to this here on my FB page: https://www.facebook.com/peljortenzin/posts/1862880700639306?pnref=story
  
  May there be healing, clarity, sanity, wisdom and compassion. And may all those who entered the spiritual path be able to continue it by having genuine, wise, compassionate spiritual friends.
30

suan craig on March 1, 2018 at 4:35 am
Reply

it may be that he doesn’t understand vajrayana? i think that, in the early days, if there was an open understanding of consort practice then we, the students, would have been better prepared. and we would recognize abuse when we saw it.

after all as one roshi told me “beware ambitious monks”
- 31
  
  tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 8:04 am
  Reply
  
  Sogyal Lakar nor Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche are monks though Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche wears the robes of a monk at times – even when invited to a dinner (with Charles Ramble) and coming with a girlfriend. There are many images of DKR in monks robes. It’s Tibetan custom that high non-monastic Rinpoches who are not ordained, who are not monks or married wear monks robes. This is highly confusing and I think just inappropriate. It only creates confusion.
  - 32
    
    Carol McQuire on March 1, 2018 at 12:33 pm
    Reply
    
    Tenzin,
    
    DJKR is married. His wife goes everywhere with him.
    
    He wears robes, which are not monastic, out of respect for his Bhutanese and Tibetan heritage and tradition. Surely Charles Ramble – as a Tibetologist – would understand this?
    
    It is starting to appear as though any possible detail is being used to discredit DJKR and question his ethics.
    
    Why not wait until all the talks are completed to fully understand what he is saying. Questions can be sent in.
    - 33
      
      tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 12:56 pm
      Reply
      
      It was a nun who told me the story and who criticised it as confusing. I defended DKR at that time – like you – with quite the same reasons but later I agree with her, it only creates confusion. We should dispel confusion and not create more I think. So, I accepted her argument as convincing…
      - 34
        
        Carol McQuire on March 1, 2018 at 1:47 pm
        Reply
        
        If we are listening to a respected teacher from another culture why should we expect them to ignore their own traditions and habits about dress in favour of removing our confusion? Isn’t that our own cultural arrogance?
        
        And adding the comment about ‘a girlfriend’ adds to the unfair implication of a lack of ethics, Tenzin. Especially if he’s married. Let’s try to keep the arguments clean and focused.
        
        35
        
        tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 2:23 pm
        Reply
        
        The girl friend is what the nun told me. I didn’t know he is married. Thank your for the correction and input, Carol.
    - 36
      
      matilda7 on March 1, 2018 at 10:22 pm
      Reply
      
      Carol, DKR has a main partner but don’t assume he’s actually married unless you’ve heard him refer to himself as being “married”. Also, it is widely known that the relationship is not monogamous, on his part at least. It is no secret that DKR has other consorts.
    - 37
      
      yamaintaka on March 1, 2018 at 10:30 pm
      Reply
      
      What you are saying here is in other words: “..why not trust this “noble being” and wait as long as you need to finally recognize how stupid you are…”. I can tell you, that makes me really angry, because i feel also being a “victim” of exactly THIS mind-setting…
      - 38
        
        Carol McQuire on March 2, 2018 at 1:30 am
        Reply
        
        Nope. Yamaintaka…
        
        Am saying wait a week until the talks are completed.
        
        Trust comes from interaction that is accurate and helpful. If not, why trust? It would be blind faith.
        
        Am amazed it’s got this far.. The authoritarian elements you so strongly hate kept Sogyal untouched by the consequences of his actions for years.
        
        The NKT’s sexual shenanigans & power games haven’t been properly exposed yet at all.
39

matilda7 on March 1, 2018 at 7:40 am
Reply

Agree with Tenpel that the teaching on Pure perception is Cinderella-ish. While originally intended, i think, to train our negative minds towards openness and positive perceptions in general and specifically, in relation to our Guru’s actions, it’s now used to excuse the harmful behaviour of a few Vajrayana teachers, i’m inclined to think that it’s become the snake-oil of the Vajrayana. Dharma or dogma?

Concerning DKR’s claim that Sogyal only erred by not “preparing” his students, how do you prepare someone for abuse? The notion is preposterous and pretty sadistic. In laymen’s terms, it’s known as ‘grooming’. And we all know how that ends up.
- 40
  
  tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 8:11 am
  Reply
  
  Yes let’s remember that he wrote sth like if he had prepared them and samaya was intact nothing of what Sogyal has done would have been wrong. Its in his 10.000 word article. Then read what Sogyal Lakar actually did and ask yourself if this makes any sense ….
  I find it “funny“ to claim Vajrayana is so critical and allows so much for a critical mind while at the same time, according to DKR, if you have samaya with a teacher you cannot even think “abuse“ regarding his or her objectively abusive actions.
  - 41
    
    Carol McQuire on March 1, 2018 at 11:59 am
    Reply
    
    To give some context, here is Lama Zopa discussing the same issues. I recently emailed to ask and the reply was that the advice holds.
    
    https://www.lamayeshe.com/advice/forsaking-guru
    
    https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2012/11/01/forsaking-the-guru-kelsang-gyatso-is-worse-than-the-karma-generated-by-hitler-and-mao-tse-tung/
  - 42
    
    matilda7 on March 1, 2018 at 10:57 pm
    Reply
    
    Now i understand that the Cinderella label emanated from DKR’s reference to non-Vajrayana teachings of the Buddha (the poor stepsister of tantra i guess). I was thinking more of Cinderella as in pure perception being a fairy story which encourages students to believe in the myth that our Gurus are perfect.
- 43
  
  Joanne on March 2, 2018 at 8:53 am
  Reply
  
  That’s true, Matilda, I also agree. It’s also been pointed out that there’s a problem with making up a conceptual story in the name of pure perception– which is what DKJR has done, making up a story the practitioner can tell him/herself to explain the actions of the guru and make them into pure actions even though they don’t appear pure. That seems strange and conflicting to me– and isn’t it dangerous to be using pure perception to manipulate conventional reality?
  - 44
    
    matilda7 on March 2, 2018 at 10:59 am
    Reply
    
    Particularly dangerous when the practitioner is encouraged to normalize abuse via the technique of pure perception.
    
    I think this is what Tahlia has been referring to (prior to DKR’s recent talks) as him mixing up absolute and relative views: resorting to the absolute view of pure perception in order to not have to deal with the inconvenience of harmful actions in the sphere of conventional or mundane reality, and therefore seeming to lapse into nihilism (at least in his explanations).
    
    Am i right??
    - 45
      
      tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 1:02 pm
      Reply
      
      I think yes, you are right. And the reason why there is such a difference in approach (especially between DKR and HHDL) seems particularly be based on philosophical issues or the view.
      When I remember correctly a discussion with a nun in his madhyamaka commentary, the nun said, DKR says basically that all conventional truths are projections of ignorance.
      It follows, once ignorance ceases, projections and also conventionalities cease.
      I couldn’t accept this. My counter argument was, then, since the Buddha has abandoned ignorance he should not be able anymore to discriminate or perceive conventionalities. Then he could not discriminate who is a monk who is not, when a rule is broken, when not. He could not even discriminate between a chair and a table, an ox or a cow. But obviously, the Buddha could.
      I had this different philosophical view DKR seems to hold in mind as a cause for DKR’s unclarity with respect to conventional truths or facts. But to be certain I must check his madhyamaka commentary. What I say relies on what the nun told me who read it.
      I will try to find time to look in his madhyamaka commentary and check. If it’s true we can understand that the dilemma relies on a type of denigration of conventional truths that could be nihilistic indeed.
      Contrary to this, Alex Berzin, following the Gelug / Tsongkhapa‘s approach to not denigrate conventional truths counters any ambiguity that would derive from such a denigration. I wonder if DKR would agree or disagree with Alex Berzin’s stance? Maybe we should ask DKR!
      Here Alex Berzin‘s stance – with which I totally agree: https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/about-buddhism/misconceptions-about-buddhism/dealing-with-abusive-behavior-by-spiritual-teachers
46

Jacob Jonker on March 1, 2018 at 10:36 am
Reply

The saga continues. The Dalai Lama and many others lamas and Buddhist teachers besides are doing sterling work, imo, especially DL, who is working under the most trying circumstances, trying as he is, to build a bridge between the West and Tibetan Buddhism. Part of the problem for Tibetan Buddhist teachers is understanding the western mind-set. DL sometimes comes over as being naive, innocent even, but he may well understand more than appears to the (western) observer.
From a western perspective, in my experience, in a general sense, to understand certain issues, a quantum leap kind of penny-dropping event needs to occur for people to “get it”. As long as people don’t get it, no amount of argument will make people understand their predicament. In this particular matter, the problem centres on a particular mind-set and phenomenon known in the West by the term called “groupies”. They are ready believers and ready to take the plunge without understanding the implications. These people may well be the most genuine of seekers, indeed, at heart they must be, considering their personal journey. However, tantra, left-or righthanded, is essentially jnana. Tantra, Vajrayana, Rigpa are not only not for the faint-hearted. One needs to have a certain level of nous to begin with. This may be intuitive or savvy, but if it is not there innate the aspirant Buddhist seeking a Guru may well be heading for an icy-cold bath. Let’s face it, looking at the history of Tibetan Buddhism, there have been many waywardnesses along the way, many of which have never made it into the annals read by modern-day westerners, it stands to reason. Even before Buddhism moved into the West as a philosophy cum religious phenomenon, there were excesses and abuses of all kinds. What with the modern-day westerner being just as gullible, if not more these days, than people in traditional Buddhist lands, and the West being a place with very many strong temptations for people from, say, East Asia who have some ambition in life besides helping others to find enlightenment through Buddhist teaching, it is London to a brick that many lamas or self-styled lamas or Buddhist teachers are not as pure as the driven snow before our industrial era polluted the air. Hence, choosing a Guru is a risky affair. One takes a chance. Sometimes it does not work out. The notion that one must keep one’s pledge, so to speak, through thick and thin, is fine in the original sense of the right student pledging her/himself to a bonafide Buddhist teacher. In practice, even before Buddhism hit the West, it did not always work out. Now, with the western democratic mindset, whether the democratic character is but really a myth, in fact, the westerner is not always prepared to put up with abuse, or what appears tp be abuse, though in the matter of other religions, there is no doubt at all that there are people who are so programmed mentally and emotionally, psycho-somatically, that they will put up with even the worst abuses. So, people with a bit of nous, not enough to find their own way and take a spiritual guide or teacher rather than a flesh and blood one, but enough to know when enough is enough, they will know when to bail out of a master-slave teaching affair. Because, let’s face it, with all due respect, where it is indeed due, the relationship between Guru and students in this instance, Tantra-Vajrayana and of all orgs one which has the most presumptuous designation of Rigpa, well, I ask you, you are asking for it, in this imperfect world. Tibetan Buddhist is, apart from the pure Dao for the more sober and subtle thinkers, a gift like no other for the West especially.

Altogether, few westerners realise the dire position the European peoples are in in this our time. Our traditional religions and their latter-day derivatives are a mess of pottage. Sociopolitically we are upstream from the Niagara Falls equivalent in geopolitics without a paddle and without a clue. Tibetan Buddhism as a philosophy and science is a God-gift for the West, but are we worthy of it? The few westerners who understand are helpless in the face of the deep rooted wilful ignorance which stop us moving ahead beyond our natural fate of ignominious demise. We do have a choice, but must be worthy of it. The welfare state and the consumerist society may well have corrupted European society beyond repair. It’s all the way downhill from here, unless a quantum leap happens and the penny drops.

It matters not one iota from our European western perspective whether some Tibetan Buddhist Guru is the genuine article from a pure Tantra-Vajrayana perspective or is a genuine article from a con-artist religious shyster perspective. What matters is how westerners seeking the enlightenment the Buddhist/Tibetan Buddhist way deal with the challenges thrown up by this most promising gift given us.
47

John Carroll on March 1, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Reply

Ok. I read some the article and some of the comments and then wished I had not. I find the remarks about the Guru / Lama to be inane (in general) and far from the simple aspect of mutual respect that is the heart of the process. It is not that difficult to follow a fully qualified vajrayana guru but it is difficult to give up / overcome the ingrained ignorance of self grasping. The whole mess of SR has been deeply disturbing and so much worse for those directly and personally involved. I did not benefit me to begin thinking about this again and unless a direct victim needs to articulate their sorrow or their path beyond that to healing I will not bother opening an update again. Oh,….if SR provided heart felt apology and took full responsibility for causing such a high degree of direct and indirect suffering and confusion I would definitely pay attention to that.
- 48
  
  tenpel on March 1, 2018 at 1:45 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you for sharing. I am sorry that it wasn’t helpful.
  I read similar voices, especially by some of those been harmed.
49

pillmill on March 1, 2018 at 3:15 pm
Reply

If Dzongsar Khyentse had any decency he’d ask Sogyal to give an honest apology for what he did. Not the ambiguous apology which wasn’t an apology at all.
50

M. Steingass on March 1, 2018 at 5:48 pm
Reply

Does anybody really listen through this? A guy speaking with mediokre English, seemingly under great stress partly, not able to formulate complete sentences, ending phrases with “you know” when he doesn’t know how to end them, talking shallow esoteric hogwash? Does he has any knowledge about the West, it’s history, it’s philosophical development, it’s present situation and how it contributes to what happened to so called Tibetan Buddhism? Does he has any knowledge beyond what he thinks he knows? This guy and the many people still believing in him (and Lakar) is the proper symbol of Buddhism in the West gone wrong. It’s a waste of time. Seeing things as they are would mean seeing the shallowness of all this and how it leads people astray.
- 51
  
  yamaintaka on March 1, 2018 at 10:50 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes exactly, and i dare to speak out, that “pure perception” on an “advanced level” IS SEEING THINGS AS THEY ARE…
52

Friend on March 2, 2018 at 10:42 am
Reply

In Berlin and Lerab LIng, what desapointing endless speeches with no head and no tail, mixing a little bit of theorical knowledge with private jokes : Nothing about SR and his victims direct problem. Rigpa will now have to choose what to do, stay in a blind cult or choose freedom.

Agenda Lama….he should maybe ask his still alive Guru Sakya Trizin what to do and say.

People didn’t need an invertebrate speech for lazy lumps, but a strong statement of genuine tantric advice from a realised teacher to go further on after SR abuses for decades .
A compssionate manifestation of the bodhisattva he’s supposed to be should understand the real need of the people and open their eyes with no improvisation, because the situation is serious . I think he didn’t solve anything about the real subject.
53

Carol McQuire on March 2, 2018 at 2:38 pm
Reply

Basic question.

Are any of the ‘original eight’ who wrote the letter talking to DJKR? Are any victims?

Has HHDL been asked to help/advise?

The original 8 didn’t ask him.
- 54
  
  tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 2:51 pm
  Reply
  
  DKR must have received the letter. The question is, did he read it? Did he think about it? Vaguely I remember that one letter writer told me to have spoken with DKR. When I remember correctly, he appeared initially to be supportive.
- 55
  
  tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 4:41 pm
  Reply
  
  I got an answer Carol from one of the writers. I can share information only anonymously. The information is:
  
  One of them has been called by DJKR a couple of times. Yesterday, he asked this person about the rape, sexual abuse and beating.
  
  The survivor told him some things by phone and said to email him some more information.
  
  DKR also offered another letter writer to talk to him. But it’s not known if the letter writer accepted the offer or not.
  
  It’s not clear if DKR made a similar offer to the other 6 letter writers.
  - 56
    
    Carol McQuire on March 2, 2018 at 4:49 pm
    Reply
    
    Very good. As DJKR is listening we can still hope for good results.
    - 57
      
      tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 5:11 pm
      Reply
      
      I agree. Seeing, feeling and understand the suffering is the basis of compassion. Compassion is the root of healthy relations, the root of the teachings and the root of good moral conduct. Seeing and feeling the suffering and responding with compassion and wisdom to it, I also see as a realistic base for hope.
      
      BUT, it depends also how honest he is, how he uses the information. Moreover, the outcome also depends on his motives… it also matters when he started to reach out. There is a lot of bits and pieces we miss or don’t know to put this well together.
      
      For me, I can’t feel compassion nor genuine sympathy with those who suffered from SL‘s abusive deeds. DKR basically does not even admit really their reality.
      
      I rely on my own knowledge, perception, reasoning and intuition until they have been invalidated or corrected.
      - 58
        
        Carol McQuire on March 2, 2018 at 8:56 pm
        Reply
        
        Tenzin.. Did you mean to say the following? I quote:
        
        ‘For me, I can’t feel compassion nor genuine sympathy with those who suffered from SL‘s abusive deeds.’
        
        59
        
        tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 2:11 am
        Reply
        
        Yes, I meant that (maybe my English is wrong, not understandable)?
        
        What I wanted to say is: I can’t feel or detect DKR having really compassion or sympathy for those been harmed by SL. Very unlikely to – for instance – the reply by YMR which is infused with and based on compassion and a deep wish to help the student to have clarity.
        
        60
        
        Carol McQuire on March 3, 2018 at 2:36 am
        
        I have direct knowledge of DJKR being extremely supportive of ex NKT so why should he not be compassionate & helpful in person to distressed students of Sogyal?
        
        61
        
        tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 3:43 am
        
        Wonderful!
        
        There is quite of a difference in the connection, relationship, lineage and dependency btw DKR and NKT and DKR and Rigpa / SL.
    - 62
      
      tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 5:54 pm
      Reply
      
      Dear Carol, to give another detail, according to one letter writer DKR just recently reached out to one letter writer, after he already taught on the topic. “He could have heard things that inspired him to reach out, OR it could all be a strategy. I want to believe the best of him but experience tells me to err on the side of caution🙄”
63

Adamo on March 2, 2018 at 3:15 pm
Reply

A comment by H.H Gyalwang Drukpa, a common sense approach: http://www.drukpa.org/en/news-updates/news-in-2014/357-abuse-in-the-name-of-guru-devotion
- 64
  
  tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 4:13 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you. The story at the end is also on the Lamrim Chen Mo. However, Vajrayana followers might argue Naropa stole soup for Tilopa (and was beaten badly) and Tilopa killed fish. However, there is a context to these stories and who is the student who has the insights, knowledge of Naropa or who is the master equal to Tilopa?
65

Friend on March 2, 2018 at 5:57 pm
Reply

In the Mahasiddhas biographies there are numerous symbolic indications about inner and secret yogas, that may be understood as fairytales at the first sight, and without proper explaination by an autentic lama holder of the tradition.
DKR is linked to Shambala and Rigpa, two movements loking like cults since a long time.
His explaination of Vajra Hells as a reasoning state of mind is quite original, even if he compares them with Hot Hells…
To say a Mahasiddha can rape or beat hard a student for his sake is nice too, after the recent abuses described by the 8 . Marvelous isn”t it?
66

tenpel on March 2, 2018 at 7:44 pm
Reply

Maybe, to understand DKR’s stance and (as it appears his) looking down on Westerners and the West in general, it might be good to understand his father’s stance, Thinley Norbu Rinpoche:

Here a bit:

https://tricycle.org/magazine/words-west/

https://www.shambhala.com/reflections-on-secular-buddhism-an-excerpt-from-thinley-norbu

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1459918927422287/permalink/1613155482098630/

Of course the question is, how influential his father was on him … and we have our own problems in looking down on other cultures …
- 67
  
  Carol McQuire on March 2, 2018 at 8:51 pm
  Reply
  
  DJKR separated from his family very young. You could just as easily cite Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and the previous Sakya Trizin as influences, being DJKR’s main teachers.
  
  My father is a racist UKIP voter. Does that invalidate my views?
  
  http://mugwortborn.wpengine.com/project/episode-five-lepo-the-idiot/
  - 68
    
    tenpel on March 3, 2018 at 2:04 am
    Reply
    
    Of course, your father can be a nazi and you are not. There is no pervasion because your father is a nazi, that you yourself are a nazi too.
    
    However, there could be influence. It needs to be checked.
    - 69
      
      Carol McQuire on March 3, 2018 at 2:27 am
      Reply
      
      Was his father an abusive teacher?
      
      He’s simply an astonished elderly Tibetan frightened of feminists
      perhaps?
      
      Of another era…
      Will you look for fascist connections too?
      
      How will you judge ‘influence’?
      
      This is starting to appear like an absurd moralistic vendetta.
      
      You aren’t there in Rigpa & any process has just started. Leave some space in this petty onslaught of condemnation.
      - 70
        
        matilda7 on March 3, 2018 at 9:46 am
        Reply
        
        Carol, DKR has been somewhat hostile to feminism for a long time, so it’s quite reasonable to see a synergy between his views and Thinley Norbu’s own writings on women.
        
        Also, the current criticisms of DKR largely stem from his failure to openly express compassion for the abuse victims, his failure to call out the abuse, and his macho social media posts which have ridiculed the #metoo movement, along with his puerile sex contract which is hardly fitting for a Lama of his stature, amongst other things.
        
        Some of us have had our faith in DKR shattered by his recent behaviour.
        
        So while you may well find gems in his current round of teachings, others remain less impressed. Both reactions are entirely valid.
        
        I’m just suggesting that you could try to understand why not everyone is as enamoured of DKR’s teachings as you are. Please consider the context – the exposure of Sogyal’s long-term abuse and how we would expect senior Lamas to respond to such revelations, based on their ingrained Bodhicitta and our own understanding of the teachings and how we incorporate them into our daily lives. Abuse has no place in the Dharma we have internalised and we expect Lamas to call it out, as the DL & Mingyur Rinpoche have done.
- 71
  
  Joanne on March 3, 2018 at 1:14 am
  Reply
  
  Also, he is very about his admiration for Chogyam Trungpa, saying that he understood Westerners better than any other lama. I think people should really hear that and what it means about his behaviors: https://boulderbuddhistscam.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/the-party.pdf
  - 72
    
    Joanne on March 3, 2018 at 1:15 am
    Reply
    
    Meant to say “very clear”
  - 73
    
    Joanne on March 3, 2018 at 2:39 am
    Reply
    
    In that context, I have started listening to the tapes on the meetings between HH Dalai Lama and Western teachers. The first presenter on the afternoon of Day One talked about the rampant sexual abuses and alcohol abuses occurring in Zen Centers. And he gave a story about students appealing to a senior Zen Master for help– and the master replied, but there’s a very famous Tibetan teacher who drank and had many sexual relations and he wrote many books. His Holiness immediately said, “Trungpa Rinpoche.”
    
    And then HH spoke about those past Mahasiddhas, such as Drukpa Kunley, who practiced in unethical ways for the long term benefit of students, calling them “exceptions” and concluding, “But then generally– I think nowadays that kind of thing is really really harmful for the Buddha Dharma. There’s no doubt. So now every effort, we must stop this kind of situation.”
    
    And later, he talked at length about the dangers of alcohol and how Buddha never intended alcohol to be avoided by only monastics, but by all serious practitioners.
    
    In the context of Shambhala troubles now and DKJR’s open admiration for CT and DJKR’s position of influence at Rigpa, these statements have added significance imo.
74

veggiegirl on March 3, 2018 at 11:31 am
Reply

That’s such a great text above from the Dalai Lama, thanks for sharing:

“It is essential to distinguish between two things: the person and their action. We criticize the action, not the person. The person is neutral: he or she wants to be happy and overcome suffering, and once their negative action stops, they will become a friend. The troublemaker is the afflictions and actions. Speaking out against the action does not mean that we hate the person. For example, we Tibetans fight Chinese injustice, but it doesn’t mean we are against the Chinese as human beings, even those who are ruthless. In meditation, I try to develop genuine compassion for these people while still opposing their actions. Thus, we may criticize a teacher’s abusive actions or negative qualities while we respect them as a person at the same time. There are still some beneficial aspects of the guru. A mistaken action doesn’t destroy their good qualities. If you criticize in this way, there is no danger of hellish rebirth as a result. Motivation is the key: speaking out of hatred or desire for revenge is wrong. However, if we know that by not speaking out, their bad behavior will continue and will harm the Buddhadharma, and we still remain silent, that is wrong.”
- 75
  
  tenpel on March 4, 2018 at 4:46 pm
  Reply
  
  hi veggiegirl, sorry, your comment was in the spam folder, found it just accidentally … If a comment by you or others don’t pass through, please send me a note!
76

Dragonfly on March 4, 2018 at 10:27 pm
Reply

Is Dzongsar Rinpoche being paid to appear at Rigpa? To determine the sincerity of his proclaimed wish to assist victims it’d be helpful to know if he’s being paid. And how much.
77

Joanne on March 4, 2018 at 11:07 pm
Reply

Here is a very powerful comment shared on the What Now blog:

“The point of view of a French Buddhist Living in France (not so far from Lerab Ling), after listening DJKR talk carefully:

We have laws in France who protect people from criminals, it’s not perfect but it’s already very good.

Being ostracized by some so-called Tibetan Dharma masters, and left alone ill and without money (after I gave them my money, my work and above all my trust), it’s my country who helped me, gave me free health care and social aid. Those Lamas wanted to crush my ego because I disagreed with their wrong deeds (financial, moral and sexual abuses…), they just broke me with the help of some obedient disciples. DJKR doesn’t understand why some people dislike blind obedience, I do !

Luckily, I kept strong confidence in the Buddha and his teachings, and it helped me to recover. But I’m also very grateful for the help I received from a lay and fair administration. Living in countries like France, with fair laws and social aid, is the result of good karma, and I will not spit on it.

So if people like SL or DJKR don’t respect that, or even despise it, they are welcomed to leave France. If they don’t, because it’s a free country with religious freedom, they should understand however that wise people will turn their back to them and to their very obedient and blind disciples. In 2016 Lerab Ling had already a deficit of around 280 000 € in donations.

Their are honest Tibetan Lamas (we need to check them carefully by ourselves). I hope that they will not mix with those teachers who brag about the highest wisdom, despise the so-called lower teachings and treat badly disciples, and who nevertheless would not be able to let their hand in a fire for a few minutes without screaming of pain. “All is empty ! Ethic doesn’t matter. ”, they say. Great, show us.

I feel that it’s time for Rigpa’ students to make a choice, DJKR gave his advice. What now, what more ? People who disagree with his (and Rigpa) interpretation of Dharma don’t need to defend themselves endlessly (unless they have some personal reason, it’s not my call of course).

Concerning the victims there are laws, courts, lawyers, if they want; or medias. This doesn’t mean that those who defend themselves have no compassion or wisdom, it means that they are aware of their good karma (if still Buddhist) or luck to live in France, and of their responsibility to protect others from criminals (let’s call a cat, a cat).

May the true and pure Dharma flourish all around the world.”
78

veggiegirl on March 5, 2018 at 10:41 pm
Reply

The comment of the french abuse survivor is indeed very moving and impressing and I completely endorse their stance or anti-stance towards the criminal behaviour of SL and some of his organisation. They should respect the citizens and the culture of the (european or whatever) country they are living in. To seek refuge in “it’s all an illusion”, maya and on an absolute level did not even happen is a kind of mindgame, I wanted to avoid the term mindf*ck here.

But – maybe I got it wrong – when listening to Dzongsars talk from end of February 2018 – I remember him talking about
– “non-violence” as most important ingredient of vajrayana (although he does not refer to it as a kind of physical von-violence, but rather a non-violent mind, as he says “the moment there is duality, non-violence starts”. But that’s exactly what happens when one person is beating another person: they are divided into object-subject, perpetrator-target and what other pair of opposites we can think of.
Therefore I think it could be very interesting (not only for the concerned students) to discuss this topic of “non-violence” with DJKR, because I can hardly believe that he would interprete physical violence as merely a phenomenon of duality without regarding the aggressive intention and the brutal, violent act of the offender. Or maybe he would suggest that people switch roles and now the offender will be beaten by the target to restore the balance of a non-dual mindset?
– The second point that I found remarkable was, that DJKR spoke about “madness”. He said “it’s madness when a master wants to have many disciples” and he justified why it would be madness: the spiritual teacher is much more responsible for the relationship than the students. I heard him say that very clearly: main “responsibility” lies with the spiritual teacher!
– Last but not least he was asked, if a teacher who made mistakes should apologize and he said explicitly: yes, he should apologize. If I remember it correctly he even repeated that statement about an apology and that making mistakes, but not admitting them (as a teacher) is wrong, it is wrong, it’s wrong.

So, apart from a lot of friendly and polite conversation, including “we don’t have to worry if the cup gets dirty, because it can be cleaned and fundamentally it is still a clean cup” – which could be interpreted as designating the vajrayana path, or the buddhist teachings, but could also be applied to the mind of a human being in general, which is able to recover from being dirtied, abused or smeared and could also imply hope for the targets of abuse.

Although I agree with Tenpel that as a viewer one does not really get the impression that DJKR was feeling genuine compassion with the targets of abuse, I got the impression that he started doubting his picture about the scope of what had really happened (as it is indeed mind-blowing) and he might not be the type that shows (sentimental) feelings in public, if he has any.
But I think, there might be a chance that he gets the bigger picture when talking to some of the letter writers personally. I think he does not want to rely on “hearsay” as he seems to have a quite critical, reasonable mindset.

His speech might at least indicate that he starts to understand what has happened (and I would not want to imply that he is just kind of pretending or acting) and how bad the impact is on the buddha dharma and what aftermaths of the bad seeds and destruction of (spiritual) seeds for the involved people and how much damage and suffering has been caused.

People should take him at his words: non-violence, madness, responsibility and an apology to clean the dirty cup. Not destroying the seeds of the dharma path in any buddhist or student. Be fearless enough to acknowledge the truth!
(For me personally the truth comes close to assuming that Sogyal has gotten mentally ill, somewhere on his path and his mental illness deteriorated very badly for some reason). That might be hard to realise and difficult to admit in public for a vajra-brother,

I hope that any reader understands that I neither intend to “defend” DJKR’s statements, nor do I want to offend them, I am only sharing how they were perceived by my subjective cognition.

May all sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering and may all recover and regain their true nature of mind!
- 79
  
  Joanne on March 6, 2018 at 11:00 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you veggiegirl, I liked your observations. They were positive without being naive.
80

veggiegirl2016 on March 5, 2018 at 11:19 pm
Reply

Sorry, Tenpel, I have to correct my comment above: I wrote “the moment there is duality, non-violence starts”.
Of course, DZKR did not say that.
Instead, what he said and what he meant was “the moment there is duality, there is violence”!
Thanks.
- 81
  
  tenpel on March 5, 2018 at 11:31 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you for the correction. I appreciate this honesty and precision very much.
82

John Carroll on March 6, 2018 at 9:39 am
Reply

Regarding the status of women, it is interesting to note tha Matteiu Ricard, who it could be said connects a few dots in relation to various traditions and teachers, is noting World Women’s day on March 8th on one of his platforms and describes the need to empower women, particularly in areas such as Nepal.

In a previous post I mentioned not feeling that positive about reading information and views presented here….on the other hand it does not pay to bury ones head in the sand!

I am still troubled by connection names mentioned here have with names not mentioned and I would suggest that posters unpack statements clearly.

Whilst I assert the lama student relationship should not be that difficult to navigate if a basic two way respect is a main ingredient to devotion, experience also suggests a less than well considered and even seemingly harmless utterance around one’s Lama can vastly change a direction….and since everything flows “south” in Samsara, whilst information is good, misunderstood information etc can be karmically a cause for great loss.

Kindest Regards
83

tenpel on March 6, 2018 at 11:47 pm
Reply

This article was updated with further quotes and statements by HHDL and a view brief comments by Joanne (see updated section “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION & THOUGHTS FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS”)
84

tenpel on March 7, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Reply

CRUSHING THE EGO

I am just listening to a 30 minutes report by a German broadcast station about compassion and abuse in the teacher student relationship in Buddhism: https://www.kulturradio.de/programm/schema/sendungen/gott_und_die_welt/archiv/20180218_0904.html

The journalist perpetuates the terminology »crushing the ego« which seems to be a common phrase used by Sogyal Lakar, Rigpa and Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche. Actual, I’ve never ever read any text that speaks about »crushing the ego«. Did you read or find such a text? The scriptures I read speak about the view of the transitory collection which projects a false image of an (independent) I onto reality or which projects inherent existence onto persons and phenomena. It’s that view which has to be seen as baseless. Which projects more onto reality than there is. And its this ignorance based superimposing view which has to be abandoned.

You could say you crush or destroy that view ok. But »crushing the ego« sounds more like breaking people, in the way how they do it in cults or in the army in order to brainwash or manipulate them as obedient followers who follow your commands.

What do you think about this terminology »crushing the ego«? Why it is stressed by SL / DKR and Rigpa so much? Are there any other lamas who use such a terminology? Is such a terminology really helpful?
- 85
  
  Joanne on March 7, 2018 at 10:31 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes, I also have found this disturbing. I have heard an alternate view, that in fact, we need a strong ego to fulfill the bodhisattva path. Of course, the word ‘ego’ is not easily translated from Tibetan. But the sense of a crushed ego, as understood by English speakers, is very much related to a lack of confidence– and not to realizing selflessness, which, when combined with the altruistic motivation, can only increase confidence.
  
  I also think it is very dangerous terminology, very like cult talk.
  - 86
    
    tenpel on March 7, 2018 at 11:54 pm
    Reply
    
    Yes, that’s true. A true Bodhisattva has a very strong will power!!!
    
    Ringu Tulku Rinpoche stressed that for the Buddhist path you need “a healthy samsaric ego” and I totally agree with him.
    
    I heard the nun Tenzin Palmo (or Pema Choedroen?) kicked Trungpa Rinpoche against his knees when he tried to touch her. If that’s true, that shows “a healthy samsaric ego” 😉
    
    BTW, Joanne, I heard that term »crushing the ego« by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, Sogyal Lakar and it seems to be a common phrase in Rigpa. A befriended psychologist asked on Facebook if I can provide the sources where DKR or SL say this. Can you help me with that? Can you remember or hint such statements by them?
    - 87
      
      Joanne on March 8, 2018 at 1:36 am
      Reply
      
      Here is the quote from DJKR, Tenzin. It is from his book ‘The Guru Drinks Bourbon’ and is quoted by him in his letter to Bernie Schenk, which can be found on the “How Did It Happen” blog. Here’s the quote from the letter:
      
      “Role of western psychotherapy: Western psychotherapy and other spiritual and psychological paths are all fine so long as their methods crush ego. If they do that, they are valid paths. Any path that does not crush ego is spiritual materialism even if it is coated with all kinds of Buddhist jargon.”
      
      http://howdidithappen.org/dzongsar-jamyang-khyentse-vajrayana-buddhism/
      - 88
        
        tenpel on March 8, 2018 at 8:23 am
        Reply
        
        Thank you, Joanne, I couldn’t find that in this book but found this in his book:
        
        Of course, if an enlightened master enforces Tibetan dress, Tibetan food, and Tibetan ways of thinking, and this really crushes the Israeli ego and habits, it can be taken as an enlightened method.
        
        Now having checked again, indeed DKR states this himself in his letter to Bernie Schreck.
        
        Actually, horrible I think from a POV of Western psychological understanding, especially when it comes to people who have a weak feeling of self, or who were abused, are traumatised etc. I find that rather dangerous and ignorant.
    - 89
      
      tenpel on March 8, 2018 at 8:29 am
      Reply
      
      Another point: many westerners need first to build a healthy strong ego because due to education and culture they often lack healthy confidence and love for themselves. Many don’t accept, cherish and even hate themselves. A lack of accepting and loving themselves seems to be especially the case for women in the West. I guess many of those who were harmed came to Rigpa with a weak ego – especially some of the young women who were sexually abused. Some might have had a healthy ego but their self confidence and self trust might have been undermined and gradually destroyed – remember Rigpa gaslighting therapy and other manipulative means. In such a context, crushing the ego of people with a weak confidence or self is then only harmful and a method to break their will power, making them insecure and dependent. This can turn into making them slavishly obedient followers who follow the guru‘s commands.
- 90
  
  Julia on March 8, 2018 at 12:18 pm
  Reply
  
  Tenpel,
  About “crushing the ego”, there are two aspects about this expression.
  
  First, the way some teachers as DZKR expresses it, directly in their teachings, as you can read it in his answer to Bernie. Of course, it’s absolutely wrong (As you did, “Friend” explained it well in his message bellow).
  
  Secondly, the use of this expression in Buddhist Centers. Even Tibetan Lamas who say in their teachings that ” crushing the ego” is not appropriate, nevertheless use this idea when it come to explain to their inner circle why they are harsh towards some disciples. In fact, they use it especially against disciples who dare to disagree with them, or against disciples who stand in their way even innocently. It’s a lie to hide their real intention which is to submit them or get rid of them. Followers then excuse the Lama using the same expression : “Oh! the Lama did this to you, but it’s out of compassion, in order to crush your ego”. They also use the expression ” to get rid of the ego”.
  I have been the victim of such methods in the Kagyu lineage (Shamarpa side), and I have witnessed it in the Nyingmapa lineage. I was somebody peaceful, even shy with a feeble ego (people say), hard worker and was deeply involved in Dharma practice (formal meditation and high studies).
  I trustfully gave a lot of money for different projects, worked as an expert freely, and candidly trusted the Lamas, accepting patiently all kind of hardship and even humiliations, especially because I had some difficulties with social interactions (maybe a hidden adult autism ?!) .
  
  But it came a time when I witnessed some situations that were really wrong, and I disagreed. The highest Tibetan Lama in charge didn’t accept any dialogue or explanation to my concerns, he just humiliated me with the help of other Lamas and of their inner circle. They made false accusations, forced me to leave the Center (knowing that I had nowhere to go), spread calumny about me (in the centers and the villages around).
  
  I was a nun, thus I couldn’t easily leave and restart a normal life, so I tried several years to stay in other centers of the lineage, then Nyngma (I even met DZKR who treat me badly, and some partisans of the other side of the broken lineage who hated me – some were kind but they couldn’t do much). Defamers purposely tracked me. It was terrible ! I had to flee again and again, until I finished homeless, poor and ill.
  
  Finally, I went far from Buddhist Centers and cut all links, and with the help of French administration, I rebuild my life little by little. My family rejected me, and didn’t help, because there are angry, and say that I was stupid to become a Buddhist and that I abandoned them.
  
  Then with care, I took again contact with a Sangha by Internet. Lerab Ling is not far from my house, but I won’t go there !
  
  Nevertheless, I’m broken, and I had a broken life. I know that I made mistakes, I was too much candid, I didn’t take care of my safety, and of course it’s purification of negative karma, but it’s not an excuse for what some Tibetan lamas did, and still do to some disciples : “Crushing the ego”.
  - 91
    
    Julia on March 8, 2018 at 4:18 pm
    Reply
    
    I just wanted to add, that it is difficult to directly proof a story like mine, but in France, like in other countries, we have blogs. People cross-chek informations, and finally they know the truth. If they don’t find it, it’s because they really don’t want. Blind obedient followers stick to the “The Lama said”, “You have no evidence”.
    - 92
      
      Joanne on March 9, 2018 at 12:00 am
      Reply
      
      Julia, thank you for sharing and I am so sorry for all that you have gone through. I have had some similar experiences– though not nearly as severe as yours– in a Kagyu monastery. It seems, sadly, that those of us with weak egos to start with, those who want to follow the rules and do the right thing, can be harmed with these harsh approaches.
      
      I also had a friend who did three year retreat at Lama Norhla’s center in upstate New York and she was horribly defamed upon coming out of retreat– and it has plagued every attempt she has made to start up in a new center– your story reminded me a little of hers.
      
      I remember a conversation I heard about once. Someone asked the abbot of the Kagyu monastery I was at why it was so hard to work and practice at the monastery. (And it WAS hard, lots of squabbling and back-biting and deception and corruption). But instead of answering her question, the abbot replied, “You are like someone sitting beside a pristine lake, complaining of thirst.”
      
      I think a lot of Tibetan lamas coming to the West are still struggling to understand the Western mind. They think we complain too much. They see us as out-spoken and sometimes brash and unafraid to behave in unorthodox ways and then they assume that means we have big egos that need to be crushed in harsh and unorthodox ways. They have no conception of our inner troubles with self-loathing or lacking self-confidence– they have no sense of the Christian value systems that are ingrained in us from birth, no sense of the guilt many of us carry. They see us complaining of abuse and they have no idea how hard it is for survivors to move past self-blame for abuse and speak out. Instead, they see us as whiners.
    - 93
      
      tenpel on March 9, 2018 at 2:13 am
      Reply
      
      I believe you, Julia because what you write matches with experiences, observations and what is going on in Dharma centres. It also fits to how (some) Tibetan lamas (can) treat women (especially rather the devotional, hard working silent ones) or nuns. They are accepted as long as they continue to be silent and hard working but they are not able to welcome when they have or find their own voice or raise concerns. Then they are seen as trouble makers.
      
      Luckily there are also other lamas, but sadly, it seems, they were not around you.
  - 94
    
    tenpel on March 9, 2018 at 2:05 am
    Reply
    
    Thank you Julia for sharing. I am very sorry what you had to experience. It makes me sad to read it, how people treated you and how this effected your spiritual and mundane life so badly, leaving you broken.
    Let me know if I can do anything for you.
    I wish you from my heart the best for your spiritual path and kind, loving, wise spiritual friends and support as you wish and need it.
    - 95
      
      Julia on March 9, 2018 at 5:28 pm
      Reply
      
      Joanne and Tenpel,
      You are right. The fact that I’m a woman, and that I was a nun, worsened the situation. It’s included in a feudal system where aristocrats and high ranking monks have all the power, and which has been easily adopted by some westerners who find their profit in it. By saying that, I don’t intend to suggest that the Chinese occupation in Tibet is right. In fact, I observed this tendency also in come Christian communities which are still influenced by the Middle Ages feudal system.
      
      When I became a Buddhist there were very few information on Internet and no warning about the dangers in Buddhist centers. I did high studies, in a field which is mostly for men, I had my own engineering consulting firm, and my work was very appreciated. Thus, when I decided to involved myself in a Buddhist center, it never came to my mind that, as a woman and more over as a nun, I was entering in the crocodile’s mouth. What happened after was totally brutal and, from my side, not understandable.
      
      We should not forget also that there is a lot of money, power and privileges at stake. Therefore, when somebody disagree with non ethical behaviors, even if it is in a straightforward and candid way, this person become an enemy of the perverted institution. Moreover, if he was a direct witness. Such an institution spend a lot of efforts and time to burnish its image and to destroy what can tarnish it. It took me years to understand this, because it’s very far from the Dharma in which I was totally immersed; and it is strongly veiled by the practice of Guru Yoga, devotion, pure view etc.
      
      In addition, it’s not only a problem limited to Vajrayana. For example, I met young women who had been assaulted by lamas, and who were not at this level of practice, they had no samaya for sure. Thus, I have the feeling that restricting the problem to the Vajrayana is an attempt to muddy the waters. It’s like hiding the main problem, which is a policy of secrecy, unbalance of power, unfairness and dishonesty, largely spread in the Tibetan Buddhist communities. I don’t say, or even suggest, that it includes all the communities and everybody.
      
      I deeply appreciate your compassionate replies. The help you could give me one day, could be, maybe, that I use my real name in an exchange. I have been using pseudonyms such a long time to protect myself against further aggressions, that my real name became like a dreamed name.
      - 96
        
        tenpel on March 9, 2018 at 7:01 pm
        Reply
        
        Thank you Julia. I think being a western nun in the Tibetan tradition is the hardest choice. When Tenzin Palmo spoke about some of the problems at this conference of western Buddhist teachers and HHDL, HHDL first laughed (I guess because it sounded absurd what she told), in the midst of his laughing he changed to weeping (I guess because he understood or felt the pain.)
        
        In general I say to women it’s very hard to become a nun as a westerner in the Tibetan tradition and recommend to discuss with experienced western nuns the hardships, and also the better options for a supportive environment.
        
        We are all pioneers. Not many have gone that route. It is hard and we are largely alone without much compass or really good guidance or good sustainable support.
        
        I remember Theravada monks having deep compassion with me when I lived for a month in their monastery. But they also rightly remarked: you cannot expect help as we receive it from the Thai community from the Tibetans because Tibetans are refugees and have to struggle for their own survival.
        
        From that context seen, I as a monk at least, the situation could be worse. And there are still some who do their best. However, except for Lama Zopa Rinpoche and FPMT, there is not so much support for monastics in the Tibetan tradition for Westerners. However, there are also some good places or niches but few know these.
        
        I hope this will all change for the better.
        
        Yesterday a friend sent me this link https://tricycle.org/magazine/tibetan-buddhism-western-monastics/
        
        97
        
        Julia on March 10, 2018 at 11:37 am
        Reply
        
        Tenpel, Thank you for the link, I adhere to Tricycle, I like this Magazine. Anila Ayya Yeshe is brave, I admire her, she deserves support.
        
        However, my situation was different concerning financial support (but not different concerning lack of power or acknowledgement ). I was doing “very” economical valuable works in Buddhist centers, and I had westerners sponsors, even when I traveled in Nepal or India to study and to help Tibetan refugees (hundreds of them). The slanders of the Tibetan Lamas who wanted me do disappear from their Landscape (which is vast !) had caused me to lose all this, wherever I went.
        
        I still remember when one of my sponsor came and told me what a Rinpoche said about me, and that as a consequence he will stop sponsoring me. His words was harsh and insulting. I felt so sorry that a man who was peaceful and fair became a slanderer (he knew that what he was accusing me was not possible). This is one of the result of blind faith, blind obedience, especially in the Vajrayana (to come back to the subject of this post).
        
        For the record, now I’m ok, I’m a single lay, found my way back to the Dharma, and avoid troubles by staying alone.
        
        I hope that some Buddhists, who read this blog will understand what is at stake, when they give their full trust to a Tibetan Lama (even highly respected by many) and follow his commands blindly.
98

Friend on March 7, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Reply

Who crushes, and what is crushed…? 🙂

Breaking individuals to make them slaves for abusing gurus and stuff their brain with lot of no good no bad pseudo-equanimity …? I call this cult!
To see the real unborn nature of ego-clinging beyond the four extremes, by mean of the two phases of meditation, developping Bodhicitta and dedication.
Non-duality experience is related to the first Bhumi…

First find an authentic lineage holder, unpolluted by abuses and samaya breakings of his disciples, masters, and heirs, then study and practice gently.
Blessings causaly will mere surely arrive, if you are sincere, even a little bit lazy. 🙂
99

John Carroll on March 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Reply

Lama Yeshe once stated that part of the role of Buddhism is to make one shake…one got the sense that this ment the teacher might break down (deconstruct?) ones ordinary view. “crush ego” seems to be in a similar vein if perhaps somewhat directly confrontational.

An Australian band “Sky Hooks” from the 70’s had a tune that went “…..if you have an ego you better keep it in good shape, exercise it daily and get it down on tape…Ego is not a dirty word….Ego is not a dirty word……’

Lama Yeshe also has mentioned the role of ‘divine pride’ is like having a healthy ego in understanding ones good works in bringing benefit to others.

Applying wisdom to that might be the ‘crush’

However, to crush something fragile….that seems to lack that classically Buddhist ideal of ‘skilful means’. A process that is said to seperate and raise the Vajrayana from other Mahayana practices like Zen.
- 100
  
  Joanne on March 9, 2018 at 12:05 am
  Reply
  
  Yes, John, it’s very easily understood and abused.
  
  And DJKR often says that Chogyam Trungpa was the only one who really understood the Western mind. But what did that mean? If you read this story, it seemed to mean getting drunk a lot and Trungpa sending his guards out to force strip people and break down the doors of people who wouldn’t do as he ordered, causing hospitalizations and property damage and mass hysteria. I mean people should really wake up and read this– it is what DJKR admires!
  
  Click to access the-party.pdf
101

cucumbercoffee on March 10, 2018 at 3:23 pm
Reply

I find Ayya Yeshe’s social work inspiring. But her tone in demanding support is off putting and has a hint of the same entitlement she accuses the establishment of. ‘Give us support because we are in robes’ won’t going to work in modern Western societies. One’s worth must be proven through what one can contribute. She also expects too much from Tibetans as a refugee community and has not reckoned with the realities and precariousness of their situation.
- 102
  
  tenpel on March 10, 2018 at 3:37 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you. I didn’t read it yet but will do so.
  
  In general, IMO, demanding support is not a good idea as a monastic. However, to be concerned about a lack of support, a lack of structures based on a good motivation is a very wholesome activity in my view. I think it concerns all of us Buddhists to think what we can do to support a future monastic order in the West – a basis where people can dedicate their life and energy fully to the teachings.
  
  I don’t say this because I am a monk. I think it is just reasonable if you think about this topic more deeply and from different perspectives. A lack of concern about a future monastic sustainable environment is what I find extremely short-sighted and and deeply worrying.
103

tenpel on March 10, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Reply

Here is a longer comment by Cesare, a very good friend, which he made on Facebook and which Tahlia has posted on the What Now Blog. Cesare is also a psychologist. I didn’t have time to read it yet but I trust blindly that he has a lot to offer on that subject. I will also add the link to the post above. I am happy that there are different voices and different angles been covered: https://whatnow727.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/another-view-on-dzks-talks/
- 104
  
  tenpel on March 12, 2018 at 8:59 am
  Reply
  
  I think I can relate more to this about NPD than what Cesare wrote. Though the negative bias is a good point, the key issue lies somewhere else I fear. https://whatnow727.wordpress.com/2018/03/12/the-question-dzk-is-not-asking/
- 105
  
  tenpel on March 12, 2018 at 8:35 pm
  Reply
  
  In an email, Justin Whitaker shared these thoughts to Cesare’s post and the comments made below of it on the What Now Blog:
  
  I strongly agree with the comments by Marge and Julia there. Allowing DKR to reframe this as a naive student in Vajrayana problem removes the reality of the violence by Sogyal and the cover-up by members of Rigpa. This sets the stage for further violence in the not-so-distant future.
  
  The focus needs to be on hearing out victims, setting proper practices in place, independent oversight, and transparency. All of this is the language of modern democratic society and it had to be forced upon the Catholic Church recently and I have a feeling it’ll have to be forced upon Tibetan Buddhism (with many wonderful exceptions, the Dalai Lama for one continues to be a shining star of wisdom …).
  
  Quoted with Justin’s permission. I agree with Justin. I think this is the point why I find it hard to accept DKR’s talks. DKR does not address the real issues, terrible harm and cover ups made in the guise of the Vajrayana with pseudo-Buddhist justifications … how and why the Vajrayana was exploited to this end by SL and his followers, what role he, DKR and other visiting lamas played in that and how such abuse can be avoided in the future.
106

Julia Lovert on March 11, 2018 at 1:20 pm
Reply

A copy-past of my message on whatnow727 :

About the word “Cinderella” used by DJKR, we can refer to “The Sword of Wisdom” by Mipham Rinpoche, translated by Adam Pearcy (Thanks for this wonderful work) :

71. When it comes to the meaning of what is taught,
You should know the PROVISIONAL AND DEFINITIVE,
And rely not on any provisional meaning,
But only on the meaning that has certain truth.

However before that :

63. Therefore do not rely on individuals,
But rely upon the Dharma.
Freedom comes from the genuine path that is taught,
Not from the one who teaches it.

64. When the teachings are well presented,
It does not matter what the speaker is like.
Even the bliss-gone buddhas themselves
Appear as butchers and such like to train disciples.

65. IF HE CONTRADICTS THE MAHĀYĀNA AND SO ON,
Then however eloquent a speaker may seem,
He will bring you no real benefit,
Like a demon assuming Buddha’s form.

1. I’m asking myself why DJZR didn’t use the proper term “provisional meaning”, “Cinderella” sounds quite cynical (Ah, Yes he is confronting !).

2. The difficulty in this debate is that Rigpa and survivors (from Rigpa and other Buddhist lineage) disagree on point 65, explicitly or from the deep of their guts.

3. Rigpa, DJZR and some other Buddhists think “crazy wisdom’s skilful means”, while the survivors (who are quite aware of the lies and the harm they went through) think “how I’m going to survive to the trauma and the wreckage ?”.

4. We are stuck. Rigpa (like many Tibetan Lamas who are abusers, and those who support them) don’t go further than verbiage : “That’s not to say no actions are wrong or right on the conventional level because they are, and they should be opposed and rectified or cultivated and promoted, respectively, in ourselves, others, organisations and society at large.” (quote from Cesare’s post above) – Yes, some survivors are still waiting… many are no more waiting.

Without ill will or resentment for anyone, but with compassion and love. I wish you all a wonderful path to Enlightenment.

(Thanks a lot Tahlia for this Blog which help many people, and for you courage.)

Thank you Tenpel, than you Joanne.
- 107
  
  tenpel on March 11, 2018 at 3:06 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you Julia.
  
  The disregard or denigration of the conventional truth / provisional teachings that shine (sometimes / often? but especially here with the term “Cinderella teaching” combined with the phrase “projection”) through the statements of DKR I find especially worrying.
  
  On the conventional level you can of course discriminate if something exists, if something does not exist, if something was a lie, a theft, a fraud or not. To have clarity about the conventional level forms an important basis of the ethics which are praised by the Buddha and Mahāyāna texts as well as in the Pali tradition as the very foundation of the spiritual path. So of course, it can be validly established through a valid cogniser analysing the conventions if something is ethical or unethical, or if your grandmother died or is still alive – though the ethical level can be a bit more subtle to validly be understood.
  
  It’s a mark of Buddhist cults as I experienced and observed them, and it’s a mark of newcomers of Buddhism or Buddhists who lack proper Buddhist studies – and especially of cult leaders and their followers – to denigrate, deny, undermine the validity of conventional truth by pointing to the ultimate truth and sidelining the conventional level on which we operate and interact with each other.
  
  These attempts serve in general (not exclusively but very often in cults) only to undermine the discrimination or intelligence of students to understand for themselves what’s right and wrong and to be empowered to take responsibility and to take actions according to their findings. These attempts to sideline (or even deny) conventional truths by stressing the ultimate truth contribute to a “realm of fuzziness” – a mark of cults. Fuzziness is the best realm for manipulation and distorting facts or truths, to exert power or to sow unreasonable doubts to undermine the self-confidence or intuition or understanding, the proper discrimination or proper judgment of students.
  
  The funny point is, good and bad or ethical or unethical or lie and truth are still relative terms, no absolute independent truths or things, however, a lie is a lie. A non-lie is a non-lie, abuse is abuse and non-abuse is non-abuse. Harm is harm, benefit is benefit – though there is longterm and shortterm benefit and harm.
  It can be rightly understood if your grandmother is still alive or already dead though being alive or dead are also conventionalities.
  
  All these conventional things can properly discriminated and the Buddha did so!
  - 108
    
    tenpel on March 11, 2018 at 4:25 pm
    Reply
    
    Two quotes regarding this:
    
    Chandrakirti:
    
    Conventional truth is the method,
    Ultimate truth arises from the method.
    Whoever does not know the distinctions of these two
    Enters an inferior path due to mistaken conceptions.
    
    Nagarjuna:
    
    Without depending on the conventional
    The ultimate cannot be taught.
    Without realizing the ultimate,
    Nirvana will not be attained.
  - 109
    
    Adamo on March 11, 2018 at 5:16 pm
    Reply
    
    “It’s a mark of Buddhist cults as I experienced and observed them, and it’s a mark of newcomers of Buddhism or Buddhists who lack proper Buddhist studies – and especially of cult leaders and their followers – to denigrate, deny, undermine the validity of conventional truth by pointing to the ultimate truth and sidelining the conventional level on which we operate and interact with each other.
    These attempts serve in general (not exclusively but very often in cults) only to undermine the discrimination or intelligence of students to understand for themselves what’s right and wrong and to be empowered to take responsibility and to take actions according to their findings. These attempts to sideline (or even deny) conventional truths by stressing the ultimate truth contribute to a “realm of fuzziness” – a mark of cults. Fuzziness is the best realm for manipulation and distorting facts or truths, to exert power or to sow unreasonable doubts to undermine the self-confidence or intuition or understanding, the proper discrimination or proper judgment of students.”
    
    This is, for my pov, the best description I have read or heard so far on such a capital misunderstanding of buddhist doctrine. It fully applies to Rigpa.
    
    Its astonishing how even “traditional scholars and teachers” are fooled by not understanding properly that crucial point.
    
    I tried desperate to discuss this issue at many times within Rigpa. As a result I was told some less “unkind” words.
    
    A collective refusal to reflect about that issue.
    
    I remember one older student, in the midts of the 90, on german winter retreat, who was responsible for a group of newer students.
    
    She explained that she was actually doing Vajrakilaya practice, and that she realizes the deity more and more and that we students should be very careful with talking to her, otherwise the wrathful energy would act upon the group and so on. She warned we could even be violated heavily.
    
    Later I dared to ask here under 4 eyes if she got the practices the right way as a mean to terrify newer students. She got mad at me, and I stopped talking to her and gave up meeting her in that particular group.
    
    When, naive as I was, approached another senior student responsible for care and teaching to ask if that ladies understanding was so accurate, that other seniorstudentlady told me quite arrogant that I as a junior student should not try to even talk about “emptiness” and related topics, since I would lack as a beginner any basic knowledge and rather should develope some more respect towards elder students.
    
    Funny thing, later on when I started doing “Ngondro” did I realize slowly that many of that senior students of whom beginners had thinking somehow that they would have finished Ngondro long ago did not even really started with that practice.
  - 110
    
    Joanne on March 11, 2018 at 11:33 pm
    Reply
    
    Very well put Julia, Tenzin and Adamo. I have had more than one merry-go-round discussion with people on the subject of conventional and ultimate– on my fears that nihilistic ideas were predominating. And Tenzin, connecting this to cultic power dynamics is very on-point I believe.
    
    On the other hand, there was a post made after Julia’s on What Now? in which a man who attended DKR’s London teaching shared some of his notes. It seems there is some movement happening in DKR’s attitudes– seems that maybe he’s acknowledged harm at last and that he’s listening. That’s very good. Though I’ve heard he is holding very fast to the samaya injunction of never speaking out critically regarding one’s lama.
    - 111
      
      Julia Lovert on March 12, 2018 at 11:20 am
      Reply
      
      Joanne, Is DJKR really acknowledging harm ? I don’t think so, he just acknowledged “suffering”, which could be already nice if he hadn’t add a strange statement to it.
      
      On whatnow727 David (the man you refer to) didn’t mention harm, he quoted : “We can’t deny that people have suffered, whether their suffering is correct or not is different, ”
      Weird ! Do you know what is a correct suffering according to DJKR ?
      
      There has never been any mention of harm in any of the DJKR’s talks, unless I missed something (I only read a comment of one of his disciple saying “harm occur only when there is duality”, but I’m not sure).
      
      Even if DJKR didn’t want to mention SL (for legal reasons), he could have made a general statement about how some Lama’s behaviors or situations… can be harmful to the disciple.
      - 112
        
        tenpel on March 12, 2018 at 11:41 am
        Reply
        
        Thank you. Indeed weird statement “We can’t deny that people have suffered, whether their suffering is correct or not is different, ”
      - 113
        
        Joanne on March 12, 2018 at 10:37 pm
        Reply
        
        Yes, Julia, thank you for the correction. I am a little conflicted sometimes, in my efforts to be more positive about the situation– and to be courteous to the students of DKR. The reality is that there are simply too many red flags and I fear that this opportunity for reform is pretty much gone. I totally agreed with your statement on What Now? when you said something to the effect that studying the Dharma is an experience of great clarity– while following the ramblings of DKR just feels like swimming in mud. I think I’ve been spoiled by years of study with HH Dalai Lama and I expect a teacher of the Dharma to reflect the Dharma and demonstrate clarity, consistency and compassion throughout. I fear this is too often lacking in the present situation and you can’t have leadership without those qualities.
        
        114
        
        matilda7 on March 13, 2018 at 6:10 am
        Reply
        
        Hi Joanne, i don’t think “this opportunity for reform is pretty much gone”. Hasn’t DKR more or less stated that he’s picking up, and responding, to the social media criticism of his approach to the Rigpa controversy (and of Sogyal directly)? So don’t lose heart yet.
        
        There are no doubt many wonderful gems in his recent teachings, and he is a very charismatic, seemingly forthcoming, teacher. The issue i have is that he’s still papering over, or ignoring entirely, some glaring points.
        
        Personally i think an open letter to Dzongsar Khyentse, containing about 20 questions, might be one approach to getting answers on vital matters we feel he’s skating over, or entirely ignoring.
        
        115
        
        Julia on March 13, 2018 at 6:27 pm
        Reply
        
        Joanne, yes DJKR spoke about harm in general.
        
        (first video Rigpa London)
        28:40 One of the main challenge is not having good teacher, not having enough teachers, someone who can teach, and even if we have a teacher, we know that there are many teachers, especially among the Tibetan, who are not really qualified, especially in the vajrayana. Not qualified vajrayana so called masters. There are so many tulkus, lamas, rinpoches, who indulges in so many bad behaviors and harm students, harm the Buddha Dharma, and burn the seed of inspiration from innocent people. This is a big problem there is none dispute with this. And I am not defending any of them, we should not.
        …
        30:58 We have teachers but many teachers don’t event try to understand the society they are going to teach. A teacher is supposed to be like a doctor, the student like a patient, Dharma is supposed to be a medicine. If the teacher is not trying to understand the history of the student, and the sickness and all of that, then it’s definitely a problem.
        
        I listen to some other interesting parts, but still it is not my style, there are too many digressions. To conclude, I really wish that my neighbors Lerab Ling and Dharma friends all around the world will find the good answers, and take the right actions to fairly solve this difficult situation.
116

tenpel on March 13, 2018 at 12:50 am
Reply

BTW, Sogyal Lakar offered an apology:

Here is a transcript of part of Sogyal’s Message to the Australian Sangha. It was shared with the whole sangha at a sangha day. The message starts with an update on Sogyal Lakar’s health. It has been told that it is obvious that SL was reading a prewritten script but, according to a person, his tone of voice is such that the message is truly heartfelt:

I pray that in the year ahead the Sangha continues to heal and grows stronger that we are kind and loving to one and other with deep understanding, patience and judgement.

I pray that we can remain true to our inner most nature, true to the path of enlightenment and that we continue to fulfil the vision and the aspirations of all the Buddhas and all our great masters for the benefit for sentient beings.

I know that some of you in the Sangha still feel very hurt and upset, perhaps even at me

I really want to acknowledge your feelings of hurt and once again offer you my deepest apologies for anything you feel I may have done to cause you really pain.

Not a single day goes by where I don’t take these things seriously, and ask forgiveness for whatever I may have done knowingly and unknowingly in the presence of all the Buddhas and also in your presence I invoke you the sangha too, really heartfelt and pray that the healing will take place soon, that something really good may come out of this.

My aspiration has always been to liberate my students from confusion and suffering and to the teachings of my masters.

I am deeply deeply pained and distressed that anybody should feel hurt. I pray that we can continue to maintain our connection and work towards forgiveness and reconciliation.

It might be worth to analyse it:

I really want to acknowledge your feelings of hurt and once again offer you my deepest apologies for anything you feel I may have done to cause you really pain.

How honest is this apology? What do you think? What do you feel reading it? What do your gut feelings tell you, how honest this really is?

I quote McLeod (from an article I have my problems with but not with this particular passage which I quote now):*

Apology is part of the third force, remedy. An apology can do much to mitigate the harm done and to set things in a more constructive direction. Even in serious medical situations, when a doctor does something wrong, in many cases what the aggrieved party wants most of all is a sincere apology. To know that the doctor knows he or she did something wrong and sincerely regrets it may put patients at ease, if only because now they have some confidence that no one else will suffer the same fate.

What constitutes a sincere apology? A sincere apology consists of an admission and expression of regret not for the results of an action but for the action itself. Feel the difference between the words “I’m sorry if I offended you” and “I’m sorry I spoke harshly to you,” or even “I’m sorry—that was insensitive on my part.” In the latter two versions, I am acknowledging my action. I am not making the apology conditional on your state of mind. We can only take responsibility for our actions and the intention motivating our actions.

Now read it again:

I really want to acknowledge you feelings of hurt and once again offer you my deepest apologies for anything you feel I may have done to cause you really pain.

When SL says this, isn’t he resting the blame on the feelings of those whom he has harmed with his very own actions? He basically lays the blame on their feelings, isn’t it? It is their feeling, its their responsibility, not his.

He »may« have caused harm (?!) Its their pain, its their problem basically for what he is sorry. I can’t see or feel how SL takes responsibility for his own harmful actions and how this is an honest apology.

SL also says

I know that some of you in the Sangha still feel very hurt and upset, perhaps even at me

»even at me« – though unthinkable, this can happen – subtext, because you don’t understand (maybe the real cause of the problem are the letter writers but but not me – it can’t be really me, can it?) Subtext – but then, because I am a great being, if you want to be upset with me, I can take it – subtext, I am great, you are poor, because you have all these emotionally upsetting hurting feelings. You don’t have control over your minds, I am so sorry for you. Now lets forgive and reconcile.

* The article by Ken McLeod is about forgiveness. Though forgiveness is indeed not a Buddhist concept, sincere apologies and not ignoring the anger of others etc. or to accept sincere apologies are part of the Bodhisattva training. I have many problems with McLeod’s piece because I am still convinced that forgiveness also can overcome reactive patterns (by letting go of grudge, letting go of harm, releasing a very tight negative relationship into something better instead of holding tightly on it … but read and think for yourself: https://tricycle.org/magazine/forgiveness-not-buddhist/
117

tenpel on March 13, 2018 at 8:57 am
Reply

London talk DKR at Rigpa 4 hours:
Part 1

Part 2
118

matilda7 on March 13, 2018 at 9:36 am
Reply

When will it ever end?
- 119
  
  tenpel on March 13, 2018 at 9:53 am
  Reply
  
  When the key issue is understood and be taken care of: how Vajrayana can fuel the narcissism or grandiosity feelings of a teacher and make a teacher a super-narcissist and how Vajrayana can be used to convince Western students that this all is ok – even killing or acting against the law – while even thinking “abuse” on the side of the students would be a breakage of Samaya.
  
  I think DKR is more part of the problem than its solution. I wonder if he understands at all the dynamics, functions and concepts behind cults, narcissism or abuse or how it feels on the other end when faith is abused by your teacher … He seems to be more on a mission to defend Vajrayana than to understand …
  
  I hope I err.
120

matilda7 on March 13, 2018 at 10:27 am
Reply

Norbu’s travelling roadshow, coming to a town near you!
- 121
  
  tenpel on March 13, 2018 at 10:54 am
  Reply
  
  My suggestion: put 1 or 2 letter writers (or a woman / man being abused by SL / Rigpa) + a well educated Western psychologist / psychiatrist with knowledge about the dynamics of abuse and narcissism, sociopaths (a non-Rigpa associated one) + an anthropologist expert in how knowledge is been generated / or a cult expert + a good moderator on the stage. Let them discuss these things.
  
  To use a drastic image: maybe currently the situation is more like an NRA PR person is discussing in NRA circles about “school violence” (denying its basically violence by guns) and how school teachers should be armed and trained to shoot back instead of facing the real problem: how a whole society and politicians came under the spell and control of the NRA cult – prioritising the freedom of buying weapons over the welfare of the people based on attachment to doctrinal issues related to the second amendment of the US constitution – and how this harmful situation for a whole society can be changed or reverted.
  - 122
    
    Carol McQuire on March 13, 2018 at 11:11 am
    Reply
    
    Add a trustworthy Vajrayana teacher or the discussion will be incomplete
    - 123
      
      tenpel on March 13, 2018 at 11:38 am
      Reply
      
      True!
    - 124
      
      tenpel on March 13, 2018 at 11:38 am
      Reply
      
      I would add Mingyur Rinpoche.
125

tenpel on March 14, 2018 at 12:19 am
Reply

Here is an interview with Tahlia Newland by Justin Whitaker:

“Why I Spoke Up”: Tahlia Newland on Abuse in Tibetan Buddhism
https://www.patreon.com/posts/17515563
- 126
  
  Julia on March 14, 2018 at 9:07 am
  Reply
  
  Good article, Tahlia is very brave, and what she does is helpful too.
127

Rigpa, Abuse in buddhism, and Blaming the Victims – OUTSIDE THE RAIN on March 15, 2018 at 3:27 pm
Reply

[…] And then there is the Question Not being Asked…. and SOME REFLECTIONS ON DZONGSAR KHYENTSE RINPOCHE’S TALK AT RIGPA BERLIN […]
128

tenpel on March 17, 2018 at 12:28 am
Reply

On the What Now Blog there is a concise and, I think, a fair and to the point summary of Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s 12 hour talks at European Rigpa centers.

For me, the key points in this article / the whole topic are condensed into these words:

In his final talks he spoke far more plainly than at the start, perhaps more plainly than he has ever spoken on such matters. It is NEVER acceptable for a guru to harm somebody. YES, you MUST respect the laws of the land. You CAN’T deny that people have suffered. There HAS been pain – it is NOT a story or an illusion. [Sogyal] Rinpoche HAS TO address this.

All these things were good to hear. But it feels like they had to be shocked and shaken out of him. As he made plain in his first talk, he has his ›agendas‹ and over the course of the tour he had realised that trying to wave some of these issues away with mystical ambiguity was simply reinforcing the narrative of Vajrayana as a cult. His mission was to save Vajrayana and if that meant being more explicit than he liked to be, then he would do it. As long as it didn’t involve mentioning rape, beatings, theft or using the word ›abuse‹, that is.
129

rudeness on March 17, 2018 at 5:39 pm
Reply

Mary Finnegan posted this on whatnow- anyone have more info?
DKR’s students threw out a member of Sikkimese Royal Family and pinned
to the ground? horrible…

Mary Finnigan
MARCH 17, 2018 AT 7:10 PM
The man who was physically thrown out of DK in London is a member of the Sikkimese royal family. He has known DK for decades. He feels strongly that Sogyal and DK are charlatans who have brought Tibetan Buddhism and culture into disrespect. He arrived at the Conway Hall late and initially sat quietly at the back. He did not have a ticket. Someone recognised him. A bunch of bouncers jumped on him. At that point he shouted and asked to be allowed to debate with DK. He was dragged outside where several people pinned him to the ground. The police were called. A bloke called Rowan Somerville talked to him in an obnoxious patronising manner. The cops were kind to him and gave him a lift to the underground. I agree with the comment here that strident action of this nature is long overdue and that he should have been allowed to question DK. He is intense but certainly not deranged. We are far too polite around the issues involved. I wouldn’t trust DK with a forged fiver.
- 130
  
  tenpel on March 17, 2018 at 9:58 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes this is true. The person wanted to address the story of a woman who committed suicide. The story is this: this female student of Sogyal Lakar was asked to undress by SL. Sogyal then put a collar around her neck and made her playing a dog. Later she committed suicide. I don’t know if this is true. Mary Finnigan seems to have evidence that this is true. Now, this person wanted to tell this story at Rigpa London and confront DKR with it. Then it goes as Mary tells on the What Now Blog and as quoted above. The member of the royal family told that DKR laughed about the whole situation and that this might be the reason why they cut it out of the video.
  There is a plan to make known what the member of the royal family wanted to say in another way.
  - 131
    
    Julia on March 17, 2018 at 11:20 pm
    Reply
    
    Here is the link to the interview of the woman (former disciple and worker at Lerab Ling) who was one of the witnesses and who spoke. Interview by France 3, 24/01/2018. 1:47
    
    “There was a woman who was naked in a hall, who was with him (SL). She had psychological problems, I think.
    She had a rope around her neck and he was dragging her, while laughing and saying “heehaw” “heehaw” “heehaw”, as if she was a donkey. It was such a crazy humiliation. And us, we couldn’t react.
    I was feminist, I was not a person who accepted situation passively. However, even if I was witnessing a situation of great violence, psychological and of humiliation of this woman, and at the same time of us, I, we had no more the ability to react normally.”
    
    I read that the humiliated woman committed suicide later, but didn’t found the source. I deeply feel sorry for her, I feel sorry that nobody took care of her and that nobody protected her. This is also a tragedy for the people who witnessed, it must be hard for them to remember this situation.
    - 132
      
      tenpel on March 18, 2018 at 11:52 pm
      Reply
      
      Ok, I just got an email and was asked to be cautious. It gave also some confidential details which I cant’t share.
      
      The testimony of different people that this man rushed to the stage yelling profanities is what happened as far as I know. It is also not unreasonable to take a person down at that point. And indeed, others had their chance to ask, so why wouldn’t he? All in all the setup was rather open it seems.
      
      So lets put the puzzle together:
      
      – there is what the witnesses at Rigpa London say, that he rushed to the stage yelling profanities
      – there is what the man himself and Mary reports (and what I added from his perspective + intentions), and
      – there is this incident reported of the woman and the rope being humiliated.
      – There is no proof that this woman committed suicide.
      – The woman was reported indeed to be mentally not stable (which doesn’t mean its right to humiliate her)
      
      It would be good to get to know if there are other witnesses who can verify / agree / disagree / elaborate on the testimony Domenique Cowell gives in that video.
      
      Lets be careful and sane.
  - 133
    
    Martin Gattuso on July 6, 2018 at 5:17 am
    Reply
    
    I’m reading these blogs like I would a trashy tabloid.
    Surely the Sikkimese royal family would have better strategies for airing a complaint than the above. Especially if it was such a serious one. Once again, as I’ve mentioned here before, Western followers of SL were very much complicit in creating what he became. Where are their apologies? Why is it all suddenly DJKR’s fault? I’m hearing a lot of negativity being projected on the Tibetans, but the Western sense of victim-hood and entitlement is staggering.
    - 134
      
      tenpel on July 6, 2018 at 1:54 pm
      Reply
      
      Do as you please, Martin.
      
      I know this man personally. We spent some hours discussing these things and we also discussed the event at Rigpa London on mobile phone.
      
      For sure I focus more on the faults of Westerners and in general, I don’t blame anyone but start from dependent arising. All phenomena arise due to many causes and conditions, some lie in you, some outside of you. To understand the complexity, you have to look from different angels. In general, its hard to find solutions outside of your own continuum, therefore better to understand your own parts in the game and to change that accordingly. But this does not mean to deny, neglect or not to try also to change things outside your own continuum. The same can be applied to Westerners, Tibetans, cultures etc.
      
      I don’t know who says its all DJKR’s fault. Neither I nor others have done this nor does the post support this claim. However, as part of dependent arising he plays – like anyone of us, including you and me – a role in that. There is nothing wrong in critically examining this role (as long as its not totally deluded, distorting reality or manipulative, untruthful etc.)
      
      So, I don’t know how you can come to this conclusion … but maybe you can enlighten me or the readers (with good reasons or arguments)?
135

Julia on March 17, 2018 at 11:36 pm
Reply

I also feel sorry for SL, and I don’t understand why none of his friends stopped him, and helped him to understand that what he was doing was not right. Do they think that it’s alright to humiliate vulnerable people ? What Dharma is it ? not mine.
I’m sorry that SL is sick now, and suffers.
- 136
  
  matilda7 on July 6, 2018 at 10:12 pm
  Reply
  
  Julia, it’s the ‘group think’ dynamic at play that prevents most people from stepping out of line as that takes tremendous courage, particularly in contexts of extreme conformity. As for the lamas, they were all invested in the success of Rigpa. Read OTR’s thoughts on Sogyal to understand his unwavering commitment to him.
137

pandora on March 18, 2018 at 2:02 am
Reply

This incident demonstrates that DKR is more interested in protecting Sogyal than dealing with real issues. I am glad the poor woman is being given a voice. And I’m glad DKR is being called to task by members of the Himalayan Buddhist community-that will have a bigger effect than just foreigners complaining.

How dare he laugh at that poor woman’s story?
- 138
  
  tenpel on March 18, 2018 at 4:09 am
  Reply
  
  It’s not clear if he laughed about the story. The man had only 10 seconds to shout out the story. It might be DKR recognised who it was and laughed about him or the „funny situation“ that they kick out a member of the royal family who was treated far better in the past. Or DKR just found it funny a person shouting and been kicked out without recognising him.
139

Friend on March 18, 2018 at 9:28 am
Reply

It’s getting better all the time…
An interesting sight about traditional punishment in some monasteries in Tibet , related by a Lama who was well educated in Tibet. See p 13 of this booklet….

Click to access Virupa-Vol-III-1-1976.pdf

Is this a “funny situation”?
The awful and shocking story of the humiliation of the naked crazy woman by SL is just a glimpse of his “compassionate enlightend behaviour”, and the lack of reaction of the public, the sign of manipulated peolple in a trash cult….nothing to do with Buddha’s teatchings (I hope)…
DKR had an oppotunity to clear his position about this case, he didn’t, what will be the next step to preserve the golden legend of new-age charlatans using false Dharma for their lavish personal lifestyle?
- 140
  
  tenpel on March 18, 2018 at 10:02 am
  Reply
  
  NOTE (July, 6,18): This comment was sent by mobile phone where I could not see the context of discussion. Therefore its out of context 😉
  Sorry. (see subsequent comments for more)
  
  The described punishments are not part of the Vinaya. It’s a cultural issue.
  There is also another difference, Tibetans are said they can be very stubborn and pride. They usually don’t lack self confidence but have a lot of it. In such a context humiliating a person who has done wrong and doesn’t change by lets say pointing out a fault in front of an assembly might be indeed a means that works to change the behaviour of the person to the better. However, for a person who lacks strong self confidence, has a weak ego such public exposing of a fault can do more bad than good, harming him more than helping.
  The Dalai Lama has different times spoken against and advised against beating monks in the monasteries.
  ****
  The story of the woman is truly horrible, painful and disgusting. It speaks at length also how much brainwashed bystanders who saw and know about this are. How much the Rigpa culture has indoctrinated and intoxinated them. Considering the other stories of abuse and the megalomaniac attitude of SL, I see no reason to doubt it. If the woman committed suicide this is even worse and more saddening. Unbelievable!
  - 141
    
    Martin Gattuso on July 6, 2018 at 5:21 am
    Reply
    
    “The story of the woman is truly horrible, painful and disgusting.” It certainly would be if it was verifiable. What was her name? Who was there? What proof, other than gossip, do you actually hold?
    - 142
      
      tenpel on July 6, 2018 at 1:41 pm
      Reply
      
      Hi Martin, you have a point. I don’t know actual to what my comment relates to. I didn’t read the Virupa document nor was my comment related to it. What happened different times now is, that often I check the comments on mobile phone. The app works in a way that you cannot see the context of the discussion (though you can see the post the comment relates to) As a result I have written different times comments that are out of context. When I got aware of that, I deleted or corrected this. Here you see – as far as I get it – another “out of context” comment. For the sake of transparency I leave it there and will add a brief note.
  - 143
    
    Joanne on July 6, 2018 at 11:23 pm
    Reply
    
    However, Martin and Tenpel, the story about this woman has been verified by several sources. In my opinion, the context is that we are at a time right now where all those incidents that have been pushed under the rug for too long are coming to the surface. While some of them might be untrue, this is a time to expose and hear, as with the Metoo movement, we have to be hearing and giving credence. The risk of denigrating the story, particularly in this case where the woman is said to have committed suicide, is that further trauma can occur. So I err, at this time, on the side of belief.
144

Friend on March 19, 2018 at 8:26 am
Reply

How many monks killed by the one pound iron keys of the Dob-dob in medieval Tibet???
Shangri-la is very far….
145

Julia on March 20, 2018 at 10:21 am
Reply

This is my last message concerning Rigpa and the talks of DJKR. I commented also on the Whatnow727 blog. I’m surprised (event if I should not) by the tone and the way things head.

First, there were the astonishing speech of Talhia who suddenly is in adoration with DJKR, it’s an incredibly surprising turnabout ! Again blind adoration ! “SL is dead, long life DJKR”.
Even if we can appreciate what Dzongzar is doing, or some things he is doing, setting him on a throne like this is too much. Tahlia was impartial before !

In addition, there is a kind of moderation from the Rigpa’ staff appearing suddenly, setting people on the right path : “Your sharing is good ” … “You sharing is bad”, using even harsh or patronizing words, without any compassion and respect for those who have been harmed , and spent a lot of time to analyze the situation and try to make things better.

It’s for me a direct experience on the Internet of what I read in the testimonies about Rigpa’s seniors (or those who think there are). It confirms what I also witnessed around DJKR. Rigpa’s senior disciples have a strong habit to control people, to control what they should say or think. To subtly patronize those who are not on what they think is the “right path”, and congratulate those who are. A sort of cultish repression and reward (Note : I don’t say that Rigpa is a cult, I don’t know about this. ) .

Of course there are also many things happening behind the curtain, and we don’t know them. There is a tone of victory which is disruptive.

Sorry to say that, but my feeling is that whatnow727, who was a good place for people to express their concerns and their analyzes, become manipulative and quite dishonest. No need to tell it on the blog itself, the moderator will come to repress.

This story is even hurting, and I don’t think that I will be the only one with this feeling of having been fooled. My conclusion is that Rigpa, and all what is going around is deeply unhealthy and fuzzy. I decided to totally avoid them and warn honestly every body when I have the opportunity, especially young and vulnerable people around Lerab Ling (However I am not making any accusation.).

I understand the strong advises of HHDL and Mingur Rinpoche. I understand why they avoid to be involved in Rigpa’s issues, and I will listen their advises, maybe I should have done it before.

Thank you to Buddhism controversy blog.
- 146
  
  tenpel on March 21, 2018 at 12:24 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you Julia for your comments and contributions.
  
  It appears to me the comment section on the what now blog on the latest post is totally over heated. It seems also that this ends up as more confusing than clarifying. While I found the latest post very good, I was also amazed to note Tahlia’s great enthusiasm on DKR. (Basically, I was amazed and while noting my amazement, I also put the praise aside as a bit strange or surprising …). On the other hand I like it if people add different views and perspectives – except it’s at the cost of those been harmed, unfair, supporting cultish environments, untrue or manipulative etc.
  
  I like a balancing view on DKR too. However, the overly strong enthusiasm might be misplaced and a falling back to old (cultish) habits of behaviour.
  
  From my own observations and experiences: if you have followed a cult, the manipulative (self-manipulative or other-manipulative) patterns, the distorted ways of thinking or judging, self-brainwashing, the indoctrination, the clinging to outer authorities etc … to get rid of that, and to get clarity about what happened to you and why it happened to you, and what your own role is or was in that process … this takes years(!) My thesis is: it takes at least as many years as your full commitment to the cult – if you work hard! Otherwise, if you don’t work hard on it or if you lack the support or lack the inner conditions, it takes even longer.
  
  Any person leaving a cult is at the edge or at risk to follow the next cult leader (similar to some woman who have a pattern to built relationships with violent or abusive men). I experienced it myself and I observed it with others. After I followed two Buddhist cult leaders I was on the edge to follow the third one, Geshe Michael Roach. Alex Berzin skilfully saved me from that – though initially I didn’t want to hear his warnings.
  
  Ask yourself, after all the abuse which came to light by SL, abuse which continued for decades, seriously harmed people, which is just awful, painful and totally disgusting, then considering this totally corrupt, often so dishonest and highly manipulative Rigpa setup that enabled, justified, whitewashed the abuse, sides with the abuser, attacked those brave voices speaking up, installed gaslighting Rigpa therapies … will such an unhealed and dishonest environment be helpful and save enough to be able to support you to continue your path? What will be the outcome of entrusting yourself into such a sick environment with a highly ambiguous crisis dharma manager as DKR, who might have committed only 10 minutes of 12-13 hour talks on looking from the perspective of those been harmed? How will it help, after having followed Rigpa, to follow now a Buddhist master, who has shown only superficial or even a strange type of compassion (remember the “correct suffering” statement?)*, who often fuels the manipulative, dishonest Rigpa culture by adding further ambiguity and fuzziness that open the doors for future problems?
  
  At least for me this is not convincing but rather worrying. Yes I am deeply sceptical and yes, I have a rather pessimistic if not negative view on the situation. But there are good reasons for me at the moment that make this approach reasonable. Because, I think, a positive view should have some substance in reality and the main factor for cultivating a positive view for me are qualities I can detect in another person or environment such as clarity and compassion or the wish to really help the student to overcome confusion and to get settled into the a healthy dharmic base (ethics and love for instance) which I find with HHDL and YMR but not DKR. However, this doesn’t mean that DKR doesn’t have many good sides too or that anybody has to see DKR (or SL) in only a negative light.
  
  The other extreme response (instead of following the next cult leader) is to abandon Buddhism or religion altogether – though highly understandable and everybody’s right (I would totally respect such a decision though feeling very sad considering the potential help Buddhism has to offer).
  
  Another extreme response might be to become an anti-cultist fighting the cults (or Tibetan Buddhism altogether). Which is only a reversal of the former cult involvement. Nothing really is learned.
  
  The key point, I think, after these events, is to take time. To find the own pace, to be careful, reflecting, critical. To take time to understand better. There is a great potential to really grow in the midst of all of these pains and confusion. But this chance could also be missed.
  
  I think, taking the advice of HHDL or YMR is the healthier option. For me too many alarm bells ring when listening or watching DKR.
  
  When I recognised this patronising tone of some at the what now blog it reminded me on ex-NKT discussions. The NKT cult is patronising as is Rigpa it seems. This patronising behaviour of (ex-cultists) is not easily laid aside but will come foreword every now and then and cause deep pain in those still sick from being patronised based on their cult experiences. The patronising behaviour opens or stirs old wounds and can be very painful. But its also rather normal, because there was no time nor introspection to detect it and to lay it down, to leave it behind.
  
  These are just some quick thoughts typed on mobile phone while being tired. But maybe some of it can help to put things or experiences or observations into perspective. (I corrected just the comment on my laptop, to make my points clearer and post it now anew).
  
  In all ways, thank you Julia for your honest truth seeking contributions. I wish you well. I wish you the very best on your spiritual journey and all good supporting conditions!
  
  * From the London talk (from 1:35:05): “We can’t deny the fact that, you know, there have been people who have suffered. People who have returned the letters, people who have suffered, whether their suffering is correct or not. How their suffering has come, what reason, all of this is something different, but there is suffering.” – quote and time found at a post by Rob on Open Buddhism.
  - 147
    
    Julia on March 21, 2018 at 9:29 pm
    Reply
    
    Your elegant and kind reply, Tenpel, is a balm for the mind.
    
    I wish you too the very best on your spiritual journey, and won’t forget your valuable support.
- 148
  
  French Observer on March 21, 2018 at 6:11 pm
  Reply
  
  I support 100% Tahlia. She has done a very good job up to now, she is courageous and sincere.
  
  When it is the time to talk or create a dialog, using some diplomacy never hurts…
  - 149
    
    tenpel on March 21, 2018 at 6:14 pm
    Reply
    
    Thank you! I am very grateful for her amazing work, engagement and dialogue too. She has done so much to make things better. And it’s also good to see that DKR takes her seriously. Very good!!!
- 150
  
  matilda7 on July 6, 2018 at 11:13 am
  Reply
  
  Perhaps it’s time to ask Tahlia whether she still feels so enthusiastic about DKR’s London talks. He’s a very charismatic teacher and it seems to me people are seduced by his delivery.
151

matilda7 on March 21, 2018 at 2:36 am
Reply

Tenpel, i agree that the emotional temperature of some commenters on What Now has soared, but i do have to ask, do you feel you may have contributed to that by putting so much emphasis on the London incident?
- 152
  
  tenpel on March 21, 2018 at 3:37 am
  Reply
  
  I might have contributed, yes.
- 153
  
  Joanne on March 22, 2018 at 11:26 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you Tenzin and Julia for your succinct comments. I also think the London incident created too much of a stir– though I don’t think it was Tenzin’s fault. It has an energy that I think some people are experiencing within themselves. People are frustrated, some are angry. The hopes of last August have been pretty much drowned out by DKR’s hours and hours and hours of talking.
  
  Any Western therapist will tell you that first you create safety– then you can address all the details of abuse and harm. But until safety has been assured, the details are irrelevant. It would be like trying to treat people with third degree burns in a house where there are embers ready to re-ignite at any moment. In this regard, DKR is simply NOT the person to be leading Rigpa forward. It’s that simple.
  
  And I think those of us who are repelled by the What Now conversation are simply viewing deep frustration and probably some despair as well. We’ve come a long way backwards from those moments when we first heard those encouraging comments of support from HH Dalai Lama and Mingyur Rinpoche.
  - 154
    
    etzanas etzanas on March 23, 2018 at 7:37 pm
    Reply
    
    Joanne, did you watch the full video series? What do you think about my questions on Whatnow. Personally, I didn’t watch the whole series of DJKR’s talks and I may have a wrong understanding.
    
    From my perspective, DJKR has exposed this underlying logic about abuses: there is no abuse if the adults gave their consent with the situation occuring. When you take a samaya with all the proper requirements and preparation, then you accept that whatever the guru does, you perceive all his actions as the actions of a Buddha. So you agree with all his actions and if you are part of the action, you are automatically a consenting adult. Still, you have the possibility to say no and go away but never to criticize the actions of the guru.
    
    The mistake from Sogyal Rinpoche was to not explain clearly those rules to some of his students, which has caused them some harm. But except this bad application of the Vajrayana in term of proper preparation of the students, there was no abuse but just skillful means. Of course, before taking the samaya the students must investigate the teacher and his actions.
    
    Did I understand well the underlying logic of DJKR or did he say something different in his talks?
    
    I wonder also how the potential outsider students can investigate about some unconventional methods from the guru? When those actions are hidden and the “initiated” students don’t have the right to reveal them as those actions are supposed to be “secret”? To reveal them would be perceived as a critic from the part of the students?
    - 155
      
      Joanne on March 24, 2018 at 12:58 am
      Reply
      
      Etzanas, have you read the letter written by the eight former Ribpa students? You might want to start with that: https://www.lionsroar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Letter-to-Sogyal-Lakar-14-06-2017-.pdf The letter is a first hand account.
      
      There are less first hand accounts coming out right now because there are cases in the courts, so publicity will be less.
      
      Also, many Rigpa students feel they were aware of the samaya commitment. This is not about that in my opinion. It is about how far a teacher can go in the name of Vajrayana– and when his actions are harming rather than helping both students and the Vajrayana. If you read descriptions of his actions, they are not the actions of an enlightened being and students are leaving because they find his actions abhorrent.
    - 156
      
      matilda7 on March 24, 2018 at 3:00 am
      Reply
      
      Etzanas, i’m calling BS on this notion that as long as the teacher has “prepared” the student, abuse is OK. As i’ve previously written here & on WhatNow, the notion that you can prepare someone for abuse is a vile concept and is known as grooming, which is how pedophiles coerce their victims into succumbing to abuse. Please consider.
      - 157
        
        Catlover on March 24, 2018 at 6:24 am
        Reply
        
        @matilda7,
        
        Also, I totally agree with your very well-worded statement regarding “preparing people for abuse.” It is a vile concept.
      - 158
        
        Joanne on March 24, 2018 at 10:11 am
        Reply
        
        Very well said, matilda.
    - 159
      
      French Observer on March 24, 2018 at 10:19 am
      Reply
      
      Ok ladies, sorry that my name didn’t appear right, etzanas or French Observer is the same address. Can’t we have a space of rational thinking here? We can debate, but need also to listen and understand. I was just asking whether my understanding of the position of DJKR was correct.
      
      It is OK to have our own opinion, but isn’t it crucial to understand correctly the official position and the reasoning of DJKR and Rigpa?
      - 160
        
        tenpel on March 24, 2018 at 12:43 pm
        Reply
        
        Exactly!
      - 161
        
        Catlover on March 25, 2018 at 1:10 pm
        Reply
        
        @French Observer,
        
        I understood that you were just asking for clarification on what DKR said during his talks. I heard a lot of his talks, so I hope I was helpful in answering your question.
    - 162
      
      French Observer on March 24, 2018 at 10:23 am
      Reply
      
      By the way, I have posted here because I find that there is a form of group hysteria going on in the whatnow comments.
    - 163
      
      French Observer on March 24, 2018 at 11:20 am
      Reply
      
      Joanne, your first article about the Berlin talk was excellent and complete. But it seems to me that DJKR has brought new elements especially in London.
      I guess the current situation is that very few people understood his message as you get easily lost after all those hours of mumbling.
      I think there are some serious shortcomings in his speech, but this is difficult to demonstrate as his talks are so confused and unclear. I wonder why people think he is a good a speecher. Personally, I don’t find him even a good entertainer.
      - 164
        
        Catlover on March 24, 2018 at 2:35 pm
        Reply
        
        @French Observer/etzanas,
        
        I don’t blame you for being confused after listening to DKR’s most recent talks. It is confusing to wade through it. However, in my opinion, (after listening to a lot of his recent talks myself), I think you did sum up what he said correctly. It’s totally understandable for you to want clarification though because he evades addressing some of it directly.
        
        My impression is that DKR supports Sogyal’s actions as “crazy wisdom” and the only thing he thinks Sogyal did wrong was not to prepare his Vajrayana students beforehand. He made this very clear in his 19 page letter and in his talks. Toward the end, he seems to alter his position slightly, but only because he realized he was offending his Western audience.
        
        165
        
        Catlover on March 24, 2018 at 2:40 pm
        Reply
        
        I meant to say “toward the end, during his last few talks…etc.
      - 166
        
        Joanne on March 25, 2018 at 5:09 am
        Reply
        
        Sorry, French Observer, my response was too quick, making assumptions that you were coming from that perspective yourself. I have to be more careful reading peoples comments!!!! I apologize– and now, I probably should do the tedious work of wading through those hours of teaching! Do any of us want to?
        
        I was only interested in my article in addressing his wrong statement about His Holiness. But, now that his teaching tour is finished, perhaps it’s time to start addressing things in more depth?Putting them into a perspective– ? Is it worth doing? My overall impression is that he’s out of his depth and trying to cover every base, make everybody happy– but I can’t make such assumptions without listening to all those hours. Then, when I listen to all those hours, I might be left with some good and some bad and lots of confusion about his perspective– which was my experience after reading the article.
        
        Right now, personally, I’m just feeling a bit sad that this situation doesn’t seem to have moved things forward very well. 😦
      - 167
        
        Joanne on March 25, 2018 at 6:21 am
        Reply
        
        And also, FO, you make a very good point here, saying that DKR’s main point was: “The mistake from Sogyal Rinpoche was to not explain clearly those rules to some of his students, which has caused them some harm. But except this bad application of the Vajrayana in term of proper preparation of the students, there was no abuse but just skillful means. Of course, before taking the samaya the students must investigate the teacher and his actions.”
        
        I don’t think that was SL’s main mistake! SL students were very well informed on all accounts, as far as I can tell. Their main goal has been to follow the guidance of HHDL and view SL as a proper guru in terms of their practice– while still acknowledging his flaws. And this is a very difficult journey.
        
        168
        
        Joanne on March 25, 2018 at 10:03 am
        Reply
        
        Oh dear, I still think I’m not very clear. What I wanted to say was that DKR’s point about students not being well informed or prepared by SL is not really correct, because I think many of SL’s students report feeling they understood samaya and the Vajrayana etc. And because of this, they are now faced with having to navigate a way forward where they can acknowledge the misbehavior and still somehow honor their Vajrayana path– and maybe still honor SL on some level, as the one who has introduced them to the nature of their mind– this is what I have heard some describe. This is a very difficult journey imo and not one that DKR has even touched on in any of his teachings.
      - 169
        
        French Observer on March 25, 2018 at 10:46 am
        Reply
        
        Joanne, I think definitely the job should be done of making a synthesis of what DJKR has exposed in his talks, especially concerning and explaining his rational about abuses and victims. I think his expose concerning samaya is also very important.
        
        Today, we find ourselves in the extraordinary situation where NOBODY (maybe not even DJKR) has an accurate and complete idea of what he has said. Is his position really in contradiction with HHDL? This situation is very detrimental because Rigpa can handpick some extracts of the talks to justify whatever as traditional Vajrayana and keep business as usual saying there was no problem. The other lamas can’t be informed properly about the positions taken by DJKR.
        
        Personally, I don’t feel capable to make such a work (for a starter, my english is not good enough…). Joanne, you did an excellent job with the Berlin talk and you have already the material. I think, in fact, DJKR has repeated many times the same thing (but I am not sure). Plus you know very well the positions of HHDL so you can make the comparison. If you can, I think this work if it is impartial and not tainted by opinion would be very worthwhile, especially as it can serve as a source of reference to many people in the future. Maybe first expose the facts and in a separate note, put your own comments and opinion.
        
        This debate around different visions of the vajrayana, relation with the student, role of the teacher is VERY IMPORTANT. This is not just about Rigpa. I don’t think the 19 pages of DJKR are sufficient as a reference because he has brought new, “softer” elements in his talks. It would be also very interesting to identify whether there are some internal contradictions within those talks.
        
        If you can do it, just do it! If not, someone has to do it!
        
        170
        
        tenpel on March 25, 2018 at 12:49 pm
        Reply
        
        Rigpa can handpick some extracts of the talks to justify whatever as traditional Vajrayana and keep business as usual saying there was no problem.
        
        Exactly, this has been my main concern regarding the DKR talks and writings. And this might be the reason why for Rigpa DKR is the better person to relied upon than HHDL or YMR who are – unlike DKR – utterly clear, compassionate and to the point.
        
        BTW, it was Sogyal Lakar personally who sowed doubts when confronted with what the Dalai Lama says here https://info-buddhism.com/Ethics-in-the-Teacher-Student-Relationship.html
        
        When confronted with statements made by the Dalai Lama reported in that article and his own actions SL replied „How do we know that it is really true, that the Dalai Lama said this?“ (I know this because I was asked if I can get a confirmation of the OHHDL or a seal that HHDL really said that.)
        
        So to be frank, DKR with his tendencies for ambiguity, little focus on the plight of those been harmed and his understanding of how to deal with abuse (very different to HHDL or YMR) is the better choice for Rigpa because it’s the best reliance in order to keep business as usual, changing only a little while downplaying the rotten mental culture / indoctrination of the inner circle that has enabled the abuse.
        
        I agree, it would be fantastic to have such a review as you have asked for …
        
        171
        
        Joanne on March 25, 2018 at 11:10 pm
        
        On the other hand, one could cherry pick from statements given by HH Dalai Lama as well. In the 1993 conference, he made a statement saying samaya students should NOT criticize their teachers– then when challenged on this two days later, he changed his position and said that for the sake of the Vajrayana and hundreds of students, then it might be necessary to criticize in some situations. He compared the criticism to his own criticism of one of his teachers, who was starting a war.
        
        In another teaching, one focussed on tantric mahamudra, HH also advises students to not criticize. However, he makes it clear in this statement that students should never lose their critical discernment— but should quietly leave a teacher if necessary.
        
        In many statements given in non-tantric contexts, he advises students to criticize.
        
        So someone wanting to undermine HH could probably do so.
        
        I think ultimately, HH is very clear on his position in this situation. However, he would never want his position to be one in which respect for samaya was denigrated in any way– or in which critical discernment was not essential to determine whether the situation was severe enough to allow for open criticism.
        
        This is something that I personally revere about the Dharma and about HHDL–the necessity for each student to discern from a great complexity. But it is also something that I have seen badly abused, when people cherry pick. NKT people did it in their awful protest campaign against His Holiness. And it sounds like SL has done it as well– and Rigpa will probably continue to do it.
        
        And at the same time, contextual complexity provides teachers with a perfect out if they don’t want to directly address a difficult issue. I think we’re caught in this– and I think a post discussing this might be difficult?
        
        I think the best post would be one about the elephant in the room, about avoiding the main point, which is: What should students do when the situation is extreme and critical. So far, DKR has simply not addressed this point and until he does, his teachings have no relevance imo.
        
        172
        
        French Observer on March 26, 2018 at 9:00 am
        
        @Joanne, I have read again your article about the Berlin talk and I find your quote being also misleading. This is just some sentences out of their context. You should modify it, put the whole extract and explain well that critics are always possible if necessary. HHDL didn’t change his position during this conference and didn’t contradict himself.
        
        173
        
        French Observer on March 26, 2018 at 8:26 am
        Reply
        
        @Joanne, I have listened again to this extract handpicked by DJKR from the 1993 Western Buddhist Teachers Conference with HHDL (2 of 8) from 47:50 to 49:40. The question was about the situation where one teacher was sexually misbehaving using his power. The answer from HHDL was that the student should take his distance, remaining neutral.
        One must wonder why this particular piece of content has been chosen. Here is just the following question from the same video (from 49:40):
        “And if we advise other students to follow that course of action and remain neutral. Are we accumulating the negative karma of causing a separation between a student and their teacher?
        HHDL: That would depend of the individual cases. If you clearly see that danger, then advise. He should keep his distance. […] It depends of the individual cases. […] Of course, in all of those cases, motivation is really the key”.
        
        This answer from HHDL confirm that as a Vajrayana student, there are some cases where you need to criticize the actions of your guru. When he says that the student should give the advises to several students to keep their their distance from the guru, of course the student would indirectly be criticizing the actions of the guru (for the sake of the other students).
        
        So you see Joanne, even in this short piece of the conference, HHDL gives the advise that you can criticize the guru when the circumstances request it. In fact, I am ready to bet that HHDL never said that samaya students should NEVER criticize their teachers. WHY ARE PEOPLE JUST EXTRACTING A FEW SENTENCES, 2 MINUTES FROM AN EXCHANGE WITH HHDL? THIS IS THE KIND OF DISINFORMATION PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND IN RUSSIA AND THIS IS HIGHLY MISLEADING.
        
        My understanding from HHDL message from that 1993 conference is that YES, depending of the individual cases, all the Buddhists students (including the one holding samayas) can have to criticize the actions of their own teacher, especially if it is for the sake of protecting Buddhadharma. IN WAY HHDL CONTRADICTED HIMSELF OR CHANGED POSITION DURING THIS CONFERENCE.
        
        I think this position of HHDL is completely misunderstood by many Vajrayana students, we should make it clear with all the facts possible so there is no false interpretations.
        
        174
        
        Joanne on March 26, 2018 at 11:22 pm
        
        FO, I totally agree with you and have been worried for some time that Rigpa would cherry pick HH’s statements. I presented all my details of HH’s position to Tahlia, with just your reasoning, asking if she could at least put it in What Now references. I didn’t hear back from her. Then, Tenzin and I discussed how we should present the information on my post and decided best to make it part of the footnote, so that students could see the entire picture. If you listen to the quote on Session 6, it specifically clarifies the issue. HH is asked specifically to clarify what he meant during Session 2.
        
        So FO, did DKR actually quote from HH? Have you heard any specific mis-quoting of HH’s statements at the 1993 conference? If so, Tenzin, it definitely needs to be directly addressed imo!
        
        175
        
        tenpel on March 26, 2018 at 11:47 pm
        
        Hi Joanne. I think FO also asked you to consider to revise this post when I got that correctly. Sorry I don’t have much time currently. T
        
        176
        
        Joanne on March 27, 2018 at 12:12 am
        
        If I revise, then the changes might get lost. If there is any sign of HH being specifically misquoted, then it might need its own post? Or maybe a new title to this one in its revised state? I am happy to do either.
        
        177
        
        matilda7 on March 27, 2018 at 5:58 am
        
        Joanne, I thought the issue was the video grab of HHDL which DKR selectively chose as it suits his agenda whilst HHDL has been clearer on so many other occasions.
        
        178
        
        Joanne on March 27, 2018 at 11:47 am
        
        What video grab?
        
        179
        
        matilda7 on March 28, 2018 at 12:47 am
        
        The video grab of HH that DKR recently posted on FB. Everyone was referring to it.
        
        180
        
        tenpel on March 28, 2018 at 8:28 am
        
        Can you send a link?
        
        181
        
        tenpel on March 28, 2018 at 8:32 am
        
        Might be a bit funny or just inconsistent / duplicity or so. DKR insisting to read his 10.000 word statement in full and not quoting parts of it (when I remember correctly) but then he is taking out a tiny bit from HHDL, leaving aside the rest of what HHDL said?
        
        182
        
        matilda7 on March 28, 2018 at 8:57 am
        
        Tenpel, it’s about the third or fourth post on his fb page. I thought you and Joanne were familiar with it. What i’m not clear about is whether it’s recent or from the conference with Westerners back in the early nineties.
        
        183
        
        Joanne on March 28, 2018 at 11:17 am
        
        Thanks Matilda– I have been expecting something like that, particularly when I found the statement that DKR has posted– knowing that he might cherry-pick that statement and not bother to listen to the rest of the conference. It’s time to post a clarifying article for sure.
        
        184
        
        tenpel on March 28, 2018 at 11:54 am
        
        Great, please be so kind to write a clarifying article Joanne.
        
        185
        
        tenpel on March 28, 2018 at 12:42 pm
        
        Just found and saw it. There is a writing by DKR “the distortions we being into Buddhism” or so. It should be adopted “the distortions I bring into what HHDL said” 😉
        @joanne, matilda and others if you could give me the exact times and the video numbers of the relevant statements by HHDL regarding this at that conference I could sample these and make a more wholistic or complete video presentation of what HHDL said at that conference. We know that what DKR says is only part of the truth but a video – if not too long – will be more convincing / more powerful to dispel confusion than a new article I guess. The video could also be included in a new article as reference, so that people really see and hear directly what HHDL said.
        
        186
        
        matilda7 on March 28, 2018 at 8:31 pm
        
        Tenpel, Joanne is the expert on that conference BUT surely the main issue is that whatever advice HHDL gave at that time, it precedes all the revelations about Sogyal and therefore has less potency and relevance than recent advice.
        
        FWIW, 4 days ago, FO started talking on this thread about the video grab so I assumed everyone was across it.
        
        187
        
        matilda7 on March 28, 2018 at 9:03 am
        
        Also here, March 15: https://whatnow727.wordpress.com/2018/03/13/dzongsar-khyentses-london-talk/#comments
        
        188
        
        French Observer on March 27, 2018 at 9:59 am
        
        Sorry Joanne, but I have listened only to some parts of the London talk. In fact, we should check all the remarks DKR did about HHDL declarations during the talks and point out the disinformation and also the contradictions between HHDL and DJKR own position so people could understand the differences. This is very crucial as we are talking about nothing less than whether the vajrayana students should ALWAYS accept or stay silent about the actions of their own guru. Basically it is about a religious view imposed to students with samaya that can justify the perpetuation of a feudal and even potentially abusive system where the guru can do whatever he wishes.
        
        189
        
        French Observer on March 27, 2018 at 9:27 am
        Reply
        
        Hi Joanne, Yes I think the content in your article (the additional information) should be modified to reflect accurately HHDL declarations. See below the problematic pieces from your article that seem misleading (maybe it would better that we exchange via private mails at etzanas@gmail.com as my comments below are rather long and I think some additional quotes from the conference should be added).
        
        About “the subject moved on to what a student should do if the misbehavior occurred by a teacher to whom they have committed and His Holiness responded in a very traditional manner on minute 48:15” in fact the subject moved on to what a student should do when one teacher has been sexually misbehaving using his power. HHDL didn’t answer in a very traditional manner.
        
        About “Now this is the problem now. […] That’s the only way.” Here the quote should be complete with the second following question and answer. The first question and answer address only the dimension of what the student should do for himself. The second question address the dimension of what the student should do for the other students? The meaning of the answer from HHDL: it depends of the circumstances and you need to check your motivation. But if there is some danger, you need to warn the other students so they can take their distance and remain neutral.
        
        About “So here, the advice he gave is the traditional advice that is in some scriptures, advice that DJKR gave recently”. This is not accurate because the second answer from HHDL is not taken into account. Also HHDL made clear several times during the conference that you can keep your respect for your guru and criticize his actions. For HHDL, not showing disrespect doesn’t mean not criticizing even publicly the actions of the guru if necessary. See the following HHDL quotes:
        “We may criticize a teacher’s abusive actions or negative qualities while we respect them as a person at the same time. There are still some beneficial aspects of the guru. A mistaken action doesn’t destroy their good qualities. If you criticize in this way, there is no danger of hellish rebirth as a result. Motivation is the key: speaking out of hatred or desire for revenge is wrong. However, if we know that by not speaking out, their bad behavior will continue and will harm the Buddhadharma, and we still remain silent, that is wrong.”
        “On the level of our personal spiritual practice, it is important to have faith in and reverence for our guru and to see that person in a positive light in order to make spiritual progress. But on the level of general Buddhism in society, seeing all actions of our teacher as perfect is like poison and can be misused. This attitude spoils our entire teachings by giving teachers a free hand to take undue advantage. If faith were sufficient to gain realizations, there would be no need for qualified teachers. Then the Buddha would not have needed to list the qualifications of a Vinaya, Paramitayana, or tantric guru”.
        “WBT: Many students are afraid of breaking samaya—the commitment and bond with their guru—if they speak openly about what they perceive to be abuse. Does a teacher’s abusive behavior destroy the samaya and release the student? HHDL: I don’t know. Although the guru has in a sense broken the samaya, that does not allow the student to break it as well. If the guru kills, that does not mean I can too! We shouldn’t emulate bad examples! We should respect the common perspective of the world in terms of what is right and wrong. Earlier I spoke of the situation with my two regents. Even though I have deep faith and respect for my teachers and consider them high spiritual beings, I did not hesitate to criticize their behavior because those actions were wrong no matter who did them. I didn’t speak out of hatred or disrespect, but because I love the Buddhadharma and their actions went against it.
        It is essential to distinguish between two things: the person and their action. We criticize the action, not the person. The person is neutral: he or she wants to be happy and overcome suffering, and once their negative action stops, they will become a friend. The troublemaker is the afflictions and actions. Speaking out against the action does not mean that we hate the person.”
        
        About “It is also the advice HHDL gave in a teaching on Mahamudra”. Can you indicate me the extract so I can study the content and see if there is a contradiction with other statements. Maybe send me the extract or reference by private mail at etzanas@gmail.com.
        
        About “However, two days later at the conference, he was questioned about this particular advice and his position changed”: not correct. The position didn’t change and the main message was still the same: the conduct to be adopted by the student depends of the circumstances. In fact HHDL clarified his position with his example about the 2 regents. When “Martine Bathchelor interjects: What you said before—before you take as a guru, you can criticize, but after you take as a guru [hand gesture indicating ‘no ccriticism’]”, HHDL SAYS CLEARLY WITH HIS OWN EXAMPLE THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. HE NEVER SAID AFTER YOU TAKE AS A GURU, NO CRITICISM.
        
        About this question “Western Buddhist Teacher: “Your Holiness, two days ago, I believe you said that it would be a good idea to publish in a newspaper if a teacher would not respond and change his behaviour”. In fact, I don’t know to which answer of the HHDL this question refers because HHDL in his first answer about the sexual misbehavior, doesn’t talk about newspapers. So I think the confusion comes from the mixing of 2 different answers made two days ago. Joanne, do you have access to a transcript so we can check when in the two day before, HHDL did talk about publishing in a newspaper?
        
        About “One speaks of the optimum situation, one in which speaking out is not necessary for the future of the Buddhadharma or to reduce harm and protect the welfare of other students”. Not correct because the guru having sexual misbehaviour using his power is not an optimum situation.
        
        190
        
        Joanne on March 27, 2018 at 11:49 am
        
        OK FO, will address this tomorrow (Aus time)– busy day today….. Thank you.
191

Catlover on March 24, 2018 at 6:17 am
Reply

@matilda7,

Sure, it’s BS, but maybe it’s hard for Etzanas to believe that a Dharma teacher would actually say it’s okay to accept abuse if you’ve been “prepared” for it. Etzanas didn’t necessarily say that what DKR was saying wasn’t controversial. The question was more along the lines of, “Did I hear DKR correctly, or did I misunderstand something somewhere? Is this what he really said, or did I hear him wrong?” Unfortunately, Etzanas did hear DKR correctly.
- 192
  
  tenpel on March 24, 2018 at 12:41 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes, Etzanas asked basically if his / her summary of what DKR said is correct. It was a request to approve / disagree from someone who has heard all of his talks during the tour. I assumed the summary is correct but I am not in the position to confirm it.
  - 193
    
    Catlover on March 24, 2018 at 2:37 pm
    Reply
    
    @tenpel,
    I heard enough of the talks to be able to say that it was a correct summery.
    - 194
      
      tenpel on March 24, 2018 at 2:46 pm
      Reply
      
      Thank you. As I said, didn’t hear enough to agree if it’s correct or not, so that’s why I am restrained.
      
      However, the answers of Joanne was not answering the question. Now I wonder what Joanne will say who might have watched all of it.
      
      It’s good if you, Joanne or others can confirm or disagree with the summary.
      
      My intuition, however suggests, it’s rather true because this seems to be the essence of his 10.000 word article as well as what I watched or read about his Rigpa tour.
195

Julia on March 28, 2018 at 1:53 pm
Reply

Hi Tenpel, Hi Joanne,
When I left the discussion about the Rigpa issue, I made a synthesis in order to think clearly, it’s a post on my Facebook account.
Adamo kindly gave you the link on an other page here, please feel free to use the document.
It contains not only the rough translation of an article from French to English, but also links to HHDL video talks (with transcripts), Miviludes report, French Buddhist Union statement etc.
I don’t know if it will be helpful, but just in case.
- 196
  
  Julia on March 28, 2018 at 1:56 pm
  Reply
  
  The link is : https://www.facebook.com/notes/julia-lovert/the-honeymoon-between-the-west-and-the-buddhism-ends/2163845920515397/
- 197
  
  tenpel on March 28, 2018 at 2:14 pm
  Reply
  
  Ah Great. I could post it as a guest post if you agree. This would give it more attention and it’s easier to follow / write / read comments than on Facebook. It’s really sad that DKR continues to distort what hhdl said and really meant.
  - 198
    
    Julia on March 28, 2018 at 2:40 pm
    Reply
    
    I agree, but if you post it, could you, or Joanne re-write it, please. I mean :
    1-correct the English, which is terrible;
    2- arrange it so that it would not be a simple translation of the article of the French journalist , maybe parts of the article could be separated by comments drawn from HHDL talks, or yours and Joanne’s comments.
    3- You or Joanne sign it, not me, I’m nobody.
    - 199
      
      tenpel on March 28, 2018 at 4:51 pm
      Reply
      
      It would be great if Joanne could do that. (I didn’t read the post yet but trust Adamo’s judgement and remember your sincerity in understanding) which make me believe it would be worth to repost it. We are all nobodies but my blog needs posts where people struggle for truth, struggle to see, struggle to understand. You do that and that’s why it will be helpful for others who also struggle to see the truth – how things are. The cults issue a mass of distortions, a lot of untruths or semi truths – often propaganda etc that blind people. The counter forces to these deceptions are honesty, facts and good discrimination / judgement or insights with the wish to understand things better for oneself or to provide analyses which help others to understand things better. If there is understanding deception will collapse. Then the manipulations of the high demand group have no ground anymore and can’t bind people in unhealthy manners. Subsequently people are set free in thinking and acting according to what they really want.
    - 200
      
      Joanne on March 28, 2018 at 10:37 pm
      Reply
      
      I can do that. Thank you Julia! I am right now organizing my thoughts. I also had a strong feeling this morning that I think we need to start going a little easy on DKR. These troubles are not his fault and he seems to be really trying to help. He is reflecting exactly the mind-set of most lamas I have known, but he is the ONLY lama willing to put that mind-set out in the open so that we can FINALLY address it properly. So in that regard he is doing us a service.
      - 201
        
        matilda7 on March 29, 2018 at 7:49 am
        Reply
        
        Joanne, yes, DKR is making an effort and is no doubt a compelling advocate for the Vajrayana. But don’t you think the cherry-picking of that particular grab from HHDL is an example of disingenuousness which characterises his agenda of giving Sogyal an escape clause in part? I’m starting to wonder whether women in particular are effectively won over or seduced, the more of the tapes they listen to.
202

Just to Clarify: What H.H. the Dalai Lama Said About Criticizing a Vajrayana Lama – Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on March 29, 2018 at 8:19 am
Reply

[…] Some Reflections on Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s Talk at Rigpa Berlin March 1, 2018 […]
203

Adamo on April 25, 2018 at 2:46 am
Reply

A comment in german buddhist magazine “Tibet und Buddhismus” about Dzongsars talk in Berlin at Rigpahouse: https://www.tibet.de/fileadmin/migration/pdf/tibu/2018/TiBu_118_DKR.pdf
204

Adamo on May 21, 2018 at 5:54 am
Reply

A conclusion of Kyentse Norbus talk in Dharma Matte Berlin and a comment by a german Rigpa and Norbu follower, its in german only available:

https://buddhismus-aktuell.de/online-artikel/missbrauch-missverstaendnisse.html
- 205
  
  tenpel on May 21, 2018 at 6:51 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you. I detected it yesterday and I have still to read it.
- 206
  
  tenpel on May 21, 2018 at 1:10 pm
  Reply
  
  The Norbu follower corrects the journalist Susanne in one point. It’s especially interesting and a bit funny to see this because this Norbu follower said as a response to Rigpa/ Sogyal criticism that “there is no truth, there is only individual perception”. It follows, it doesn’t make sense to correct the journalist because she cannot have erred. To say someone was wrong needs two opposing views on a fact. One view must be true the other wrong. It follows truths exist and they can be get at by proper analysis or investigation (or direct perception). Therefore, she proves her own assertion “there is no truth, there is only individual perception” to be wrong or not following it faithfully, acting contrary to it by correcting Susanne in one point 😉
  
  This way of thinking “there is no truth, there is only individual perception” reminds on the NKT way of thinking and rejecting (valid) criticism. (Leading figures of NKT say for instance because all things are “merely labelled” if you label something a “Buddha” it functions as a Buddha for you. If you label it an “evil spirit” it functions as such. Therefore reality depends on how you label things.) Basically both are nihilistic attitudes that reject conventional truths.
  
  It’s also internally contradictory to correct someone who criticises Sogyal / Rigpa based on good reasoning or who points out existing harmful abusive behaviour (or the harm a survivor of abuse experienced) with a statement “there is no truth, there is only individual perception” because that correction of “the other” (the critic / criticism) implies that you think “the other” is wrong, and your own point of view is right, hence you claim yourself a truth with respect to your own view and you deny the truth of “the other” who is considered to be wrong. But if you would truly follow your own assertion “there is no truth, there is only individual perception” in a consistent manner then you must admit “the other” is right and can’t be wrong, and you are right and can’t be wrong. Because if there is no truth but only individual perception, there is no need to correct anybody. Everything would be true. Every view and belief would be true. Babies can be produced from thin air, Trump did not lie, Hitler was in general a good mannered and good hearted, sane man after all, there was no holocaust, and the earth is carried by a turtle because its all a matter of “individual perception” and truth does not exist.
  
  The point is, though there is individual perception, the individual perception can validly understand a conventional fact or the individual perception can err on the conventional fact.
  
  To give an example.
  
  Imagine you enter a garage. You see some things laying around here and there, wood, an disassembled car, tyres, a bowl, tools, a chair, a fire stove or gas stove and maybe a package that looks like calcium carbonate powder. Its just a garage for you. Nothing special.
  
  Now, imagine an expert on drugs enters the garage. His gaze catches the gas stove, the bowl, the powder and some other parts. Now, according to his expertise on the details on how certain drugs are been produced, he assumes: “Wow, what do we have here?”, being quite sure that this must be a drug-kitchen. To validate his assumption, he tastes the powder, tasting it, he recognises it as a certain drug. He might see more details that further validate his assumption so that he finally concludes: “this must be a drug kitchen”. Because there are no opposing signs that indicate otherwise he might then validly conclude “this is a drug-kitchen”.
  
  Though later it could turn out this was only a set up for a movie, or a false attempt to deceive the expert or so, still, the fact that there is a drug-kitchen exists – not only for the man who finds out based on his expertise and analysis but for anyone who understand the bits and parts that form the basis for imputing “drug-kitchen”.
  
  Now if the first man without expertise says, there was no drug-kitchen. Who is right and who is wrong or are both right because “there is no truth, there is only individual perception”?
  
  Apply this example of the drug-kitchen to abuse.
207

WisdomMoon on May 22, 2018 at 6:45 pm
Reply

Tenpel, you said:

This way of thinking “there is no truth, there is only individual perception” reminds on the NKT way of thinking and rejecting (valid) criticism. (Leading figures of NKT say for instance because all things are “merely labelled” if you label something a “Buddha” it functions as a Buddha for you. If you label it an “evil spirit” it functions as such. Therefore reality depends on how you label things.) Basically both are nihilistic attitudes that reject conventional truths.

This is a huge misrepresentation and oversimplification. Reality doesn’t depend upon how things are labelled, it depends upon how things are imputed. If things are imputed by a valid mind, they exist and if they are not, they don’t. No labelling of a striped rope as a snake will make it function in that way, this is a wrong imputation and the object can never exist. For something to exist, a valid basis of imputation and a valid imputing consciousness must come together. Provided that they do, the imputation is valid and functions. Basically, you can’t just call anything by any name and have it function in accordance with that label. There is conventional truth and we can distinguish things that exist from things that do not.
- 208
  
  tenpel on May 22, 2018 at 9:12 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you WisdomMoon, well said. It needs a proper basis of imputation. An uneducated, inexperienced, medical knowledge lacking man cannot be imputed to be a medical doctor nor can he heal people as such (except for coincidental or placebo effect causes). Nor can my dog function as a Buddha for me if I label or impute Buddha onto the dog.
209

Brian on May 22, 2018 at 11:03 pm
Reply

So, Wisdom Moon, by that analysis, NKT “practitioners” can impute that–for example– Trijang Choktrul is false, and specific Reuters or Guardian article is completely erroneous, toxic lies and so on. Are these opinions that based on “valid imputing consciousness” or are you just virtue signalling that acrobatic wordplay equates to philosophic wisdom? I could go on, NKT’s fallacies are manifold.
- 210
  
  tenpel on May 23, 2018 at 10:40 pm
  Reply
  
  True, even claims such as the Dalai Lama would be a “liar”, “the destroyer of the pure Buddhadharma”, the “21st Century Buddhist Dictator” whose “real nature is cruel and very evil” are wrong imputations.
  - 211
    
    WisdomMoon on May 23, 2018 at 11:06 pm
    Reply
    
    There’s no point in discussing this as the Dalai Lama’s harmful actions are self-evident except for those who, out of attachment, deny the facts and believe otherwise. My point is you have misunderstood or misrepresented how emptiness is taught in the NKT and I’m providing a clarification; I hope it helps.
    - 212
      
      tenpel on May 24, 2018 at 7:10 am
      Reply
      
      I see instead of wisdom wrong allegations and ignorance and a lack of insights into the own faults.
      
      It’s YOU who out of aversion/hostility and ignorance get it wrong. I hated the Dalai Lama and felt deep hostility when I followed your cult and came under the influence of your ignorant, hostile propaganda. It took me years to un-brainwash myself and to see and understand the facts. My conviction about what is what and what is not true is not based on attachment but understanding.
      
      This wrong nihilistic understanding I mentioned is and was taught in the NKT by NKT teachers (eg such as Kadam Ryan). We had this discussion already. There is a long discussion thread too here on the blog. However, I know some NKT people are able to issue it correctly, still the nihilistic misunderstandings were widespread when I was in the NKT. So, it’s not me who has misunderstood things it are / were NKT teachers who taught it wrongly. Quite a difference.
- 213
  
  WisdomMoon on May 23, 2018 at 11:08 pm
  Reply
  
  It’s true, you do go on Brian so it’s pointless discussing with you. Opinions are pointless our views must be based on wisdom.
  - 214
    
    tenpel on May 24, 2018 at 7:14 am
    Reply
    
    Like the “wisdom” that the Dalai Lama is very evil and cruel and Geshe Kelsang a Buddha – ha ha ha
215

Brian on May 24, 2018 at 1:13 pm
Reply

You can’t blame them, really. The Modern Buddhism sect stems from a highly flawed 20th century fundamentalist/evangelist, Pobangkha Dechen Nyingpo who desired a Gelugpa hegemony funded by the opium dealing warlord Liu Wenhui.
In the UK, Neil Elliot, the fallen celibate erstwhile gelong sexually predated ‘nuns’ with impunity, taught the all the NKT resident malpractitioners how to ply their wisdom wares in the marketplaces of western countries.
- 216
  
  tenpel on May 24, 2018 at 3:08 pm
  Reply
  
  I find this too extreme. Pabongkha Rinpoche yes, he developed sectarian attitudes to the end of his life, he was involved in political power games, he didn’t abide by the pledge he gave to the 13th Dalai Lama about not spreading Shugden… but he had also qualities. Especially, he didn’t preach nihilism as far as I am aware of and according to what I read.
217

Brian on May 24, 2018 at 4:54 pm
Reply

Indeed, HHDL sometimes refers to the previous Pabongkha specifically on the topic of Lam Rim. Nevertheless, seeking money from a drug dealer akin to the present day Pablo Eskabar or El Chapo ought to be considered a moral failing, even among those who claim to have no interest in politics.
Tibetans know very well what opium is, they call it ‘tamang dubcha’ roughly ‘evil smoke’. Liu Wenhui’s private army also invaded Kham. Therefore, for Lama Pabongkha to seek sponsorship from such a warlord is treachery, to say the least. Up until recently there were similar warlords operating in nearby Myanmar and Laos, selling opiates and maintaining large private armies.

By way of analogy, one does not meet many supporters of Nazi collaborators in France–it is just unsavoury and disgusting–this is a point probably lost on those still keen to get new Chinese money nowadays.
218

French Observer on May 28, 2018 at 7:36 pm
Reply

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo has given finally in public her position concerning the recent scandals during a dharma teaching at Dharma Friends of Israel available on youtube.

She makes reference and adopts the same position than HH Dalai Lama and Mingyur Rinpoche. She gives indications on how to consider a situation of sexual exploitation: do you accept that as skilful means? If the students felt they didn’t benefit and felt humiliated, it was not skilful means and it was just the lama crossing boundaries. It is not that we need to close our eyes at bad behaviour.

Keep your common sense. Also, even if the lama is considered as a father, nobody thinks incest is a good thing.

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo – “The Supreme Siddhi of Mahamudra” – p4/4

From 9:24 to 14:02 (precisely from 10:08 to 14:02 about the controversy).
- 219
  
  French Observer on May 28, 2018 at 7:54 pm
  Reply
  
  Interesting also to notice that Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo gives this teaching and makes public her position about the controversy on abuses 3 days before visiting Rigpa UK center…
- 220
  
  tenpel on May 28, 2018 at 8:12 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you!
- 221
  
  tenpel on May 28, 2018 at 8:25 pm
  Reply
  
  A Canadian public broadcaster interviewed the Shambhala whistle blower:
  
  Allegations of sexual abuse in Shambhala Community
  
  May 23, 2018
  
  Andrea Winn is a second generation Shambhalan in Halifax. She has written a report called Project Sunshine, about sexual abuse that she says is embedded in the Shambhala community. Joshua Silberstein is Chair of the Kalapa Council, which is the leadership group for Shambhala Buddhism.
  
  http://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/information-morning-ns/segment/15546103
222

Friend on May 29, 2018 at 7:31 am
Reply

Everything is possible…
Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo and Trungpa R:
223

Adamo on September 13, 2020 at 1:14 pm
Reply

A denish Lama added his comments to one of Norbus talks:

Click to access Dzongsar_Khyentse_on_sex_with_the_Lama_updated_july_2018.pdf
- 224
  
  tenpel on September 13, 2020 at 2:42 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you Adamo. Here is a new paper:
  
  Psychological and Societal Implications of Projecting the Shadow on the Feminine in Tibetan Buddhist Contexts
  
  By Anne Iris Miriam Anders
  
  https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/psychological-and-societal-implications-of-projecting-the-shadow-on-the-feminine-in-tibetan-buddhist
  - 225
    
    Adamo on September 15, 2020 at 6:42 am
    Reply
    
    Very helpful to read. Should be compulsory reading for everyone involved in Buddhism.
    
    Unfortunately avoid most buddhist practioner to read or hear anything that sounds critical.Like I did for a certain part of my life.
- 226
  
  tenpel on September 14, 2020 at 7:18 pm
  Reply
  
  Just going through it: the Tilopa-Naropa example JDKR uses to compare CTR and his western students (“successful lawyers and dentists from Boulder, Colorado”) is just not correct if you remember who Naropa was, what he had achieved already and how Tilopa was pointed out to Naropa by a magical appearing dakini while Naropa read tantric scriptures. Western students are not qualified as Naropa was nor did they receive secret hints, nor had Tilopa many hundreds of students (forming a movement). Their relationship was extraordinary and extremely rare. A very high Tibetan Lama said honestly: why we stress so much Tilopa and Naropa is because we would be unable to form such a relationship, because it is so rare and unachievable ….
  
  However, the call to (or the comparison of) Western newbees of Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism to establish a relationship with their guru like Naropa did to Tilopa misses totally the point that both were extraordinarily qualified, that this relationship was an extraordinary exception and that western newbees can’t even the slightest be compared to Naropa and that it is extremely boasting to let people think your Lama is similar qualified as Tilopa was.
  
  In short, the decontextualisation of their (or Marpa’s and Milarepa’s relationship) is not only dangerous and naive, I think it is also (deliberately or not) highly manipulative.
  
  Why does a Lama take these stories out of context?
  - 227
    
    tenpel on September 14, 2020 at 7:38 pm
    Reply
    
    PS: I agree with Lama Tendar.
228

matilda on September 14, 2020 at 7:48 am
Reply

“Previously, Tilogaard has also published Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s paper on the
‘alternative’ Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche”, i can’t find any such paper on their website but is the editor referring to Dzongsar’s rant about the problems with the tulku system?
- 229
  
  Adamo on September 14, 2020 at 7:25 pm
  Reply
  
  Click to access Dzongsar_Khyentse_om_den_4_Jamgong_Kongtruls_abdikation.pdf
  
  I guess thats the link you are looking for ?
230

Adamo on September 15, 2020 at 6:39 am
Reply

A good read is to read about narcissm, especially toxic narcissm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_F._Kernberg.

It seems that an each religion creates its own type of narcissm, so does it tibetanism.
- 231
  
  tenpel on September 15, 2020 at 2:59 pm
  Reply
  
  Here is a good interview with Kernberg in SPIEGEL: https://www.spiegel.de/psychologie/narzissmus-diese-zuege-koennen-sie-oeffentlich-bei-trump-beobachten-kein-zweifel-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000172993245
232

Tenpel on July 5, 2021 at 2:58 am
Reply

Here is an update to Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche:

Buddhismus Aktuell, the magazine of the German Buddhist Union asked DKR about aspects of his book »The Guru Drinks Bourbon«. The journalist Susanne Billig had not the opportunity to ask him back. She sent the questions and he answered to it. The interview is IMO and in the opinion of others quite revealing. It’s worth to read it in full. Since the interview is not published online I copy and paste only the end of the interview which gives already enough food for thought. Considering the massive influence on the new generation of tulkus, the power and financial and general structure DKR has, IMO, the interview should ring some alarm bells – at least for those who subscribe don’t to his typical West and Western value bashing.

F: Was sollten Lernende tun, wenn ihr Meister nicht nur Schnaps trinkt oder sie bittet, eine Prinzessin zu ärgern – Sie erzählen da eine entsprechende Geschichte in Ihrem Buch –, sondern körperliche Gewalt gegen seine Schülerinnen und Schüler ausübt oder sie vergewaltigt?

A: Wie gesagt: Wenn Sie diesen Guru nicht geprüft haben und wenn Sie sich nicht entschieden haben, ihn vollständig als Ihren Guru anzunehmen, dann sollten Sie die Polizei rufen und sein Verhalten öffentlich machen. Wenn Sie aber nach intensiver Prüfung diesen Menschen vollständig als Ihren Guru angenommen haben, dann werden Sie sein Verhalten in diesem Augenblick, wenn er Schnaps trinkt, eine Prinzessin ärgert oder was auch immer tut, nicht als unangemessen ansehen. Denn inzwischen hat sich Ihre Projektion, Ihre Wahrnehmung verändert.

Translation via http://www.deepl.com:

Q: What should learners do if their master not only drinks liquor or asks them to tease a princess – you tell a story to that effect in your book – but commits physical violence against his students or rapes them?

A: As I said, if you have not examined this guru and if you have not decided to accept him completely as your guru, then you should call the police and make his behavior public. But if after intense examination you have fully accepted this person as your guru, then at that moment when he is drinking liquor, teasing a princess or doing whatever, you will not consider his behavior as inappropriate. Because in the meantime, your projection, your perception has changed.

The meaning is clear; if the guru rapes you, since your perception has changed it is not rape nor would you consider it as inappropriate. Moreover, rape is a projection. Isn’t this meaning of what he says?

https://buddhismus-aktuell.de/artikel/ausgaben/20213-was-traegt.html
- 233
  
  Joanne Clark on July 5, 2021 at 10:23 pm
  Reply
  
  And any who are caught in the magnetic field of devotion and cult dynamics, unable to scrutinize clearly, may they all be damned. Is that what he means? There is a cold disregard for those who have been harmed here that chills me to the bone. Arrogant ” I’ve got mine-ism.”
  
  I prefer HH Dalai Lama’s advice on how to check out a crazy wisdom lama. Set him/her down to a large meal of feces, with a wine glass of urine. If he/she consumes it as if consuming a delicious feast, then OK, commit to that person. Otherwise seek a traditional Vajrayana Lama who doesn’t drink bourbon, beat his students or take them to bed.
234

tenpel on December 8, 2021 at 12:58 am
Reply

Update
Joanne’s article on DKR on Thalia’s blog

https://beyondthetemple.com/dzongsar-khyentse-his-dance-with-nihilism/

made it into the Austrian newspaper, Ursache & Wirkung:

https://www.ursachewirkung.com/diskurs/4252-dzongsar-khyentses-tanz-mit-dem-nihilismus

Actually, it’s not a proper translation of Joanne’s article but an edited / changed version of hers so that they had to state that they “adapted” it.

	Tenpel on A Timely and Important Book…
	tenpel on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	Mike on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	tenpel on Fact-finding results in respon…
	tenpel on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	Mike on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	crazyplantwomanakama… on Fact-finding results in respon…
	Tenpel on Fact-finding results in respon…

Additional information & thoughts for further analysis

How to support a survivor of abuse

Statements by HH the Dalai Lama

Statements by other lamas

What are we actual talking about?

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s Take on abuse, Vajrayana, Sogyal Rinpoche and Rigpa & Responses to it

Update 2021

Rate this:

Share this:

Related

SEX AS AN OFFERING