HH the Dalai Lama

by tenpelOctober 4, 202111:36 pm

A Disheartening Article: Stuart Lachs & Rob Hogendoorn on the Dalai Lama

Update Jan. 2022: Stuart Lachs wrote an article in reply to this article and the subsequent discussion to it we had on this blog. My comment to Stuart’s article can be read here. (Tenzin Peljor)

By Joanne Clark

It is one thing to assess the actions of an individual in the public domain. It is quite another to assess that person’s motivations and character. The latter involves not only assessing the actions themselves, but discussing the many possible reasons for acting that the individual might have held. This must be a nuanced, contextual and many-layered discussion for truth to be told. In the recent article, ‘Not The Tibetan Way’: The Dalai Lama’s Realpolitik Concerning Abusive Teachers, by Stuart Lachs & Rob Hogendoorn, they attempt such a difficult task.

And indeed, their ambition is impressive. From the Dalai Lama’s relationships with nefarious world players to his involvement with abusive lamas to his relationship with Tibetan politics and institutions, the article addresses an extensive agenda. Investigating each of those issues alone could well demand an entire article because of the historical, cultural, religious and personal dimensions necessary for a full, truthful understanding. However, instead, the authors leave out important dimensions and address the issues together in a single, rather narrow narrative.

They state:

: …in this paper we intend to take the Dalai Lama at his word, that is, to look at some of his words and actions as a tried and tested religious leader, with long noses, to smell in the front and behind, to inform the public in an honest and objective way. We will assess his personal responsibility and accountability by viewing the Dalai Lama as a media-savvy, power-wielding religious authority, whose doings exhibit the same measure of logical consistency and transparency as that of a reasonable priest.Lachs/Hogendoorn

Sadly, this is already not a nuanced or contextual endeavor. In this statement, the authors have narrowed their field of investigation and created a strawman. How can you “inform the public in an honest and objective way” when you begin by viewing the Dalai Lama as a “media-savvy, power-wielding religious authority”? Already, with colorful language and a limited lens, they have dashed hopes of considering the Dalai Lama as a spiritually motivated being or a culturally motivated being—or even as a human being who brushes his teeth and gets tired and loses his temper sometimes—and the statement itself becomes something of an oxymoron.

And here is an example of how that narrow context (and colorful language) distorts their case:

The Dalai Lama’s conduct is very consistent indeed: his attitude towards abusive teachers mirrors his transactional relations with dubious or even murderous ‘old friends’ who he perceives as political supporters.Lachs/Hogendoorn

And here is the footnote for that statement:

120. The Dalai Lama is very much a political player. He was one of the few world political figures along with UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President George H.W. Bush who sided with General Augusto Pinochet of Chile to help keep him from being extradited from England to Spain to stand trial for crimes against humanity. No doubt, much pressure was put on the Dalai Lama to get him to stand for Pinochet’s defense against extradition. Author unknown. (1999). Forgive Pinochet, says Dalai LamaLachs/Hogendoorn

However, if you follow the CBC link to this story you will find this:

Visiting Chile as part of a South American tour, the Dalai Lama said, “in the Pinochet case, as an individual, now old,” it might be best to forgive him, the Nobel laureate told reporters in Santiago.

“I think forgiveness is important, but forgiveness does not mean to forget about what happened.CBC

I find it interesting that the authors would present a footnote introduced by a clear statement of opinion. Nonetheless, the Dalai Lama’s statement to the CBC is clearly not a political statement, but is in line with his lifelong spiritual view on compassion for the person, while still condemning the action. And it is consistent also with his compassion for criminals, such as those that he released upon taking up his position as young leader of the Tibetan people. (He used to view these prisoners from his window as a young boy). It is also consistent with activities he has engaged in with criminal rehabilitation.

As in this footnote, there’s an implication made throughout the article that by associating with a criminal, one might have criminal intentions oneself. Hogendoorn describes this as “the Dalai Lama’s carefree, high-risk dealings with less than thoroughly vetted characters.” Sadly, this insinuation forgets that Buddhists, who have committed to the wellbeing of all, will associate with criminals and heroes both. They will be concerned about the wellbeing of both. Again, spiritual motivation is not considered.

And in the following instance, the authors even rely on an unscrupulous character themselves to make their assumption of guilt-by-association hold!

This happens as the authors attempt to prove the Dalai Lama’s complicity when he accepts an invitation to an event in Albany, NY that had connections to Nxivm, a corrupt, cultic group that was under criminal investigations. Here is footnote 125:

125. When The Daily Mail wrote that the Dalai Lama was paid $ 1 million to endorse Nxivm in 2009, the Dalai Lama’s Office was quick to publish a clarification: ‘We wish to categorically state that His Holiness the Dalai Lama never takes an honorarium or fee of any sort, nor does he require that any payment be made to charities or organizations, as a condition of his making a personal appearance. Therefore, the reported allegation has no basis. Neither His Holiness the Dalai Lama nor the Dalai Lama Foundation ever received the alleged $1 million in connection with His Holiness’s appearance in Albany.’ Perry, Ryan. (2018)Lachs/Hogendoorn

And then the authors refute this statement from the OHHDL, by sourcing none other than Indy Hack, a long time, anonymous conspiracy theorist, who has been attacking the Dalai Lama with fictitious narratives and threatening, sometimes blackmailing, NKT survivors for over a decade:

Indy Hack and Frank Parlato responded by validating ‘a source who declared that the Bronfmans offered the Dalai Lama one million to speak for NXIVM and that it was her impression that there was never any concern about his or one of his organizations accepting it.’ Hack, Indy & Frank Parlato.(2018). Further questions about the Dalai Lama’s Million Dollar Visit to NXIVM Sex Cult. Frankparlato.com. Retrieved April 3.Lachs/Hogendoorn

This lack of due care regarding the sourcing of their allegations is too bad. If they need to source authors such as Indy Hack to make their point, then I suggest that they need to find another point.

Any spiritual dimension that might have informed the Dalai Lama’s motivations and actions are sadly not considered in this article. That is a big missing piece in their case in my opinion. Also missing, in an article that pledges to “take the Dalai Lama at his word,” is very little of his actual word. They seem to rely on short quotes from the Dalai Lama from obscure “gotcha” moments of the past instead of his published written statements or public speaking events. And sadly, I found distortions in those source materials as well.

For example, instead of sourcing the current statements the Dalai Lama has made regarding why he doesn’t directly intervene in cases of lama abuse, Lachs and Hogendoorn prefer to provide readers with a 1989 statement from His Holiness during an interview with Nancy and John Steinbeck, a statement that wasn’t published until 2001. And instead of providing the complete, accurate quote from the book, Lachs and Hogendoorn deceptively paraphrase a portion of it. This paraphrase shifts the context and meaning of the interview significantly, thereby distorting the context of the Dalai Lama’s response.

Here is the direct quote of this portion from the Steinbeck’s memoir:

We [John and Nancy] wondered if His Holiness was aware that many lamas were hoping he would accept a position as head of all the lineages, like a pope. This would create a system of checks and balances that was lacking when Trungpa Rinpoche and other lamas started abusing their power.The Other Side of Eden; Kindle location 4662

And here is the paraphrase of that from Lachs and Hogendoorn, distorting the actual question:

The Steinbecks’ plea that the Dalai Lama might take the lead in establishing a mere modicum of oversight fell on deaf ears, witness his response to their call to action in 1989 […]Lachs/Hogendoorn

A “mere modicum of oversight”? That is quite different from asking the Dalai Lama to “accept a position as head of all the lineages, like a pope”!

And here is the response from His Holiness which Hogendoorn/Lachs quote directly:

[The Dalai Lama replied] “I am a believer in nonsectarianism. I try to provide as much motivation as I can. I have no interest in promoting myself. There are no Dalai Lama centres, no Dalai Lama monastery. Wherever I can contribute, I am willing.”

To our dismay, he continued. “It is not the Tibetan way to confront errant behaviour on the part of the lamas. We prefer to let them learn about their mistakes on their own.”2001, John Steinbeck, Nancy Steinbeck, The Other Side of Eden; Kindle location 4662-4666

Anyone who has followed the Dalai Lama and understands the history and culture and religious significance of Tibetan lineages and power dynamics would know that such a provocative suggestion (particularly in 1989)—asking if he would “accept a position as head of all the lineages, like a pope”—would likely trigger a strong reaction from him, a need to quickly quell such a suggestion. His Holiness’ response must be viewed within that context, with that powerful nuance—which is a different perspective than if we thought the context was the much milder, non-provocative one created by Lachs and Hogendoorn.

This is a distortion of meaning and given that the rest of their citation is a direct quote, I question if it could be a deliberate deception—why didn’t the authors directly quote the entire exchange? Then a complete discussion on the Dalai Lama’s possible motivations for his response could have followed. I would also observe that “fell on deaf ears” is a further distortion because the authors place an editorial slant on the Dalai Lama’s response that isn’t based on fact. This is particularly distorting based on the fact that the Dalai Lama participated in a conference with Western Buddhist teachers only 4 years after this interview in which the issue of Trungpa’s behaviors is addressed and the Dalai Lama makes clear and direct statements during that time. Those statements are not included here.

Another contextual perspective is that this interview occurred in 1989, when the Dalai Lama’s English was not as good as it is now. In this context, the statement “We prefer to let them learn about their mistakes on their own” might not contain the somewhat flippant meaning English speakers attribute to it. It might have been a translation from Tibetan or broken English. It might have been the Dalai Lama’s intent simply to convey that lamas have independence and he cannot tell them what to do, he is not pope. It is also difficult to trust accounts of conversations that happened twelve years previous to being published.

Nonetheless, Lachs/Hogendoorn use this quote as an “eerily accurate description” for why the Dalai doesn’t directly intervene in cases of abuse:

Some have discredited the Dalai Lama’s statements as recorded by John and Nancy Steinbeck as inauthentic—‘fake news,’ before the term gained currency. However, there is no reason to doubt their credibility. In fact, the Dalai Lama’s words ‘We prefer to let them learn about their mistakes on their own,’ sound like an eerily accurate description of his actual behavior. The Dalai Lama does prefer this. He acts as if he feels no moral responsibility to the public at large when it comes to associating with abusive lamas. And in doing so, he is the spitting image of a reasonable priest.Lachs/Hogendoorn

Of course, because they have left out important dimensions to the conversation, their conclusion here—that the Dalai Lama “acts as if he feels no moral responsibility to the public at large when it comes to associating with abusive lamas” and “is the spitting image of a reasonable priest”—lacks validity as well. Not only is this statement clearly false, as the Dalai Lama has, in fact, stepped forward to demonstrate moral responsibility towards the public in cases of abuse, their conclusion also lacks an important contextual framework.

That contextual framework would reveal the limits of the Dalai Lama’s power, particularly within lineages other than Gelug. Current events demonstrate that. At present, if Sogyal Lakhar were still alive, it would likely be business as usual at Lerab Ling and other Rigpa Centres, except that Sogyal’s abuses might be more circumspect. This is despite the fact that the Dalai Lama has spoken out in support of the eight ex-senior students of Rigpa, who wrote a letter exposing Sogyal Lakhar’s abuses and spoke out against Sogyal Lakhar’s abuses himself.

Rigpa now has an “ethics code,” that stops short of condemning abuse in the case of Vajrayana and their advisory lamas have all refused to speak out against Sogyal’s misbehaviours, all of which were confirmed in the extensive Silken Report. I and a hundred other concerned ex-Rigpa students wrote a letter to forty lamas, simply asking them to indicate whether or not they approved of Sogyal’s actions, as exposed in the letter and confirmed in the Silken report. We received only three responses to those and two referenced the Dalai Lama. In addition, the letter from the eight ex-Rigpa students also referenced a quote from the Dalai Lama.

I am not making these observations to claim that his acceptance of teaching engagements helped or not in efforts to end abuse, but only to question the authors’ statement that he has acted as if he had “no moral responsibility” and their assumptions about his authority in lineages other than Gelug. The teachers now teaching in Rigpa centres have still not acknowledged that Sogyal’s behaviours caused harm. One frequent teacher of Rigpa students (and recent visitor to KTD), Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, has recently stated during an interview with the magazine of the German Buddhist Union that with the pure vision of Vajrayana, one could observe rape and see it as pure and therefore, would not call the police.¹

So this is an example of the reality of Tibetan Buddhist culture and religion that must be the prism through which we view the Dalai Lama’s actions in order for truth to be told. He is one of few lamas working to move forward within the Vajrayana in such a way that students can be assured of safety. It is not simple and his powers are clearly limited. Such a context is lacking in this article.

Further, also left out in this article are the accessible, current and nuanced explanations by the Dalai Lama himself about his power and how it differs from the pope, written in clear, careful English. I see no reason for this lapse unless the motivation is not assessing the full truth but selectively cherry-picking evidence.

Here is one such recent explanation from the Dalai Lama which the authors could have used for a fuller truth:

Because students are new to Buddhism, they may have blind devotion and obedience to spiritual mentors. Hearing about the great merit gained from making offerings to spiritual mentors, they may give them many donations and gifts—things that someone living in India would not have. The teacher becomes spoiled by the gifts and esteem of the students, and if he is not careful, this could lead to his taking advantage of well-meaning students.

I have received many letters from people in other countries asking me to do something about this, but it is not in my control. Tibetan Buddhism is not organized like the Catholic Church with a pope and Vatican administration. I cannot make someone return to India or force him to stop wearing robes. When I teach, I give clear instructions about suitable behavior for teachers, both monastic and lay. If people do not listen to me then, it is doubtful that they will heed instructions from my office or the Department of Religious and Cultural Affairs.2018; HH Dalai Lama and Venerable Thubten Chodron; The Foundation of Buddhist Practice, Library of Wisdom and Compassion Volume 2; p.119

In this way, what the authors leave out in this article is just as problematic as what they include, in my opinion. The Dalai Lama has done more than any other religious leader to address the problems of abuses within Dharma Centres, particularly as he has empowered survivors and Westerners themselves to act. How can they assess his intentions without exploring the full picture of what he has actually done? This the authors fail to do.

Certainly, there is a discussion to be had about the Dalai Lama’s actions over decades in the context of abuses within Dharma centres and whether he could have done more. The authors do make a strong statement that the Dalai Lama was responsible to act as an “international Buddhist policeman” (Mathieu Riccard’s words) or “morality police” (the author’s terms). Those claims have worth and could be discussed. However, they can’t be had outside of the context of his own words, his place in history, and culture, geography (how does he police lamas who act in a different country?) and his commitments, mainly spiritual, in life.

This is the nuance and context lacking in this article, particularly as the authors are not simply claiming that the Dalai Lama failed to act as he should have but that he intentionally failed to act to prevent harm in order to protect his own self-interests and those of his institutions. Their agenda of proving intent is ambitious and demands a full investigation.

Further, their colorful language is another example of how truth is affected throughout this article. Instead of making statements of fact, e.g. such as “the Dalai Lama suggested he might be the last Dalai Lama” and then explaining the context of such a statement, they state:

Throughout the 14th Dalai Lama’s reign, he kept Tibetans dangling with the possibility that he might be ‘The Last Dalai Lama’—effectively a form of political blackmail. He frequently hinted—and sometimes threatened—that his lineage will end with him.Lachs/Hogendoorn

And they then fail to explain the context of such a statement. And when I checked the sources for it, I couldn’t obtain them. It is too bad with obscure, hard to obtain sources that the authors fail to even provide quotes from their sources so that readers can have some understanding of why they might conclude that the Dalai Lama is “threatening” Tibetans to a form of “political blackmail.” And given that already several of the sources that I have checked are distorted, then this biased language, without explanation or quotes, becomes a problem. And this type of colorful language permeates the article.

I have a confession. I have not investigated this entire article line by line, nor checked all the sources, primarily because most of them are very difficult to access. Doing so would demand a great investment of time and stamina—and I have seen enough distortion in the sourcing and enough of the non-contextual approach to their evidence and argument to distrust the authors’ conclusions. This is disheartening. There might well be valid points the authors have made in the article. However, in my opinion, these would be undermined by the lack of editorial integrity and what is missing.

And yes, disclosure, I have devotion for HH Dalai Lama, whose sane and grounded approach to life and Dharma has been an important part of my own spiritual path. I also believe that he is an important ally in efforts to reform Western Dharma communities and bring the Dharma honestly and ethically and safely to the West. I am saddened that this article acknowledges nothing of that.

However, I am certainly willing to have open discussions about his actions in regard to our problems—and discussing whether they might be politically motivated or not. However, those discussions must be contextual, nuanced, unbiased and HONEST in my opinion.

We have to start with truth. I would not be writing this article if I hadn’t discovered the deceptive alteration the authors had made to the quote from the Steinbeck book. The Trimondis and Indy Hack have done enough damage to truthful dialogue over difficult issues in Western Tibetan Buddhism. We don’t need any additions to that.

¹ Interview with Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche in Buddhismus aktuell:

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.

An editorial note by the blog owner:
The views expressed are that by the writer.

Personally I am friend with the writer, Joanne Clark, and with Stuart Lachs. I’ve posted articles on my blog and website written by both of them. So far I didn’t read the article by Rob and Stuart in all its details. Glancing through the intro and grossly over their article my eyes caught footnote 120, so I wrote to Stuart: “The intro of the article seems to give the direction which the article seems to prove. I saw in one footnote the so called Nazi Tibet Connection and what I read there is quite undifferentiated and based on already spread myths and tactics of conspiracists like Trimondis or Goldner (or far left wing people): the Dalai Lama met bad people (Waffen SS, Beger) so he is bad, neither considering the circumstances or complexities of the situations and past or how this came into being.”

In a private discussion Stuart convinced me that by accepting the invitation by Sogyal Lakar to inaugurate Rigpa’s Lerab Ling temple, it can be plausibly argued that the Dalai Lama “endorsed” Sogyal Lakar. The complexities within the Tibetan culture and past tensions between Nyingmas and Gelugpas might have contributed to the Dalai Lama’s decision. (see also this opinion article: The Dalai Lama and Sogyal Rinpoche: A Roaring Silence?) It would be a journalistic standard practice to ask the Dalai Lama why he did that and if he sees this as an error in retrospect.

After having glanced through Stuart’s and Rob’s article, I agree with Joanne, the complex spiritual and cultural motivations, intentions and values the Dalai Lama holds and is committed to as a Buddhist monk and as a deep admirer and follower of the altruistic Bodhisattva path – which guide his mental, verbal and physical actions – seem to have been ignored in this article. (And these are in general ignored by Rob Hogendoorn). Ignoring these can well serve as a means to portrait the Dalai Lama as a type of a dubious character who lacks integrity. To give just one example of the Dalai Lama’s spiritual ways of thinking which influence his verbal actions: as a general spiritual attitude for instance, I’ve never heard or read anything where the Dalai Lama speaks of anyone in condemning or very negative words. Be it his most active enemy, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, founder of the New Kadampa Tradition, or the biggest enemy of his people, mass murder Mao Tse Tung. The Dalai Lama has for anyone a good word. As the Benedictine monk, Anselm Grün, once said (paraphrased): ‘Who has not met himself yet condemns others.’ Spiritual values, which guide the Dalai Lama’s verbal and bodily actions, are easily overlooked and cannot be seen and understood by people who look on him from a merely mundane-political perspective. Looking through a black-and-white ideological lens on a complex and very colourful figure like the Dalai Lama can only taint one’s examinations and conclusions. Moreover, ignoring complex spiritual and cultural motivations and values, simplistic judgements based on projections and prejudice will most likely take the lead.
– Tenzin Peljor

91Comments

Add yours

1

Milos Leubner on October 5, 2021 at 10:02 am
Reply

You set your laws in the house and nation which is not yours and you have never have the capacity to even start to understand that. You created phantom “rule of justice ” based only on your own want and inability to understand vastness of human soul while it is dressed in the body of flesh .You are seeking the meaninglessness of a moth flying towards the light bulb while blaming the glass which keeps you from burning up .. You are hypnotized by the ever present vampires to believe and get drank on ideas of the concept of good and bad , the wars between Darkness and the Light . There is no Darkness .there is only absence of Light,.
- 2
  
  tenpel on October 5, 2021 at 10:59 am
  Reply
  
  Ho. ho. You know so much about “the other”, very impressive!
  Do you have more to say than loaded & meaningless phrases?
  I guess you can, then pls try. We are looking here for meaningful and informed discussions.
3

Joanne Clark on October 5, 2021 at 11:49 pm
Reply

And I would just add to the article here that we are still waiting for source material missing from the first edition of the book that Rob Hogendoorn co-authored with Mary Finnigan.

A footnote of that book reads: “Chapter 2 and 3 are based on Rob Hogendoorn’s “The Making of a Lama: Interrogating Sogyal Rinpoché’s Pose as a (Re)incarnate Master,” a paper presented to the panel, From Rape Texts to Bro Buddhism: Critical Canonical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Sexual Abuse Scandals in Western Buddhism, during the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion in Denver, 17-20 November 2018. The paper can be acquired from the author.”

However, the promised paper was not available when we requested it from Hogendoorn and some ex-Rigpa students had questions about the claims made in those chapters and were interested in those sources. Hogendoorn claimed the paper was being submitted to an academic publication and would be published soon. That didn’t happen. He also promised that it would be published on his own website, “Open Buddhism.” That didn’t happen.

I haven’t bought or looked at the second edition of the book. Perhaps the problem was resolved, but Hogendoorn himself never seemed to view it as a problem, so perhaps not. Of course there will be mistakes, but I believe it is so important with these issues to keep up a spirit of staying close to facts and truth as we know them.
4

Mary Finnigan on October 6, 2021 at 8:05 am
Reply

Joanne
You appear to be obsessed with calling out Rob Hogendoorn and also me by association. What else there is in your life? Rob and I have explained our modus operandi several times, on this forum and elsewhere. I was not involved in the HHDL item with Stuart Lachs, so did not intend to comment here. But now you are wittering on again about very old history which includes our joint authorship book Sex and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism. Can’t help wondering why you are flogging a dead horse?
- 5
  
  tenpel on October 6, 2021 at 9:01 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Mary, I guess Joanne will answer this.
  
  Just for the context, we had discussions and Rob said certain things in reply and it seems (!) what he said in his replies has not been fulfilled. Since his replies were answers to open questions ex Rigpa have had about claims made by him, I think it’s only fair to point out that these seem not to have been answered. At least, according to Joanne’s perception.
  
  Though, to know for sure, checking the updated book is necessary.
  
  Anyway, if this claim by Joanne of once given replies by Rob not being fulfilled shows being “obsessed”, then the logical consequence is that this moral judgment could be well applied against you and Rob, writing even a book about the SL case, questioning him
  and his environment. One could argue similarly writing a book is even more “obsessed” than demanding once promised details. (I am not sure if the demand is justified, checking the updated book should be the first step.)
  
  Rob answered (or “silenced” or “postponed” or “settled”) the open questions ex Rigpa had with respect to claims made by him in the book by replying that his paper is going to be published so that everyone can see for herself. If the paper has not been published and not been sent on request it is only fair to point this out. I don’t see an obsession in doing so.
  
  Actually, if this would happen to me, I am only satisfied if “the other” has all the information I promised to give. Making me aware of not having fulfilled what I once said I would perceive as a kind reminder and as a lack of caring on my own side – but only if the demand or accusation is right / correct. It wouldn’t be a “dead horse” for me.
- 6
  
  Joanne Clark on October 6, 2021 at 9:37 am
  Reply
  
  This is not personal Mary. In fact, this article has taken many months to be published because neither Tenzin nor I wanted to engage in a possible personal confrontation. But neither did we want wrong information to be spread.
  
  There is a reputation that the community of all of us concerned about ending abuses within Buddhist organizations needs to uphold. Every time there’s an article published that isn’t committed to some standard of truth, that hurts all of our efforts. I included the comment regarding your book simply because it matters, truth matters, nothing personal.
7

YOUNGSUN SHIN on October 7, 2021 at 8:09 am
Reply

The Dalai Lama has done more than any other religious leader to address the problems of abuses within Dharma Centres, particularly as he has empowered survivors and Westerners.
–>Exactly what he has done? How can you sure that he worked more than other religious leader? What are reasons about them?

limits of the Dalai Lama’s power, particularly within lineages other than Gelug?
-> how about Dalai Lama`s power in Geluk?
I know and i have experience that he ignored the victims`s request.
Dalai lama is still ignoring that sexual abused victims of Dagri rinpoche are reminded as Shugdden followers. H.H Dalai lama office know what victims had requested and investigated it.
Do you think H.H Dalai lama has no duty for them?
If you think so, why H.H Dalai lama office asked to researching about Dagri rinpoche`s case to FPMT?
He showed interest and he stopped it.

And there were many Western nuns who want to hear H.H Dalai lama`s speech about Dagri rinpoche`s case including Tenzin Palmo.
But he didn`t. So, i could have a space to see his politic activities.
Also, i think H.H Dalai lama is well known as a holy and moral spiritual leader.
But in other hand, we can think we didn`t have chance to know about his darkside. Because people kept calm about negative sides, not good for buddhist business(=money) and there have only media for praising about H.H Dalai lama especially in Tibetan buddhist media.
- 8
  
  tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 8:31 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Youndsun Shin. I see that you can’t agree with Joanne and see it differently. That’s fine. But it is a matter of fact that the Dalai Lama has not and has never reminded Dagri Rinpoche victims as Shugden followers or has supported any such false allegation.
  I don’t understand, what did he stop? The investigation was not stopped. As far as I know and remember there were consequences even before the FPMT had to act, e.g. an meeting been organised wity a victim where Dagri Rinpoche had been told that his actions are wrong and a disgrace or him being removed from the honour to sit on the stage with the Dalai Lama – survivors told me or wrote that themselves. There was also a clean clear letter to Ven Roger as mentioned in the FTI report.
  
  However, it could be argued he could have done more from a moral point of view. But even this is a bit problematic: should he be the judge and investigate allegations and then publicly denounce lamas? Not sure if this would be a good solution and without other complications. He, however, has consistently encouraged survivors to speak up, to go public when an abusive Lama does not change his behaviour after being confronted. Based on this Rigpa survivors wrote their letter in July 2017. Even my own activities regarding abuse are encouraged and based on his advice and encouragement, that of Joanne too.
  - 9
    
    YOUNGSUN SHIN on October 7, 2021 at 9:42 am
    Reply
    
    should he be the judge and investigate allegations and then publicly denounce lamas?
    
    I had expected that Dalai lama say like this:
    
    “Unfortunately in Geluk lineage also has a bad accident concerning with sexual abused cases between the guru and students.
    Also, some proclaimed that victims have bad intention to harm the guru and they are followers of Shugden unreasonably.
    I feel very sorry about this.
    This show us, some followers even telling lies and spreading them as proper things for protecting their guru without reasoning.
    As a buddhist and a lama, i hope such an unpleasant issue won`t be repeating never again.
    
    –>without denounce, he can delivery proper message, can`t he?
    He had mentioned about other lineage`s sexual abused cases.
    But he didn`t mentioned about his lineage`s sexual abused case. That is also my point.
    - 10
      
      tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 1:27 pm
      Reply
      
      Thank you. I agree. Such a statement would be very helpful. And I like very much the clarity of the statement you’ve suggested.
11

YOUNGSUN SHIN on October 7, 2021 at 8:20 am
Reply

The Dalai Lama’s Office was quick to publish a clarification: ‘We wish to categorically state that His Holiness the Dalai Lama never takes an honorarium or fee of any sort, nor does he require that any payment be made to charities or organizations, as a condition of his making a personal appearance.
->
https://fpmt.org/charitable-activities/projects/holy-objects/important-update-on-the-maitreya-project-in-bodhgaya/
“I would like to sincerely express my gratitude to FPMT for offering land to His Holiness the Dalai Lama through the Nalanda Institute of Dalai Lama at Bodhgaya. The institute, as envisioned by His Holiness, will be a secular international institution that will preserve and promote India’s ancient wisdom that flourished at Nalanda University.

:[The Dalai Lama replied] “I am a believer in nonsectarianism. I try to provide as much motivation as I can. I have no interest in promoting myself. There are no Dalai Lama centres, no Dalai Lama monastery. Wherever I can contribute, I am willing.”

–>Well. now he get one, “the Nalanda Institute of Dalai Lama at Bodhgaya”
- 12
  
  tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 8:35 am
  Reply
  
  It’s not promoting himself but the teachings of the Nalanda masters, isn’t it. Otherwise it would be a Dalai Lama institute promoting the Dalai Lama’s teaching. Such a thing he did not set up. Btw, there is also a Dalai Lama Center for compassion, this promotes compassion and not the Dalai Lama.
13

YOUNGSUN SHIN on October 7, 2021 at 8:55 am
Reply

Whether he set up by himself or not, he take the land.
It is oppsite with his office`s old proclaim that His Holiness the Dalai Lama never takes an honorarium or fee of any sort, nor does he require that any payment be made to charities or organizations, as a condition of his making a personal appearance.

Can you find difference between the “the Nalanda Institute of Dalai Lama” and “the Nalanda Institute”?
Can you insist that “the Nalanda Institute of Dalai Lama” and “the Nalanda Institute” is same?
- 14
  
  tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 1:24 pm
  Reply
  
  A land being offered to the Dalai Lama, accepting the offering, is this meaning he seeks his personal benefit, does he that for self-serving purposes? Should he not accept an offering? Accepting it for the sake of others and taking care it’s been used for the sake of others, seeing yourself as the treasurer without thinking “this is mine”, this is the recommended attitude in the Bodhisattva ethics regarding offerings. If he follows this ethic this does then not imply he does this for his own promotion.
  
  With respect to offerings, I don’t know all the details. In general, since years he lets read the organisers aloud at the end of an event the finances and where the plus – if there is a plus goes. From all occasions I attended or have seen online there was so far only one occasion where he said, this part of the plus I’ll take for personal purposes. But even this he made transparent. (And I don’t think there is anything wrong in that.)
  
  I think what the office wants to tell is: the Dalai Lama does not demand or makes a fee or honorarium as a condition to be invited. However, this does not exclude it’s been offered to him anyway.
  
  Maybe you are stuck a bit on a literally/narrow angle looking at these things?
  
  So far I cannot see the contradictions which drive you to write here. He promotes compassion and the teachings of the Nalanda masters (both important topics to him), he promotes the dialogue between scientists and Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (which is also important to him), and he uses donations, offerings, his name etc to support these. This is not promoting himself but the content. Quite of an difference IMO.
  
  I don’t know why a second Nalanda Institute was set up. But since there was already one, I don’t find it so surprising that the one he supports (or founded?) gets his name as a matter of avoiding confusion. I mean, does that mean there is anything wrong here on doing so?
15

YOUNGSUN SHIN on October 7, 2021 at 9:01 am
Reply

But it is a matter of fact that the Dalai Lama has not and has never reminded Dagri Rinpoche victims as Shugden followers or has supported any such false allegation.
–> The Dalai lama didn`t say anything about above matter, so how do you know that he supported or not?
That is not fact, Tenzin la.
To me, the fact is he kept silence concerning with sexual abused cases in Geluk.
- 16
  
  tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 1:06 pm
  Reply
  
  The lie and the conspiracy myth of the victims being Shugden followers was spread by the local monastery unit Dagri Rinpoche is affiliated with. Nobody else has picked up this ridiculous claim. Nor did the Dalai Lama. Is he responsible for what these few people of a monastery unit claim or is he in charge to refute wrong claims made by such units?
  - 17
    
    YOUNGSUN SHIN on October 7, 2021 at 2:31 pm
    Reply
    
    Are you a spokeperson of Dalai lama?
    I can understand you can stand for Dalai lama`s side.
    But “Nobody else has picked up this ridiculous claim. Nor did the Dalai Lama” this part is not truth.
    Truth is you don`t know what Dalai lama thought about this claim.
    Please don`t undervalue the matters that you don`t know.
    There are many people who willing to protect to their lama.
    To such an faithful people, that ridiculous claim is true.
    I am insisting that instead of treat them as a fool, give a correct info is more important.
    And everyone know that there are no more powerful speech than Dalai lama`s one.
    
    Yes, i think Dalai lama had to fix it.
    Because
    1. He knows ridiculous infos were spreading thorugh the monastery where belong to the Sera Jey Monastery.
    2. If he knows but he doesn`t try to fix it, who will?
    Who is a more big boss than Dalai lama in Geluk?
    3. This is also requested by victims commonly, not just only me.
    Western nuns also requested, didn`t they?
    4. What is good reason to avoiding to victims and Western nuns`s request?
    
    I can agree that it`s depend on Dalai lama`s choice.
    But it is not meaning that i can`t blaming about his choice.
    - 18
      
      tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 3:22 pm
      Reply
      
      I am not a spokesperson.
      
      And I think people deserve to be treated justly – including the Dalai Lama of course. Treating people justly does not exclude sane criticism.
      
      You can accuse anyone of anything. Personally I think it is just not right for accusing the Dalai Lama for not having responded to these alien and strange Shugden accusations about which many I know laughed about or raised their eyebrows so ridiculously these are. If you expect the Dalai Lama should have done something about that, fine. It’s your expectation. I don’t have such an expectation.
      
      Of course I don’t know what the DL knows about these Shugden accusations. So do you. Not saying something is not a prove for anything. But for you it seems to prove or give evidence for not acting properly according to your values, imaginations or expectations, right? For me this is not the case.
      
      Nevertheless, a statement as you have suggested I would also appreciate and find extremely helpful!
      
      And, yes, many people are willing to protect their lama and will even lie for him (or her) – sadly even at court – and many of them will treat people badly, especially survivors who speak up, their supporters or whistle blowers. Yes, such people will pick up such fake claims. However, I’ve not heard or met any supporter of Dagri Rinpoche in the West who used this argument in defence of DR and against the survivors who spoke up. So, in my observation even for them it was not convincing or useful to defend him using such a ridiculous claim. In India, I don’t know if that “worked” or not.
      
      The boss of the Gelug is the Ganden Tripa not the Dalai Lama. The boss of the sera monastery and their divisions are the abbots. The Dalai Lama does not intermingle when not been asked as far as I know. Regarding the Shugden issue he was asked by the abbots to give his opinion! Maybe you get a bit more informed about the complexities regarding monastic, institutional and Dalai Lama office structures? The Dalai Lama is not even head (abbot) of his own monastery.
      
      However, all of this doesn’t mean he could not do more or what he did is sufficient.
      
      Avoiding a request could have different reasons. I don’t know what requests you are particularly referring to which were not heeded. Maybe you can share what you refer to?
      
      What I know is that the Dalai Lama wanted to have the religious leaders of the Buddhist schools of Tibet to discuss abuse at their meeting in Dharamsala. Then the meeting was cancelled due to the sudden death of a high Sakya Lama. Then Covid came. So, his commitment to survivors of abuse to raise this issue amongst the heads of the schools (when I remember correctly, maybe inviting survivors to speak up?) has not been fulfilled yet. Reminding this, demanding this, pressuring this would be very helpful and is needed. Actually, Tibetan Buddhism is only at the very start and many things are still in the dark regarding abuse and structures of abuse + views/behaviour that enable and support abuse. So much has to be done!!! So many things have not even started!!!
      - 19
        
        YOUNGSUN SHIN on October 7, 2021 at 7:13 pm
        Reply
        
        I shared FB messenger talk with a young rinpoche who is dwelling in the Tsawa Khangsten Monastery before.
        In that talk, that young rinpoche told me that Jakira is a shugden follower.
        Because of he is a rinpoche, his words were affected to me badly.
        (Do you remember that i said i was a sponsor of him?)
        I shared every talks with that rinpoche`s ones with Faithtrust for prove that victims are not Shugden followers.
        And Suhgden matters were updated in Faithtrust`s reports either.
        I requested one Western nun to report them to Dalai lama
        and she said she will does so.
        Also, i sent them as email to H.H Dalai lama`s office.
        Therefore, i am 100% sure that Dalai lama knows about them.
        BTW, what i can think through your talks is that Dalai lama`s power has limited in Gelug either.
        
        If my words were unrespectful, please forgive me.
        It`s because of my limit of English.
        Thank you for your replies.
        I always prefer to having various views.
        Your opinions and views were very helpful to think other ways.
        Thank you very much!
        
        20
        
        tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 7:30 pm
        Reply
        
        Thank you, Youngsun Shin. Ok, if the office forwarded or gave the details of your email to the Dalai Lama, then he knows about this denunciation of survivors as Shugden followers.
        
        Then, when I understand you correctly, you had wished or had expected him to say something to correct such false allegations and to comment on this case in general. But he didn’t do so in public. This you find unsatisfying and disappointing, right?
        
        The Dalai Lama has of course moral power as a person who has (is seen to have) integrity. So, what he says and does not say has a moral weight. However, it rarely is been accepted or put into practice what he says, be it minor issues like calling Tibetans to separate the garbage correctly (many years ago), or more important issues like the nun’s full ordination or stop to beat up monks in the monasteries, to expel monks who are bad monks or to have fewer but more quality monks. I know so many stories – including people directly opposing the Dalai Lama – were his advice has been ignored (including his advice on Shugden). Tibetans themselves say they nod the head when the Dalai Lana speaks but do it afterwards the other way around.
        
        The question is what power has he really and how much effect has it when he exercises power – including moral power. It would be totally wrong to say he has no power but also the opposite is true, he does not have even the slightest the power like for instance the pope.
        
        Alex Norman wrote on that here:
        
        So much is this so that many make the mistake of seeing the Dalai Lama as a sort of Buddhist Pope. This is a serious misunderstanding. In fact, the Dalai Lama is neither the leader nor the head of his own dgelugs tradition, nor does he have jurisdiction over any other lama or monk. Unlike the Pope who appoints and, in principle, has direct authority over every Bishop of the Catholic church, the power of the Dalai Lama over other monastics is moral rather than juridical.⁹ He is not even head of the monastery to which he belongs.
        
        ⁹ It is true, however, that the Dalai Lama has an important role in the appointment of the abbots of the three principal dgelugs monasteries and in that of the Ganden Tripa, the titular head of the dgelugs school.
        
        https://info-buddhism.com/Compassion_Buddhist+Christian_Traditions_Alexander_Norman.html#_ftnref9
        
        I respect your struggles with these issues and also your wishes for him doing more or acting more decisively. I share these wishes.
        
        I am happy that you found my replies helpful so far. And let me know when they are not helpful. Thank you for your comments. I think they derive from disappointment which I find totally understandable.
        
        21
        
        tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 7:31 pm
        Reply
        
        Btw, this young Rinpoche should apologise to you and Shakaira for his wrong accusations!
      - 22
        
        Luanne on December 2, 2021 at 7:52 am
        Reply
        
        @Tenpel,
        
        I believe the meeting of lineage leaders was to take place in late 2018, and its purpose was to discuss the Dalai Lama’s future and reincarnation/succession plans, etc. During an audience with a group of survivors, the Dalai Lama promised that he would also bring up the topic of abuse. The meeting was cancelled because one of the lineage heads died, (the Nyingma leader at that time). Also, the Karmapa (OTD) couldn’t get a visa to India, so they decided to postpone the meeting for one year. I do believe the meeting was actually held a year later in 2019. I do not know if the topic of abuse was ever mentioned. This is just to let you know what I heard about it. (If anyone has more details, I would like to learn more.)
        
        23
        
        tenpel on December 2, 2021 at 9:41 am
        Reply
        
        Great. Thank you for the details. I know of everything you write except that the meeting took place a year later. If it took place a year later, the question is if or why not the topic of abuse was addressed.
        
        24
        
        Luanne on December 2, 2021 at 10:31 pm
        
        I don’t know the answer to that question.
        
        I am not sure where I heard it took place a year later. It’s possible that the information was wrong, but it seemed to be from a reliable source. If the meeting took place, it was probably “secret” and whatever they talked about was not announced publicly. It wouldn’t surprise me if they ‘forgot’ to talk about abuse.
25

Patti on October 7, 2021 at 5:40 pm
Reply

You are too kind in your critique of the article. That author has made a career out of vilifying Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and the Dalai Lama. The irony is, from his website at least, he calls himself a Buddhist. I see and read no Bodhicitta this man’s heart.
I struggle to find compassion for him.
- 26
  
  tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 7:14 pm
  Reply
  
  Mhm. I don’t think it’s a real “career”. Maybe more an attempt – if you want to see it that way.
  
  I would hesitate to say anything like this, because 1) people have complex and mixed motivations, 2) what can I know about the motivations of others for sure? Though, of course, motivations can be inferred from bodily and verbal behaviour to a certain degree. And the Buddha even recommended this – to observe bodily and verbal behaviour to judge others’ mind.
  
  Leaving this aside, I agree the critique is kind all in all. If it’s “too” kind… mhm. Maybe. Though I wonder what a “not too kind” critique would look like? Ha ha, maybe your comment gives an idea of that? 😉
  
  But your comment targets his character and motivations and follows thereby the same route as the article of Stuart and Rob.
  
  I think kindness is a good thing.
  
  I wish you to activate love and compassion for him.
27

TomatoesNPeppe on October 7, 2021 at 8:59 pm
Reply

While the points above are not out of order, I fear this rebuttal is counterproductive. If RH were open to critique and debate then it might be worthwhile. However, he has demonstrated time and again that his reaction against criticism is to go after the critic. Sometimes it is good to let things be. Some do take him seriously, but not as seriously as the blog makes out.
- 28
  
  tenpel on October 7, 2021 at 10:29 pm
  Reply
  
  ha ha, I think you have a point with Rob when you write “his reaction against criticism is to go after the critic”. If the article is counter productive or not, I am not so sure. I saw some people appreciating it. I am more concerned about my friend Stuart and wonder why he collaborated with Rob and in this piece. I made him also aware of this article. Let’s see if he has some thoughts on it.
  
  Personally, this is also what I wrote to Stuart, I decided to not respond to the article and to rest with it. I am tired of such articles having had read similar articles by Trimondis and Goldner in the past and having done some enlightening work on theirs already. But Joanne wanted to write a piece and she has some good points which I found helpful to make readers aware of. Her article was in my inbox for quite a while. Yesterday I decided (and also found the time) to share her work here.
  
  Her article could be of help for those who are easily impressed by tons of footnotes or articles that claim to be neutral and factual while they are biased, black-and-white, and also have factual errors. A befriended scientist commented their article: “Missionaries spread the true doctrine. There is no grey area, no real world. Their world is black and white. Someone like HHDL paints over the grey / greyness colourfully.”
- 29
  
  Joanne Clark on October 8, 2021 at 12:52 am
  Reply
  
  @TomatoesNPeppe, I had the same thoughts as you for some months after Rob’s article was published. Also, I thought not to give it too much attention, not too many hits. However, over time, months, my feelings changed, mostly because it seemed wrong that I would address problems in the behaviors of some (e.g. lamas) and not of others (e.g. who criticized lamas). So I wrote a piece. I wrote two pieces actually, the second more balanced and nuanced. And as Tenzin said, both remained in his inbox for some months after I sent them. I was a little relieved, not wanting the possible personal attack that might ensue.
  
  But then, a conversation started up in Facebook that I think might have had both Tenzin and I thinking it was a problem that the article would remain out there to mis-inform. One commenter later said on FB, in response to my article, that it wasn’t fair that the article gave the Dalai Lama no right of reply– something that a good journalist will always do. So that is what I’ve tried to do a little of, put his own voice in the mix.
30

tenpel on October 9, 2021 at 9:38 pm
Reply

I am a bit trying to find out what the stance of the Dalai Lama regarding Pinochet has really been. What is been quoted by the CBC article is only a plea for forgiveness – nothing of what he says suggests that he sided with Bush and Thatcher to stop the extradition (and even if he did, what are his motives? Are his motivations greed, power, celebrity interests, sinister motivations that prove his (assumed) bad / politically corrupt character?)

In a Chilean press article there is a more extensive explanation and context of the full statement HHDL made in Chile. There you’ll find this – a deeply humanitarian perspective IMO, including the honouring of the victims. And though he considers pardon he calls at the same time for respecting the decision of the justice system.

https://ipsnoticias.net/1999/04/chile-dalai-lama-despidio-a-cardenal-y-opino-sobre-caso-pinochet/

Translation via deepl.com:

CHILE: Dalai Lama dismissed cardinal and gave his opinion on Pinochet case
April 12, 1999

With a white handkerchief, according to the Buddhist ritual, the Dalai Lama bid farewell today to Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez, in the second of his five-day visit to Chile, also marked by his pronouncements on the Pinochet case.

The political and spiritual leader of Tibet arrived at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Santiago at the end of the public wake of Silva Henríquez, the cardinal who died on Friday at the age of 91 and was buried on Monday.

After bowing over the coffin and remaining silent for a few minutes, the Dalai Lama left a white handkerchief on the urn, as a sign of farewell and admiration for the prelate who was the symbol of the defense of human rights in Chile during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet (1973-90).

The 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner arrived in Santiago this Sunday, invited by the Tibet Foundation of Chile, which welcomed him with a “new age” concert at the Estación Mapocho Cultural Center, attended by 5,000 people.

The Buddhist leader is visiting Chile in the course of a tour that also includes Argentina and Brazil and which, he said, “is not of a political nature but of a cultural, educational and spiritual nature”.

However, as happens in every trip of the Dalai Lama, his visit to Santiago provoked reactions from the Chinese embassy, which protested against the decision of President Eduardo Frei to receive him in a special audience in the La Moneda palace.

The Chilean Foreign Ministry clarified last week that the presidential decision does not imply a government pronouncement on the emancipation demands of Tibet, whose 100,000 refugees claim that their country is militarily occupied by China.

The Foreign Ministry also said that Frei’s interview with the Dalai Lama is not an “unfriendly gesture” toward the Beijing government, with which Chile maintains “the best relations.”

“That always happens,” the Buddhist leader commented at a press conference this Sunday, regarding Chinese diplomatic protests over his visit.

“The Tibetan issue is not mine or that of 100,000 refugees, but a problem that concerns six million Tibetans, their culture and environment. And I, being the Dalai Lama, trusted by the people, have the responsibility to address it,” he said.

He insisted on the peaceful nature of Tibet’s demands for independence. “We are neighbors (with China) and it is essential not to maintain hatred. Every year I look for how to find something in the spirit of reconciliation,” he added.

This same spirit of reconciliation was shown by the Dalai Lama regarding former dictator Pinochet, 83, arrested since October 1998 in London and who will possibly face from Thursday an extradition trial to Spain.

Tenzin Giatso, the name of the 14th Dalai Lama, said that revenge is not the right path and stressed the value of forgiveness for the human rights violations committed in Chile during the dictatorship.

“But that does not mean forgetting what happened. We must be clear about the bad things that happened and then, in a spirit of reconciliation, be ready to forgive”.

Pinochet, he continued, as “a man of advanced age, pardon can be applied to him”, but “as we are all equal before the law, we must respect any decision of justice”, he concluded.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- 31
  
  tenpel on October 9, 2021 at 10:18 pm
  Reply
  
  More context regarding Pinochet and Chile
  
  A friend sent this
  
  It was made in the context of a funeral in Chile for an Archbishop who fought for Human Rights during the Pinochet regime that HHDL attended, admiring that person’s work.
  
  That on grounds of age Pinochet could be forgiven but not without a full, public account of what he actually did.
  
  It’s the Latin American tradition of ‘reconciliation’ that Chile followed – confession without punishment.
  
  The critiques don’t take into account the politics of Chile. HHDL did.
  
  https://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/brahm-chilean
  
  I think just a closer look into just this topic indicates quite some bias and a tainted perspective – not at all neutral or factual driven – by Stuart and Rob in their article. A truly scholarly paper would consider the context, it would look from different angles, it would allow different perspectives and it would apply a careful judging or weighing, after careful considerations … Tons of lengthily footnotes don’t makes a scholarly paper – though it seems to impress some readers.
  
  (See also my quick thoughts as a reply to criticism / a critical article by a survivor about my blog and Joanne’s post, here: https://mobile.twitter.com/BuddhistLeaks/status/1446738267639066629)
32

tenpel on October 11, 2021 at 8:20 pm
Reply

I think it would be helpful for the debate to consider the difference between intention and impact.

While the Dalai Lama likely does not have bad intentions, his acting or non-acting has an impact. It would be good for him as well as the office or the TGI to consider the impact of not having set up a proper structure and good procedures to address abuse.

There is for sure an impact for endorsing Sogyal with the inauguration of the Lerab Ling temple, there is an impact for OKC kids of Spatz’s center being endorsed, there is an impact of leaving the burden to speak up on the survivors. I think such considerations and reminding the difference between impact and intention could really help the discussion and bring it forward.

While Joanne or I (maybe others’s too) seem to focus on the intentions, critical voices or critical survivors stress the impact. Stressing the impact is an important, a very important point.
- 33
  
  tenpel on October 23, 2021 at 10:12 pm
  Reply
  
  A monastic friend wrote to me. I think this person has made some good points I want to share.
  
  The Dalai Lama can be criticised for failing to make use of his moral authority. Considering the huge amount of suffering and the far reaching, damaging implications for the mundane and spiritual lives of those who have been harmed by abuse, more decisive actions could have been performed, couldn’t they? For instance, why not speaking a quiet word to Dagri Rinpoche, who is his disciple, or to the Karmapa (who is also his disciple) urging them to disrobe, to cease teaching and do retreat to address their inner issues. Is this too much to ask that?
34

tenpel on October 24, 2021 at 8:56 am
Reply

Thank you Lena. There is both, a deep ignorance as well as a deep resistance and avoidance. Behind it is often misogyny and cultural habits that block an open, compassionate and wise dealing with it.
35

tenpel on October 24, 2021 at 2:58 pm
Reply

Yes, I am surprised again and again how often women defend perpetrators, play abuse down (it was “sex among adults”), are not allies of survivors or attack people engaged in educating on abuse issues.

It were women who complaint about me to Ringu Tulku about my engagement regarding Sogyal, regarding OKC, who questioned me (is he still allow to teach, to be the resident monk…?), it were women who bullied me out of the charity I served for 10 years, who spread false claims about me, one woman full of hostility …

Though also men were / are engaged in playing down abuse, in attacking, smearing, manipulating … I was surprised to meet so many women doing the same. And it appears it were more women than men in general.

I had expected women to show more solidarity or sympathy for female survivors.

On the other hand, in the Dagri Rinpoche case women/nuns took the lead and pressured successfully for change. Sakyadhita, an organisation founded by women/ nuns (as far as I understand it), had a panel on abuse were Rigpa survivor Damchö gave a talk as well as Tahlia Newland. Nothing like this exist from male people as far as i am aware. I also receive much feedback or encouragement from women / nuns who express their gratitude for my engagement… (more from women than men it seems, though also men have expressed support and gratitude.)

It’s not black and white but I had expected / assumed there is more sympathy and solidarity from women.
- 36
  
  Adamo on October 28, 2021 at 2:02 am
  Reply
  
  I observed so often what is called “crab behaviour” in western dharma groups and centers.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
  
  And to my surprise it was an acting mainly women applied to.
  I was similar surprised to hear that the most cruel act of female genital mutilation is executed by women, and women keep the “tradition” up.
  
  Yes, there is no black and white.
  
  And I got so often the feeling that a practice called vajrasattva seems to be abused like catholic confession is abused just to keep the bad habits going on but cleanwash them every friday by a confession ritual.
  
  Sorry for those rough and less sophisticated examples of human deeds, but the examples of Sogyal and his devotees shows how a good but difficult practice can be easily abused.
37

SaltNPeppa on October 25, 2021 at 6:34 pm
Reply

Comment deleted by blog owner

Please no personal attacks. Thank you.
38

tenpel on October 26, 2021 at 1:05 pm
Reply

Sadly, yes.

Often the same happens in the press / media.

At least some journalists or politicians are aware of the imbalances here and try not to follow this pattern. In Buddhist Communities with their often overburden of work and a tendency to self-absorption there is usually neither much awareness nor much critical self-reflection on these matters. Rather there is a constant managing / survival mode to get things done quickly – to get rid of the problems – combined with a lot of ignorance and assumed good motivations from oneself and bad motivations seen in others.
39

tenpel on October 27, 2021 at 9:04 am
Reply

Thank you for sharing. I am really sorry.
40

SaltNPeppa on October 28, 2021 at 12:17 pm
Reply

Is there anything Hogendoorn and Lachs have to say regarding their misrepresentation of the Pinochet issue?

I wonder also about their sources. Indy Hack is a conspiracist who claimed the Dalai Lama has terminal cancer, is on the edge of dying, has a baby and so on. Indy Hack ran a hate Twitter campaign against the Dalai Lama with the help of his NKT friends, fake accounts and Twitter bots, retweeting their false claims.

His behaviour is similar to those who ran a hate campaign against Meghan Markle. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/27/meghan-target-of-co-ordinated-twitter-hate-campaign-report-finds

I had expected from an “investigative journalist” to be able to see behind the curtain instead of making use of the curtain.
- 41
  
  tenpel on October 28, 2021 at 12:47 pm
  Reply
  
  Indy Hack is a classical troll. And a spreader of lies, misinformation and hate. This blog has covered a bit his activities – one time even the New Statesman reported about him.
  
  In my own case, which I know very well because it’s my own person, he claimed I am a Stasi trained spy, an agent of the CTA, he attributed secret service skills to me and wrote so many bad and untrue staff that it is only ridiculous.
  
  It appears to me that my first impression of the article, all types of sources that put the Dalai Lama in a bad light, are used without questioning the sources or to investigate the context, is just true. (Or, as it appears with Pinochet, the context is even deliberately ignored or even misrepresented.)
  
  Moreover, well researched issues as the Schäfer expedition are used to load these emotionally by putting triggering terms like SS SA into it and to elaborate lengthily on it.
  
  The whole so called “Nazi-Tibet-Connection” has already been academically covered. When I asked Robbie Barnett who is the best scholar on it, he replied, it’s Isrun Engelhardt. So I contacted her and put a lot of effort into convincing her to put her papers online. It’s all out there. Interestingly, though all three papers of her are online on my website, no link to these were added in Rob’s and Stuart’s article.
  
  I don’t think Rob and Stuart have nothing to add to the discussion. Especially Stuart has and Rob did some good things regarding abuse and he initially also shared generously material with me. Sometimes you need to stress the negative sides to highlight a nuisance.
  
  However, my impression remains, it’s a ideological driven, narrow / bnw perspective article that does not do justice to this complex person and is rather in the spirit of conspiracists like Trimondis or someone like Goldner.
  
  I wonder if there is any scientifically working academic – a Tibetologist or religious scientist – who take this article seriously? A peer review might be helpful. Usually, like in the case of Goldner or Trimondis the academic community ignore such articles unless they get a momentum in the public domain. My German website has some critical articles on Trimondis and Goldner.
  - 42
    
    tenpel on October 28, 2021 at 1:03 pm
    Reply
    
    Regarding Beger, according to McKay, the meeting with Beger happened in ignorance. I reported from an unpublished report I got from a scientist about Beger meeting the Dalai Lama here in German:
    
    https://info-buddhismus.de/Korrekturen_und_Reflexionen_zum_Stern-Artikel.html#DalaiLama-Beger
    
    Beger was a convicted war criminal. No doubt about that.
    
    McKay claims too, it was totally embarrassing for the CTA when they found out later that he was an “enthusiastic nazi”.
43

Adamo on November 1, 2021 at 6:14 pm
Reply

Hoogendorn has published a new entry on his blog “Open Buddhism”.https://openbuddhism.org/
I hadnt time to listen yet.
- 44
  
  tenpel on November 2, 2021 at 12:23 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you.
  I stopped following him and blocked him on Twitter.
  Thank you for keeping us updated.
45

Luanne on December 2, 2021 at 10:39 pm
Reply

If the Dalai Lama is so bound by bodhisattva ideals and Buddhist tradition, and these things are keeping him from being able to say too much regarding lamas and their bad behavior, then why was the DL able to come down so hard on Geshe Michal Roach? He even banned GMR and “Lama” Christie from attending his teachings, (even though GMR’s students were still welcome). It appears that the Dalai Lama is quite capable of coming down forcefully and condemning bad behavior when he wants to. There was nothing stopping him in the case of GMR. He is also very outspoken about the Shugden issue, even though he knew it would cause controversy. So, what’s stopping him from saying something about people like Dagri, and others?
- 46
  
  tenpel on December 3, 2021 at 12:03 am
  Reply
  
  Did he say a bad word about or did he condemn Michael Roach or any Shugden lama? I didn’t observe this.
  
  There was a letter from the DL office, it should be here on the blog or my website.
  
  What I stress is that he does not condemn a person. However, he was strong – or more precisely over times he became stronger and stronger – regarding the Shugden issue. And yes, he could get similar strong and stronger regarding abuse issues.
  - 47
    
    Luanne on December 4, 2021 at 12:04 am
    Reply
    
    I didn’t say that the Dalai Lama condemned Geshe Michael Roach as a person, but he certainly did condemn his actions and teachings very strongly. He even banned Roach and “Lama” Christie from attending his teachings. Also, the DL doesn’t say people who practice Shugden are evil, but he was very clear about why he felt the practice was harmful. My point is that his vows do not restrict him from speaking out about whatever he thinks is wrong behavior, or practices, etc. People keep saying that the DL is a bodhisattva who can’t criticize anyone, but he doesn’t have to badmouth individuals in order to condemn their actions and practices. He has done so in the past, so when he remains silent on people such as Dagri, it is disturbing to me.
    - 48
      
      tenpel on December 4, 2021 at 7:49 am
      Reply
      
      I agree with you.
      - 49
        
        Luanne on December 12, 2021 at 7:01 pm
        Reply
        
        @tenpel,
        
        I am surprised that you agree with my last comment regarding the Dalai Lama and Dagri, since some of your comments about the Dalai Lama seem to be defensive of his actions….or inaction.
        
        I understand why you are defensive, (even if I don’t agree with it), since he is one of your gurus. There was a time when I used to be defensive of him too, and I would rationalize some of his behavior with explanations about him being a bodhisattva, etc. Since then, I have slowly come to the conclusion that he too is part of the Tibetan Buddhist lama cult scene, and I have no need to defend him anymore.
        
        50
        
        tenpel on December 12, 2021 at 11:41 pm
        Reply
        
        I see it differently. As I said, I started from hating the DL, from seeing him as a type of a spiritual fraudster or a mere politician who does not have any spiritual qualities. Just a mundane, worldly politician deceiving the world. I took years to examine my judgments, apprehensions and his person. For me it’s a matter of fairness to shine light on grey zones or to question views about him I see as being distorted. I would do the same with everyone else. But here we seem to discuss a lot about the DL. So, I argue also a lot about him. If you think I would do this only with respect to the DL because he is one of my gurus, you err. I do the same with Ole Nydahl (who is not my guru but who really behaved badly towards me), or the girl friend of my friend about who he complains to me how bad she supposedly is, or any other human being. I just try to be just or fair and I try to avoid black and white images of people and situations.
        However, I accept when someone thinks I am a bit blind sighted regarding the DL. Ok, prove that to me with good arguments. I am open to good arguments.
        
        51
        
        Luanne on December 13, 2021 at 2:03 am
        
        @tenpel,
        
        I don’t wish to argue with you about the Dalai Lama. Also, I am not intentionally trying to demonize him on a personal level, since I do not know him personally. He has done good in the world, so I am not denying that.
        
        However, when it comes to his attitude within the Tibetan Buddhist establishment, it appears that he sometimes addresses the problem of corruption within his tradition, but he doesn’t really use his power of influence enough to really help change anything. No, he is not a pope, but he has a lot of power. His moral authority alone makes him very influential. I feel he could use his power of influence much more than he does. I am pointing out that you seem a bit blind when it comes to his ‘very good friends’ and the abuse within Tibetan Buddhism. These are the main issues I have with the DL, and I have said this before on your discussion threads, so you already know what my ‘arguments’ are. So either you ‘agree’ with me, (about how it’s wrong for him to coddle people like Dagri Rinpoche, and others), or you don’t.
52

tenpel on December 18, 2021 at 1:59 pm
Reply

I just had a discussion with an academically well established anthropologist (phd), a lecturer at different universities, about the discussion on the Dalai Lama here on the blog, by Rob etc. I told about the attempt to write about the Dalai Lama ignoring his value system. The person immediately replied (paraphrased): you can’t do that. You must first understand the Dalai Lama’s value system and you must take it into account otherwise what you write will be Eurocentric. It’s a no go academically to not consider or even ignore the value system of “the other”.

So, I think, in that very regard, comments criticising the failure to consider the religious and cultural values the Dalai Lama holds / maintains / tries to follow are very relevant and valid.

On the other hand, this person also critically added: reviewing an article without having fully read it, is also not a good practice. (I told that person that I only read the introduction, glanced through it and checked a bit more in detail a lengthily footnote, I think 122 or 120, can’t remember the exact number. To my defense I can add, I didn’t write a review.)
53

Euroskeptic on December 18, 2021 at 10:40 pm
Reply

Rob comes from a place of deep cultural chauvinism but would deny this. His previous article debunking Tibetan exceptionalism was based on an accurate premise, that Tibetans are human beings just like any other ethnicities.

Where the article went wrong was the constant imposition of the white, European gaze on how Tibetans are struggling to maintain their culture in the face of unprecedented pressures. It is almost as if he doesn’t take into consideration the status of Tibetans as stateless refugees when examining these issues.

Perhaps he needs to examine the perch of privilege he sits on as a financially comfortable white male in one of the wealthiest countries in Europe to develop more nuance in his viewpoints.
- 54
  
  tenpel on December 18, 2021 at 11:47 pm
  Reply
  
  Maybe this is also related to cultural habits within his country, the Netherlands?
  
  A friend stressed that he thinks in The Netherlands there he found often a type of cultural chauvinism stemming from the colonial heritage and looking onto the world through the colonial lens.
  
  I don’t know if that’s true or not, and generalisations are in general rather dangerous. Nevertheless, cultural habits, traits and attitudes do exist. It would be part of an enlightened view to critical reflect these and being aware of these – if these exist. If such attitudes do exist, then there is a danger to see Tibetans as primitive and to look down on them based on feeling superior or more enlightened.
  
  I would not hesitate to assume that likely you’ll find in each culture egocentric tendencies, seeing the own world as superior, more advanced and the outer world – beyond one’s culture or identity- as less developed. The Germans, my nation, gave the worst example of course in the last century.
  
  However, judging fairly another culture or ethnicity has to take such limiting cultural attitudes in one‘s mind into account. There is no real objective view possible when judging or examining others‘ cultures because of the own conditioning and shaping perceptions and evaluation through them. Anthropology seems to be aware of these problems. I guess Carol, as an well educated Anthropologist, can give us input about how anthropology nowadays approaches the portrayal or the examination of other cultures.
55

Euroskeptic on December 19, 2021 at 12:59 am
Reply

Yes. He may see this criticism as totally unfair. I’m no anthropologist but I read a lot of research in that field and the researcher’s positionality is a key facet that anthropologists deal with in their writings.
For example, acknowledging as a white person that one is a member of the dominant world culture and reflecting about how that could affect one’s work. Also, dialogues with the communities one writes about as a way to give them voice in the research.
If Rob could point to one instance where he has taken valid criticism on-board and learned from it he would gain more respect than rejecting criticism off-hand in every instance.
- 56
  
  tenpel on December 19, 2021 at 1:16 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you.
  
  I cannot remember one instance where Rob accepted valid criticism. In my own experiences and observations I found he can’t take it. I also see his initial engagement here on the blog and his support and sharing of material with me more critically.
  
  Moreover, I didn’t observe one instance where he considered unbiasedly the value system of “the other” when it deviated from his own Eurocentric / western based value system or his private value system. I wrote also in a comment to him here on the blog that he misses to put himself into the shoes of others.
  
  Putting yourself into the shoes of others is necessary for understanding “the other” it does not imply that you have to agree with what you understand. But it helps to have nuanced, multi faceted views of complex realities, of complex characters, instead of cartoonish or black and white views of your object of observations.
57

Adamo on December 19, 2021 at 9:53 am
Reply

I perceive RobHoogendorns way he actsas self-righteous and selfcentered as I perceive a big deal of tibetan Lamas do.
No matter what they want to be, both paries refuse any dialogue with others. With Hoogendoorn I dont know from personal experience, but from tibetan Lamas I had to experience that unfortunately always and again.

So to say: one could put both in a sack and start beating the sack. You always hit the right one.
Ok, lets be peaceful. Give them what they want and let them be free. Running wild, rowing with the arms and I try to stay away from their windmill arms.
- 58
  
  tenpel on December 19, 2021 at 11:10 am
  Reply
  
  On his blog you can’t discuss, can you? Rob disabled discussion. This makes the blog title „Open Buddhism“ a bit of a joke. It’s only open to his views (and by extension to a few who seem to share his views.)
59

Starfish on December 19, 2021 at 3:32 pm
Reply

as per convo above, I think if he gets upset about being asked to do the work reflecting on positionality, his own work will look old fashioned without these new frameworks right? on his twitter it states he is academic researcher so should be aware of the conversations about this in field
60

Oane on January 6, 2022 at 8:04 pm
Reply

Sorry, but here is the final version! 🙂 Thanks!

The title of Joanne Clark’s article is: “A DISHEARTENING ARTICLE: STUART LACHS & ROB HOGENDOORN ON THE DALAI LAMA”. That’s two authors (not one), two scholars, two academics, who take facts seriously and are willing to do the work of reading and researching, the foundation any serious (academic) critique is written on. Both are not reacting in person here and given the tone of some of the people piping in, one could hardly call that surprising. For instance, there is nothing “peaceful” about first making violent remarks and then calling for being “peaceful”. There is nothing “buddhist” about smearing somebody’s name and reputation because you’re not willing to deal with the well backed facts he is presenting. Together with a co-author that is!

As Stuart Lach says in the bio on his website;

“Critical thinking is Buddhist and Buddhism is critical thinking. By demanding tough answers and not being satisfied with easy ones, I hope to improve the situation of Zen in America which, since the mid-1960’s, has suffered from repeated scandals – scandals that hurt its practitioners, caused others to leave and marred its reputation for years to come.”

https://terebess.hu/english/lachs.html;

Yes, Stuart comes from another school of buddhism, but as you might already know – or will understand when you read more of his articles and work, is that it is -and has always been – just more of the same. Just exchange “Tibetan Buddhism” for ” Zen”.

So, wether you are Tenpel or Joanne, or you are here as a visitor, I assume you are here because you are acutely and intimately aware of these problems and see the necessity of asking the diffi-cult questions, like: “Why are there so many scandals in western buddhist groups, what are the structures that enable abuse to this extend and what is my role as a western buddhist in all of this?”

I also assume you are willing to do some work (like reading and researching) to find answers and that, while at it, realize you should be thankful for those people who paved the way by already doing so much of the boring, diffi-cult, hard work. Collecting sources, digging in archives, going through books and articles, creating perspectives. They are sharing their finds to help you! For free! Of course the answers they come up with might be painful and difficult-cult too. What did you expect?

So let’s be brave and not just good little buddhists. Here is an article Stuart published especially for all of you, just a few days ago. It’s an easy read and will not take more than ten minutes, but it might give you an idea of what critical thinking actually looks like. And maybe, just maybe make you see what Stuart had the good fortune realizing many years ago;

https://openbuddhism.org/two-views-of-the-dalai-lama-high-level-bodhisattva-and-transactional-political-figure/
- 61
  
  tenpel on January 7, 2022 at 3:16 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Oane, maybe you can explain to me what types of scholars do work such as to investigate if a person is “appropriate to” be viewed “as an ordinary priest, going about his duties in the ways ordinary priests do”? I mean, wouldn’t a scholar or true researcher start to define what “ordinary” is and also what “not ordinary” is and then investigate unbiasedly if there is more weight to support the one or the other pov? I wonder also if there is any research – I mean by an established academic, who works at a university as a research fellow, has an PhD, is lecturing etc (knows the academic stuff, has peer reviews etc…) – who has done such profound research on a person’s ordinariness or non-ordinariness?
  
  The Dalai Lama is both a politician and a spiritual figure, as such he has both, political and spiritual motives.
  
  I will read Stuart’s article soon. The heading sounds a bit strange to me “Two Views Of The Dalai Lama: High-level Bodhisattva And Transactional Political Figure”. I wonder for instance, who says the Dalai Lama is a high level Bodhisattva? (Personally, I didn’t, nor did Joanne, did she? I called for an open investigation [not a narrow one as that by Stuart and Rob], an unbiased investigation that includes also to consider spiritual motivations, based on his spiritual value system. There is just nothing wrong in that call.) Also the heading might serve as opening a dichotomy, that he is either the one or the other – though he can be both. Hopefully the article includes multiple perspectives (and is not as narrow in scope as the article Joanne criticised.) I am also sceptical about the high-level Bodhisattva claim because it could be well a straw man argument. Neither Joanne nor I claimed that, did we?
  
  Last, if Rob is a researcher, he should be factual and not spread wrong claims about me – i.e. wrongly and against the facts claiming I had misrepresented Prof Baffelli.* If he is a journalist, he should give his targets the option to respond to his claims. I cannot take him seriously. He is not a serious academic, journalist for me who writes “serious (academic) critique”. Stuart I take seriously. I wonder a bit why he collaborates with Rob. Because I take Stuart seriously, I’ll read his article (sooner or later).
  
  Critical thinking, btw, includes to question your own perspectives and judgements, and to acknowledge if you erred. I didn’t see this in any way with Rob.
  
  * I added the example of Rob‘s factual wrong claim about my supposed misrepresentation after I posted this comment. We discussed this point here already on the blog and I gave proof about its wrongness by quoting Baffelli‘s reply to my question to her. Rob decided nevertheless to not admit his error and continues to repeat it besides its being factual wrong. Instead, he distracted from his fault by making a big fuss – including different threats to me – out of my proof, the recording of the discussion section which I made only for personal purpose because of my bad internet connection and in anticipating Baffelli‘s answer to my question being difficult to understand so that I have as a backup the recording of her reply to my question.
- 62
  
  tenpel on January 7, 2022 at 4:46 am
  Reply
  
  Oane, another thing, yes, Rob and Stuart do it for free. In the past I mistook Rob earning money, making a living with his work. In Germany a person who wants to be acknowledged as a journalist by becoming part of a national journalist union body must prove he earns money, generates an income, by his journalistic work, otherwise he or she is not accepted in the national journalist union bodies and does not get a journalist passport. Rob has a journalist passport. Rob clarified, he does not earn money but lives on the money of his wife.
  
  I also don’t make money. My work is also for free. I saw, you wrote in one of your profiles, you’re a „researcher“. If you are also not working at a university or earn money with your research, let’s be honest, we‘re all hobbyists. I am a hobby blogger.
  
  To add an argument to my claim of Rob and Stuart’s article being biased. Before I dive into any article of a greater length (except been published in a professional context with integrity), I do usually some checks about a few points to see if I can take an article seriously and if it’s worth the time reading. This can save me a lot of time. One of the points I checked is the usage of the Pinochet case by Rob and Stuart. The Pinochet case has been used in a totally biased manner with the aim to demonstrate the „ordinary politician“ thesis of Rob and Stuart that the Dalai Lama just seeks contact with people of power no matter how dubious (or really evil minded) they are. Rob and Stuart did not only misrepresent the event and offered a black and white image of it), they left out for instance the respect and admiration the Dalai Lama expressed for the victims of Pinochet:
  
  After bowing over the coffin and remaining silent for a few minutes, the Dalai Lama left a white handkerchief on the urn, as a sign of farewell and admiration for the prelate who was the symbol of the defense of human rights in Chile during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet (1973-90).
  
  Why? Tell me why? This is not scholarly, this is not academic inquiry. I find this just intellectually poor and lazy.
- 63
  
  tenpel on January 14, 2022 at 3:35 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Oane,
  so, as you wished, I did some work.
  
  It wasn’t too difficult but it took a bit of my time.
  I was myself amazed about the findings – I expected more valuable, factual correct and well thought out output from Stuart. Though I assumed already the straw man argument just from reading the heading, I wouldn’t have expected wrong facts quite right from the start and that the only reasonable and (as it seems) factual correct passage is that on the historical part on the Pinochet coup. I hope you like my critical thinking been applied to Stuart’s article?! You seem to appreciate critical thinking. Can you find any error in my analysis?
  
  And, I didn’t destroy the reputation of Stuart or Rob, they can only do it themselves. I also didn’t smear their name. Criticising an article is not smearing name or reputation. I used arguments and remarked on certain types of behaviour – e.g. the inability of Rob to take criticism or that he spreads false claims about me.
  
  Do you want me or Joanne to answer your question, “Why are there so many scandals in western buddhist groups, what are the structures that enable abuse to this extend and what is my role as a western buddhist in all of this?” I think my whole blog and dozens of comments deal with that question. Do you look for a summary or neat answer? I have no problem to answer this and also to highlight “my role as a western buddhist in all of this” – though I thought this should be rather obvious from the blog posts.
  
  I hope you too are “thankful for those people who paved the way by already doing so much of the boring, diffi-cult, hard work”. I did quite a lot – e.g. making available articles referenced in the footnotes of Rob’s and Stuart’s article on one of my websites. It took me literally years to get the permission! Not to think about the work of scanning, OCR, typography, adding the images, getting the copyrights permissions etc … I wonder how Rob’s and Stuart’s gratitude expresses (you brought up the topic, not me) in not linking to the articles by Isrun Engelhardt on my website, which they mention in footnote 120:
  
  Tibet in 1938-1939: Photographs from the Ernst Schäfer Expedition to Tibet. Chicago: Serindia; Engelhardt, Isrun. (2008). The Nazis of Tibet: A Twentieth Century Myth. In Monica Esposito (Ed.), Images of Tibet in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Vol. 22, pp. 63-96). Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient.
  
  Though they link a lot of other material in their article they didn’t link these (rather important and well well researched) papers. I don’t know the reason, but they are easy to be found online and could be hardly overseen. Gratitude could encompass also the work I did. So far I didn’t hear any “thank you” 😉 Ha ha.
  
  Here are the links, really excellent scholarly material btw!
  
  1) Tibet in 1938–1939: The Ernst Schäfer Expedition to Tibet by Isrun Engelhardt
  
  2) Nazis of Tibet: A Twentieth Century Myth by Isrun Engelhardt
  
  Regarding, “paving the way” and gratitude (I don’t expect any gratitude, you brought up this topic), did you know I started in 2004 a website on Buddhist cults? https://buddhistische-sekten.de
  
  I hope I err but your uncritical admiration and praising of the scholarly merits of Rob and Stuart, your calling for gratitude and putting down people who dare to critique these ‘holy scholars’ remind me of something from my cult past.
  
  So let’s be brave and not just good little buddhists.
  
  Yes, let us bravely question and check ourselves self-critically. A good start could be to accept valid criticism.
  
  I think its rather obvious, if you check and consider my reply to Stuart’s article, that what Stuart wrote is NOT “what critical thinking actually looks like”, it is also not what good scholars would do, is it?
64

Oane on January 7, 2022 at 11:33 am
Reply

For the sake of completeness a link to the other article on this subject. To read 😉
https://openbuddhism.org/a-profession-of-faith-and-the-designation-of-a-taboo/
- 65
  
  tenpel on January 7, 2022 at 11:45 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you, Oane.
  
  It’s also interesting to see, while “Open Buddhism” is not open for discussion that the links are dropped here on the diffi•cult blog 😉
66

Tea on January 12, 2022 at 2:07 am
Reply

Would love to hear how Rob and Stuart use self-reflexivity on their positionality as males from the dominant culture when investigating these issues. Most researchers and commentators find that helpful.
- 67
  
  tenpel on January 12, 2022 at 12:06 pm
  Reply
  
  Indeed. I just had a module on white supremacy culture. Marks are either/or thinking, not being able to take criticism, nor allowing different perspectives, black and white thinking, a right to abide in comfort (not to be challenged or disturbed in your views) etc. It reminded me on traces of Rob’s behaviour and arguments. I thought, maybe also it is of value for Stuart checking this self-critically/introspective/self-reflectively.
  
  Of course a fact is not a perspective. The Dalai Lama speaking on Pinochet is not a perspective because he did so, this is a fact. But, how you interpret this is a perspective. And as Joanne showed and everyone can check, their perspective in that regard is not only limited and narrow but also distorting the reality to fit their thesis (cognitive bias). That both wrote subsequent pieces to Joanne’s (correct) criticism rather suggests a lack of being able to consider or allowing different perspectives. It seems as if they want to inherit or dominate or possess and defend the only and one truth about how the DL can be seen. Different perspectives can’t be true or real. Their aim is basically to judge the character of the Dalai Lama. And it seems only their perspective on him is the real one, the true one. So, I saw a lot of similarities when going through the marks of white supremacy culture considering our discussions and their take on it.
68

comoane on January 12, 2022 at 6:17 pm
Reply

I assume you still haven’t read any of the articles?
- 69
  
  tenpel on January 12, 2022 at 10:57 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you. I read it. Here are my quick thoughts on Stuart’s new article and its inaccuracies or potentially misleading aspects. (I might go into details more at a later time, not sure.)
  
  1. Only half true or not true at all – the “not reading” claim
  
  It’s not right to say I didn’t read the article. I read parts of it, did certain checks with what I read and I glanced through it – as I openly wrote in the editorial note at the end of Joanne’s article: “So far I didn’t read the article by Rob and Stuart in all its details” – and so it is. “in all its details” is not “not reading”.
  
  Moreover, I didn’t say at all that the scientist I quoted didn’t read their paper, as Stuart wrongly claims. He got the link to the full paper as got other scientists I contacted got the link whom I asked for their opinion. I wrote: “A befriended scientist commented their article: ‘Missionaries spread the true doctrine. There is no grey area, no real world. Their world is black and white. Someone like HHDL paints over the grey / greyness colourful.'” (the translation of the quote is from the German)
  
  So this passage by Stuart in his new article is just not accurate and it is rather misleading:
  
  “At the least, I do not think it a good idea that Tenpel, the blog’s owner, comments on our paper even though he readily admits to not having read it. Yes, he did say he did not write a review, but only is commenting. In addition, quoting an un-named academic who hasn’t read the paper and only knows of it from him, who also hasn’t read the paper, is really bad form. What did Tenpel say to him, what was the context, what can he reply except to some very general notion to a context he does not know?”
  
  Moreover, I was only commenting on what I read – the intro which sets the (narrow) aim of the paper, certain parts of the very long footnote and especially the Pinochet claim and what has been made out of the facts and its contexts by Rob and Stuart – what they left out for their paper and footnotes in order to support in a biased manner their narrow thesis, which they made clear in their intro. So, what I commented on is based on what I read and checked.
  
    Summary: This passage by Stuart contains two wrong claims about me and ends in a speculative question based on a wrong assessment of what I did or didn’t do.
  
  Last thought here on this: However, reading the article in all its details in full is the better option and this can be strongly criticised to not have done this. On the other hand, if you see my now long comment on Stuart’s short article you might understand why I hesitate to put so much time and energy on a long winded paper that presents itself already in the intro as narrow and simplistic. As both say they want to show “why it is appropriate to view the Dalai Lama as an ordinary priest, going about his duties in the ways ordinary priests do”. Well, with that focus, leaving out other considerations, facts and perspectives, you’ll find just that. But it will be only a partial (if not distorted) description of reality.
  
  2. The straw man argument by Stuart – the Dalai Lama as both spiritual and political leader
  
  Neither Joanne nor I said (Stuart says ambiguously “some” but claims then it’s done by me) the DL has to be considered from a high level Bodhisattva pov. This is a straw man argument by Stuart. What I (and also Joanne) called for is if you judge the character and actions of the DL then spiritual motivations have to be considered too otherwise you won’t be able to assess his complex personality and actions correctly or fairly. It was a call for fair treatment or fair assessment. Therefor, the whole following passage by Stuart is either redundant or straightforward misleading (straw man argument):
  
  “Some view the Dalai Lama only from a religious context, describing him as a high-level Bodhisattva. Once that position is taken, the Dalai Lama’s deeds and words are beyond question, despite his own assertions that the words and conduct of religious teachers, himself included, should indeed be examined and called into question. From this lofty standpoint, everything he says and does simply reflects a concern for compassion in the world. This is the context in which Tenpel places his statements advising against Pinochet’s extradition and trial.”
  
  Of course the DL should be scrutinised, called into question etc., moreover, I would find it far too simplistic to even think that the DL’s actions only reflect his compassion. A man, a human being, and also a Bodhisattva is far too complex for such a simplistic claim. My own counter argument would be, the Dalai Lama says himself he looses temper and gets angry, in his descriptions of such instances it sounded as an anger lacking compassion. More clear is the argument, that he said himself he killed mosquitos, this is not an expression of compassion. The Dalai Lama neither himself nor I portray him in such simplistic manners that “everything he says and does simply reflects a concern for compassion in the world” – as Stuart claims!
  
  Rather it’s the opposite (if not a projection), not what I or Joanne do but what Rob and Stuart do is the attempt to portray the DL in a simplistic manner, as a mere mundane political, power savvy priest – reducing the complexities of his motivations and personality to a single layer. What I have been calling for is to do such examinations fairly and informed, considering the complexities of motivations, views and his complex personality. (BTW, exactly what also my befriended scientist said.) Moreover, a main take by Stuart and Rob in that article Joanne reviewed is, that the Pinochet case has been used by them to show the DL as a merely power savvy figure – implying, he does not care for the victims or justice. The latter is factual wrong as my quote from the Chilean newspaper shows.¹ So, they left out the context to fit the thesis of a somewhat totally power savvy, victim ignorant, DL.
  
  Moreover, if or if not the DL called for the non extradition of Pinochet (if he did this at all is not clear at all – see my remarks at the end of this comment) was based on compassion for the old man (I asked to consider that motivation to contrast or challenge the attempt to only claim a (morally bad) political motivation as done by S+R) or if he did that as a “favor repaid” as Sturt claims, are both just mere interpretations or speculations. These are not facts. These are mere assumptions. However, a scholarly paper would have considered other options than just a mere political motivation. Subsequently, also this sentence by Stuart is mere speculation “Just as he could not afford to cross India in its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal or its Special Frontier Force, the Dalai Lama could not afford to cross the United States.”
  
  The problem with Rob and now also Stuart is that they don’t ask the targets of their articles (or papers) to check with them and don’t give these people an option to reply to their assumptions, speculation or theses. Subsequently, things can go factual astray or narrowed / one-sided. I think this is ok for bloggers (like myself) but not for people who establish themselves as scholars or journalists, claiming authority over what they write. I think this is rather dangerous because it can mislead readers, feed delusions, and does not do a favour for accurately and fairly working scholars and journalists. Another problem is the lacking of peer reviews of their papers or the lacking of an editorial board like you have when you work professionally as a journalist for a newspaper.
  
  3. The atom bomb example
  
  Mentioning the DL’s support for India having the atom bomb once again is not placed in context. The DL used the logical argument, if other countries have an atom bomb what gives these other countries, who have the atom bomb, the right to deny it to any other country that doesn’t have an atom bomb? If, then none should have an atom bomb. This is what he said. (I found these thoughts logical convincing.) I also think, this is a fair and sane way of thinking and is not necessarily based on a motive of him he wants to please the Indian government at the costs of his spiritual values – as implicitly is suggested (more or less) by Stuart. So, Stuart leaves out the context of the DL being also a skilled debater who uses good arguments to challenge views. Again, simplifying his personality to fit a (narrow) thesis. (Btw, when I remember correctly, the DL also ran a call or initiative to ban or remove all atom bombs. Therefor, I understand his take on atom bombs rather as a call for good arguments and fairness and against the arbitrary exertion of power by the powerful who have already an atom bomb. And what does support Stuart’s “favor repaid” view / interpretation / speculation?)
  
  4. The Pinochet claim of the alleged DL’s call for Pinochet’s non-extradition is not been proven!
  
  Stuart and Rob claimed:
  
  Margaret Thatcher and US President George H.W. Bush who sided with General Augusto Pinochet of Chile to help keep him from being extradited from England to Spain to stand trial for crimes against humanity. No doubt, much pressure was put on the Dalai Lama to get him to stand for Pinochet’s defense against extradition.
  
  But in fact, the linked CBC-article just says the DL called for forgiveness. The source they link for their claim does not say at all the DL called for the non-extradition of Pinochet or sided with Thatcher or Bush. In fact, the DL expressed a spiritual or religious view and also said that justice must be served. (For more context on this, see footnote 1 at the end of this comment.¹)
  
  There are of course points I agree with Stuart, as the complex challenges on the political level, his dependencies etc. (Though it’s another topic to fairly and carefully investigate if and how much do or do not corrupt him these dependencies, i.e. scarifying spiritual values for realpolitiks etc.)
  
  Stuart finishes his article with the claim I would “focus only or largely on the Dalai Lama as a highly-enlightened Bodhisattva”. No, I don’t do that! I just asked or called for to consider the DL’s spiritual motivations too. “Too,” certainly does not mean exclusively! I did this in the spirit of appreciating complexities, calling also for unbiasedness in examination and subsequent fairness in judgement.
  
  I don’t know nor claim if the DL is an “highly-enlightened Bodhisattva.” What I said is that the DL said himself that he admires the BS motivation (bodhicitta, great compassion, cherishing others) and that his spiritual values must be taken into account too, if you judge his actions. This is just reasonable and also a matter of fairness and accuracy – though it’s really hard to understand motivations of a person anyway! The example I used and use now again is the Pinochet case. The Dalai Lama called for forgiveness, calling for forgiveness is in general a religious, spiritual value (which could be abused of course for or mixed with political motives). If you ignore that religious / spiritual context and underlying values of views and claim – unsubstantiated as it seems – the call for forgiveness was issued by the DL only out of a political motivation, you are in deep danger to misrepresent or narrow or simplify the reality. And this is exactly the thing I argued about. Not about the DL being a “highly-enlightened Bodhisattva” as Stuart, once again, wrongly claims or unsubstantiatedly assumes.
  
  Now, if I have to object, correct and debunk already so many parts of this rather brief article by Stuart with no footnotes or sources, guess why I hesitate to spend more time with the long winded and extremely footnoted DL article by Stuart and Rob which Joanne criticised here for the blog readers 😉 It saves me a lot of time and brain for other things not to read and check this long winded article in all its details. What I commented upon regarding this article by Stuart and Rob, however, was what I read or checked for myself.
  
  ¹ In a Chilean press article there is a more extensive explanation and context of the full statement HHDL made in Chile. There you’ll find this – a deeply humanitarian perspective IMO, including the honouring of the victims. And though he considers pardon he calls at the same time for respecting the decision of the justice system.
  
  https://ipsnoticias.net/1999/04/chile-dalai-lama-despidio-a-cardenal-y-opino-sobre-caso-pinochet/
  
  Translation via http://www.deepl.com:
  
  CHILE: Dalai Lama dismissed cardinal and gave his opinion on Pinochet case
  April 12, 1999
  
  With a white handkerchief, according to the Buddhist ritual, the Dalai Lama bid farewell today to Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez, in the second of his five-day visit to Chile, also marked by his pronouncements on the Pinochet case.
  
  The political and spiritual leader of Tibet arrived at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Santiago at the end of the public wake of Silva Henríquez, the cardinal who died on Friday at the age of 91 and was buried on Monday.
  
  After bowing over the coffin and remaining silent for a few minutes, the Dalai Lama left a white handkerchief on the urn, as a sign of farewell and admiration for the prelate who was the symbol of the defense of human rights in Chile during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet (1973-90).
  
  The 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner arrived in Santiago this Sunday, invited by the Tibet Foundation of Chile, which welcomed him with a “new age” concert at the Estación Mapocho Cultural Center, attended by 5,000 people.
  
  The Buddhist leader is visiting Chile in the course of a tour that also includes Argentina and Brazil and which, he said, “is not of a political nature but of a cultural, educational and spiritual nature”.
  
  However, as happens in every trip of the Dalai Lama, his visit to Santiago provoked reactions from the Chinese embassy, which protested against the decision of President Eduardo Frei to receive him in a special audience in the La Moneda palace.
  
  The Chilean Foreign Ministry clarified last week that the presidential decision does not imply a government pronouncement on the emancipation demands of Tibet, whose 100,000 refugees claim that their country is militarily occupied by China.
  
  The Foreign Ministry also said that Frei’s interview with the Dalai Lama is not an “unfriendly gesture” toward the Beijing government, with which Chile maintains “the best relations.”
  
  “That always happens,” the Buddhist leader commented at a press conference this Sunday, regarding Chinese diplomatic protests over his visit.
  
  “The Tibetan issue is not mine or that of 100,000 refugees, but a problem that concerns six million Tibetans, their culture and environment. And I, being the Dalai Lama, trusted by the people, have the responsibility to address it,” he said.
  
  He insisted on the peaceful nature of Tibet’s demands for independence. “We are neighbors (with China) and it is essential not to maintain hatred. Every year I look for how to find something in the spirit of reconciliation,” he added.
  
  This same spirit of reconciliation was shown by the Dalai Lama regarding former dictator Pinochet, 83, arrested since October 1998 in London and who will possibly face from Thursday an extradition trial to Spain.
  
  Tenzin Giatso, the name of the 14th Dalai Lama, said that revenge is not the right path and stressed the value of forgiveness for the human rights violations committed in Chile during the dictatorship.
  
  “But that does not mean forgetting what happened. We must be clear about the bad things that happened and then, in a spirit of reconciliation, be ready to forgive”.
  
  Pinochet, he continued, as “a man of advanced age, pardon can be applied to him”, but “as we are all equal before the law, we must respect any decision of justice”, he concluded.
  
  More context regarding Pinochet, Dalai Lama calling for forgiveness, and Chile
  
  A befriended anthropologist sent this as a comment to me, highlighting the context of why and what the DL said at that occasion:
  
  It was made in the context of a funeral in Chile for an Archbishop who fought for Human Rights during the Pinochet regime that HHDL attended, admiring that person’s work.
  
  That on grounds of age Pinochet could be forgiven but not without a full, public account of what he actually did.
  
  It’s the Latin American tradition of ‘reconciliation’ that Chile followed – confession without punishment.
  
  The critiques don’t take into account the politics of Chile. HHDL did.
  
  https://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/brahm-chilean
  
  My last thoughts considering the Chilean article:
  
  1) “Revenge is not the right path”, says the Dalai Lama. This a statement by the Dalai Lama that calls for a non-violent motivation, isn’t it? Revenge is based on hate. The DL just questioned that hate based revenge as a motivation. So the call for forgiveness was to counter hate as far as I can see. This is a spiritual or humanitarian motivation and hardly a power savvy political motivation, isn’t it?
  
  2) Pardon & respecting justice. Though the Dalai Lama mentioned a pardon to “a man of advanced age” he also added a but, “as we are all equal before the law, we must respect any decision of justice”. This is not really what Rob and Stuart distilled for their article, is it?
  - 70
    
    tenpel on January 12, 2022 at 11:51 pm
    Reply
    
    Note: I included in my comment reply to Stuart’s article the link and translation to the Chilean press article and removed some grammatical errors, and added a sentence at the end. I also added the Chilean press article, my friend’s thoughts of its context, and two last thoughts on revenge vs forgiveness, pardon and justice.
    - 71
      
      Joanne Clark on January 13, 2022 at 9:33 pm
      Reply
      
      Yes Tenzin, a straw man argument. Well said. Stuart presents the discussion as “either-or”, either we view the Dalai Lama as a bodhisattva or as a political operative. However, truth is found in viewing the Dalai Lama’s actions in the context of his full personality and stated motivations in life. That is scholarship.
      
      And scholarship is the problem here. In Rob and Stuart’s article, there are over 120 “sources” given, most of which are online and not obtainable easily, if at all– and the authors often don’t quote from them so the reader has no way of understanding the context in which a claim has been made. Actually doing a line by line critique of this article would be near impossible– and yet they criticize us for not reading the article closely!
      
      And as can be seen above with Tenzin’s discussion on Pinochet, which is long and resourced, many of the claims made in both Stuart’s recent article and the one he co-authored with Rob are complicated and nuanced, requiring serious and extensive scholarship before making any assumptions on possible motivations etc.
      
      Add that perspective to the serious flaws in scholarship that I did find in the Rob-Stuart article– and the fact that Rob still has not provided sources for claims he made in his book that have been questioned by long-time Rigpa students and the fact that it appears Rob did not succeed in his doctoral candidacy years ago, it is justified to question the overall integrity of their article in terms of scholarship.
      
      This has nothing to do with viewing the Dalai Lama as a “bodhisattva” or a “political operative,” but with viewing the full picture and practicing good scholarship, as I said in my article. Of course that isn’t as catchy as the authors might like, but a little tedious and boring.
  - 72
    
    tenpel on January 13, 2022 at 12:04 pm
    Reply
    
    My slightly edited additional comment:
    
    Another 2 ct:
    1) when you consider the errors in this article by Stuart, the wrong claims, a misleading question, the straw man argument, leaving out once again context, the assumptions coming accross as facts etc. the whole basis of the paper collapses and it’s been revealed as obviously baseless, hot air which sounds at a first glance, without investigation and checking the facts, for a random reader rather convincing.
    
    2) The best part and the strongest – being rooted in facts – is the historical part on Allende, Chile and the US politics. But this substantiated part has nothing to do with the unfounded, inaccurate, factual wrong part about me or the either/or (black and white) mere political power savvy priest thesis about what drives the Dalai Lama.
    
    At one point, I remember, Stuart claimed the DL didn’t say anything about the human rights violations as long as the dictatorship in Chile under Pinochet was in place. As a person who cherishes accuracy and truthfulness I would hesitate with any such claim as long as I am not sure I checked all possible sources or got a confirmation from the person about whom I claim this. Assertive claims about what a person allegedly didn’t do over a very long time are very dangerous because it’s hard to really claim this factually correct because you have to check all possible sources and instances for making such a claim valid. Then if the DL only remarked once on Pinochet during the time of the dictatorship, even in private, your exclusive claim collapses already and you stand there naked or have to make amendments. I can’t really disapprove this claim by Stuart but he can’t really prove it himself either, can he? If the DL didn’t give any remark according to checking some sources (unlikely Stuart checked all possible sources) this is not a real evidence. I think this should be obvious.
    
    At the end it’s about what makes good scholarly work or good journalistic work. The pattern of mixing untruths with semi truths and some truths I know already from ideological driven authors on the Dalai Lama like Trimondis or Goldner. Many people swallowed and parroted their work uncritically and believed it. Scientists stayed silent for a very long time until Trimondis’/Goldner’s/etc. ideas ended in the mainstream media or attempts were made to bring these into academic circles and it got momentum. Then properly established scientists (lecturers, professors) started to object their work.
- 73
  
  tenpel on January 12, 2022 at 11:04 pm
  Reply
  
  I updated the post with the article by Stuart and my reply to it. I think, this is just fair. Now readers can make up their own minds because they can check and see for themselves, knowing the different takes.
  - 74
    
    Joanne Clark on January 13, 2022 at 9:57 pm
    Reply
    
    And I would like to clarify my comment above regarding Rob’s sourcing in the book he co-authored. The book has been updated and I do not know if he has added sourcing to the updated version. I apologize if that is the case.
    
    Also, the reason this is important was expressed to me by long time Rigpa students– that they felt their efforts to expose Sogyal’s crimes and better understand how Rigpa became such a cult-like environment would be undermined if the scholarship was not sound in a book devoted to that purpose . That is why I also stress scholarship in all of our endeavors to expose abuses and create healthier spiritual communities. Though boring sometimes, it’s important!
- 75
  
  tenpel on January 14, 2022 at 2:49 am
  Reply
  
  Hi comoane, are you satisfied with my reply? Do you find any errors? I put some work into it. I wouldn’t have done it if it were not so important for you.
76

Tea on January 14, 2022 at 12:14 am
Reply

They should read Tuwihai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies. Without reflection on their positionality, their research will not only be seen as under-informed, but old-fashioned. When working as a person from a dominant culture with ethnic communities, self-reflexivity must be engaged with throughout the research and the writing process. This is very important when doing research that involves marginalized communities, doubly important when that marginalization intersects with loss of state and culture (Tibetans) or loss of personal autonomy and safety (assault survivors).
- 77
  
  Joanne Clark on January 14, 2022 at 11:22 am
  Reply
  
  Well said, Tea, a very important part of this.
78

Tenzin Peljor on January 15, 2022 at 9:08 am
Reply

I think I allowed Rob Hogendoorn too much to intimidate me with threats (cease and desist notices) – stressing he is a Master of Law, threats to inform his academic and journalistic network, threats to inform Erika Baffelli and those who ran the panel about what Hogendoorn perceived as misbehaviour on my part. My giving in gave Hogendoorn the space to continue to claim I had misrespresented Erika Baffelli. I want to correct this claim by Hogendoorn I had misrepresented Baffelli with this comment.

The recording was only made for my personal use because my internet connection was so bad and I had difficulties to understand. Anticipating that her answer to my question might be difficult to understand I recorded it just for my own sake. I checked the recording and wrote her answer finally down, quoting Baffelli fully here on the blog, only after Hogendoorn accused me different times I had misrepresented Erika Baffelli. (His accusations went along with commenting here on the blog and sending me email after email privately – increasing what I felt together with his threats as being pressured and intimidated.)*

Hogendoorn made a big fuss about the whole thing, finally being able to write an article, making him look good and me look bad. (Btw, though Rob judged my question to be “silly”, his (‘unsilly’ or ‘academic’?) question was not answered by Baffelli, of course he didn’t mention this ;-))

Moreover, Hogendoorn thinks I should have read his work on Asahara as if he and his works were of the same level as those papers by established researchers who have a proper university accreditation, have an PhD, a professorship, who are really learned to write papers, whose papers are peer-reviewed and also criticised by other researchers if there are errors. For me Hogendoorn is just a hobby researcher who is not established, why should I rely on his works and trust it so easily? Far more as I think I have good reasons to be sceptical about how he puts information together and interprets it?

So here are the facts, and for those interested or those who have made similar experiences with Hogendoorn, see for yourself if I misrepresented Baffelli and see for yourself how truthful Rob Hogendoorn is with his claim regarding I had misrepresented Baffelli.

My comment after the seminar on this blog was:

BTW, I just asked the Erica Baffelli (University of Manchester) about the timeline what was known when with respect to Asahara. This is a complex matter, she suggested I should write her an email for details but added that before 1995 it was extremely difficult to have insights into a religious organisation. This changed in 1995 – after the Sarin attack. This poses the question why the Dalai Lama should have had more knowledge about Asahara than others?

My question was:

I have one question with respect to how developed the public awareness that something went wrong with the AUM group. So for instance, I read in August 1989 the Tokio authority gave the charity status to the AUM group, and I wonder what is the timeline of public awareness, something is going wrong, there are crimes, in Japan, and as well as in the world. I mean, when for instance was he still accepted in Western talk shows or so and when these, what to say, negative things came into public awareness. I am not so clear about this, maybe you can give a brief overview on that. Thank you.

Her answer to my question was:

This going to be difficult. There is a lot written about that. But of course … [can’t understand what she says here, violence?] has already startet. And so there was [can’t understand what she says here] 1995 [can’t understand what she says here] final this big event and there was a lot of going on at this event but there was also a lot in public it. But there was also because at that time it was quite difficult to enter and do check into a religious organisation, it changes after 1995. But it also has to do with difficulties, [this is?] a long question to answer in a minute. But if you write to me I can also point you out, there is a lot been written that explain all the dynamics of that. So, sorry about that but I don’t want to make it too brief and make it too superficial to explaining [can’t understand what she says here].

I wrote to Hogendoorn in an email:

Rob, what is wrong? I mean, why do you accuse me of a lie? I just checked the recording.
It is difficult to understand her because of online disturbances (lacking clarity in voice) but she says clearly that “it was difficult to enter and to check into a religious organisation, it changes after 1995“ this is exactly what I paraphrased.

HTH

* I added this sentence in brackets after I made this comment. Also some grammatical errors were removed. I removed one interpretation of why he made this big fuss at all.
79

john lavers on September 22, 2022 at 5:07 pm
Reply

it is distressing to hear rob hoogendorn sent you cease and desist notices. that’s a sleazy move from anyone with a law degree but not actually practicing law. i was a lawyer, in full practice for years. i interacted with r.h. on the misnamed open buddhism poage and he and many others were abusive manipulative and raging egotists. sad buddhism attracts these people. my buddhists friend were not like that but after years of involvement i found most people are. i was luckly to have less famous teachers who were not interested in wealth building. one even gave away a multimillion dollar mansion when he no longer had a centre there. another was a cleaning lady then taught tibetan weaving. people who have no interest in developing world informing and world aiding skills probably have little or no deep understanding of dharma or anything else.
- 80
  
  tenpel on September 22, 2022 at 5:41 pm
  Reply
  
  The notices by him were not the real problem. The real problem was that he wrongly accused me of having misrepresented Erica Baffelli, and after I had corrected his wrong claim and after he still insisted on his wrong claim, I remembered that I recorded her reply to my question. Ir recorded it just to be sure I got her answer correctly because there was a bad internet connection. Then I typed down what she replied to my question and shared it on the blog as the evidence that I am correct and that he is wrong. Obviously, he couldn’t take this correction. Because then he opened another box: he claimed, i had broken confidentiality, he threatened me to inform Baffelli and his whole academic network about my (alleged) misbehaviour. At the same time he sent email after email and comment after comment – targeting me on two channels + cease and desist notices. Really intimidating me. I felt his whole behaviour was like stalking, manipulative, threatening and intimidating. He continued on Twitter. At one point I had to decide to ignore him completely. I blocked him on Twitter and I don’t read his articles. People informed me he wrote posts on me on his blog. I don’t care. He is not trustworthy for me. What ever she says, it says more about him than me.
  
  Interestingly, I was warned from the start to interact with him by another person who was sure about Rob’s personality and who felt I should not collaborate with Rob. I didn’t listen to that person and so, I had to make my own experiences and finally I drew my own conclusions.
  
  All in all it’s ok for me. It’s all part of a process of learning. Of course an unpleasant experience. But good for learning.
  
  I think a key point for Buddhists is, do I use the teachings to reflect my own mind and to transform myself? Do I use the dharma as a mirror for my limitations and qualities? Everyone has to answer this to themselves. I think utter key point is motivation.
  
  Thank you for sharing your thoughts and observations/ experiences.
  - 81
    
    john lavers on September 23, 2022 at 2:51 am
    Reply
    
    under british and canadian law it is unethical for someone with legal training but not a member in good standing with a recognized law society to send cease and desist notices, except in severe circumstances. you can be barred from later member ship for such behavior. people who get law degrees sometimes behave like this. it’s disturbing. it’s also unethical to send such notices without intention to follow up, but registered lawyers often do it. just as it is unethical for a lawyer to lead evidence at a preliminary hearing through affidavits or unsworn letters, that they do not intent to use at trial. it’s easy to get people to swear false affidavits and write letters but hard for those people when under oath. these kinds of abuses are unfortunately all to common. in my not nearly humble enough opinion rob and his co author (whose famous name i forget at the moment) have strange agendas. i hope they do good with their writings but i have several times seen them do harm.
    
    what does anyone achieve with repeated notices? if he was serious file a law suit after two notices and proceed. he obviously had no intention of filing an actual law suit. fish or cut bait as they say.
    
    the arrogance of sending cease and desist notices when he obviously had no intention of starting a law suit and allowing his claims o be tested under oath is gargantuan. i sent cease and desist notices three times in my life on personal matters. two went to trial but settled on the court room steps with substantial payments to me, and one apologized early on which was acceptable to me. all three consented to the cease and desit orders in addition to apologies and payments(when applicable). i was a practicing lawyer!!! a non lawyer who sends such notices repeatedly is unethical. maybe laws are very different in the netherlands, but i doubt it.
    - 82
      
      tenpel on September 23, 2022 at 9:12 am
      Reply
      
      Thank you for your explanation and for giving perspective on this.
      - 83
        
        tenpel on September 23, 2022 at 6:07 pm
        Reply
        
        PS: John, different survivors of abuse wrote me about bad experiences with Rob who showed to them disrespectful, intimidating and pushing behaviour.
        
        84
        
        john lavers on September 24, 2022 at 6:50 pm
        Reply
        
        another good reason to not be on twitter. moreover the cult survivors world has too many people scrapping over the suffering of others.
        
        85
        
        tenpel on September 24, 2022 at 7:19 pm
        
        Yes, sadly, the suffering is also used (abused) for own self-centred agendas.
      - 86
        
        tenpel on September 23, 2022 at 9:22 pm
        Reply
        
        Oops, maybe it was a bad move or omen to mention Rob here. He seems to have started a beef on me on Twitter.
        
        Luckily I can’t read his tweets – I blocked him a long time ago – but I responded to comments on Twitter by others I could read.
        
        He might see my (I think it’s due and fair) criticism of the ARTE documentary as an insult or so or in opposition to his views / wishes / agenda.
        
        But actually, as I said, I deeply appreciate the key message and the powerful focus about the pains of survivors and the silence. What I don’t like is that the documentary uses black & white images of reality, scapegoats all the responsibilities onto two individuals (as if they had omnipotent power to prevent abuse) and lifts thereby the responsibilities from the shoulders of families, friends, authorities, legal system, local sanghas, national union‘s etc, distracting from their failings and blurring the complexities that need to be understood if further harm is to be prevented.
        
        Ann Gleig made good points, survivors have different needs. Some are fulfilled by Rob, some by others or me. Moreover, only one approach doesn’t help all survivors. Therefore multiplicity of different approaches should be appreciated instead of fighting each other. Good points! I agree.
87

john lavers on September 26, 2022 at 2:01 am
Reply

the foolishness of open buddhism, and it’s lack of dissent or diversity reinforces my belief that those running it were all european chauvanists. and very few europeans have any self awareness of their chauvanism(see their refusal to negotiate with russia for twenty years, and no awareness of their genocide in africa and against american indigenous people)

moreover they would not countance criticism of the abuse by trungpa and his regent. sogyal was bad, but trungpa must be a buddha.

all of which makes me gald i haven’t followed these “gods” of buddhism for a while
- 88
  
  tenpel on September 26, 2022 at 12:46 pm
  Reply
  
  I didn’t read anything there for a long time. Vaguely I remember there was no comment section. This does not allow dissent or correcting errors – things which make R furious.
  
  R has sadly also attacked survivors of Rigpa who disagreed with him, especially some of the writers of the letter from summer 2017 that caused the radical and total u-turn.
  
  If you were in a cult and also in leadership positions of course you contributed to damage but you’re also a victim of the extremely skilful deception and dynamics. Compassion should be the answer.
  
  By bringing the abuse to light they took responsibility and this should have been applauded. Moreover, some of them might have still been under trauma. They were vilified by Buddhists and some Buddhist teachers or largely ignored and then even treated badly and attacked by those who used their knowledge to write a book and claim expertise on this issue, giving the impression they stand with survivors.
  
  Someone sent me yesterday a quote from a new post R posted on Open Buddhism:
  
  I’ve seen former enablers in Buddhist cults turn themselves into ‘cult’ or ‘abuse’ experts overnight, grooming their new-found audiences into restoring them to all their former glory, once again telling others what to think.
  
  I’ve seen actual victims and survivors who pathologically avoid professional help, turn themselves into ‘professional’ victims, milking the attention they get, literally for decades, without purpose or direction.
  
  As a matter of course, such online environments constitute a real paradise for itinerant ‘performers’ with narcissistic, borderline, and even antisocial personality disorders, who act out their pathology at will. And yes, they draw disaster tourists too.
  
  The person who sent this and I find this quite ironic. It reminded me of Trump, when he attacks others he speaks about himself. He attacks others with what he does himself.
  
  It’s also just means, those people who brought abuse to light (except ‘glorious’ R of course – mind his word “glory”) are “milking for attention.” What another human being, survivor, degrading projection!
  
  I know from own experiences that you have to read, speak, discuss about these matters a lot to sort it all out and to get clarity. You also want to help others who struggle with these issues to come to terms with what happened and you’ve experienced.
  
  This is also what I’ve seen from Rigpa survivors. How can you label this “milking for attention” and use their struggles to portray them as sinister human beings if you have even a bit of understanding or compassion for a process of leaving a cult or a toxic relationship, a survivor?
  
  I find this behaviour anti-social, inhumane and totally unfair. It says more about R than the Rigpa survivors who were brave enough to bring the abuse to light. A bravery that opened a field of engagement and attention for R.
  
  I don’t think however that R would ever see Thrungpa as a Buddha. Also I think Open Buddhism is not a they, it’s a him.
  
  The “Open” is also quite ironic. Open to everyone who agrees, with the special means to attack those and project the worst on those who disagree 😉
89

Tenzin Peljor on December 22, 2022 at 1:07 am
Reply

I can recommend the Sky series on NXIVM.
Very helpful and useful.

It also includes footage with the Dalai Lama, and Raniere, Rob Thurman … in part V. In part V it documents how the Dalai Lama easily gave in to believe (besides the negative press and the many court trials, and having denied earlier to meet Raniere/NXIVM in Albany) that Raniere is an honest man. (Raniere went with his close associates to the DL in Dharamsala to convince him to come to Albany (their NXIVM cult).

No doubt a grave error by the Dalai Lama to just trust unchecked his intuition besides he expresses himself at the meeting with Raniere & Co that he made errors in the past with whom he associates and so he must be careful.

It is made also clear that the visit of the DL in Albany should whitewash Raniere (of course not in front of the Dalai Lama but an off comment shares this motivation).
- 90
  
  tenpel on January 6, 2023 at 8:49 pm
  Reply
  
  I missed some parts (I think three) of the first season on this Sky / HBO series on NXIVM. (they took the episodes from the first series offline in Germany) But I started with the second season which is also highly recommendable. You can see how the cult was able to heal people from Tourette syndrome but that this has had its costs (psychological) too… You can see how Nancy Salzman, co-founder of the cult and a type of deputy of Raniere, was vulnerable from her childhood and how Raniere exploited this vulnerability skilfully and manipulated her. You can see how parents or benefitted individuals struggle with the good things they have experienced related to the cult while the cult leaders and the close circle did also criminal, harmful things.
  
  It appears similarly to what people have reported from Rigpa / Sogyal. Similar is too, that they wanted to improve the world and to become better human beings. Also to make young women / students to secret consorts is similar to Sogyal.
  
  I step a bit back from my earlier judgement about the DL’s misjudgement. You can learn too when watching the doc, so many have been deceived / allowed to be deceived. It’s complex, it’s diffi-cult…
  
  The documentary tells the bad and the good without whitewashing and without blackwashing. It’s really very good. And there are a lot of brave people who speak and show their vulnerability …
  
  PS: There will be likely an update on the Karmapa case in the next days …
  - 91
    
    tenpel on January 17, 2023 at 2:40 am
    Reply
    
    This NXIVIM series is really good.
    
    They show all sides, the survivors, the harm and pain been done to them, how people gradually wake up, or how they continue to defend Raniere – even after his sentence to 120 years of prison. It shows how he manipulates people, and the longer the process took the more crimes came to the surface that were not expected at the beginning to surface. I think, if Sogyal Lakar had had such a trial, it would have turned out very similar.
    
    In the last episode Frank Parlato comments (paraphrased): “I want his loyal followers to understand that he was a con man, a brillant con man, who was able to convince others he is a holy man but in reality he is a perverse”. (I thought the same, when a follower told my by phone how slapping her in the face helped her and that she is concerned that now people think Sogyal is a pervers, which he is not. When she said this to me, my thoughts were: ‘he IS a perverse.’)
    
    Then Nancy Salzman, who is still struggling with all of that (paraphrased): “but 17.000 people had benefit and no harm” … she expresses her doubts. At the same time she does not at all deny the harm, she just cannot bring these two facts of benefit and harm together. An expert on manipulation says to Salzman: “you were used for things in which you were good…, “a main tactic or a sign of psychological manipulation is to tear someone down and then to have to answer on how they can fix themselves”.
    
    It ends with the statement, that most will think this could not happen to them, and that this is not the case …

	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…

Rate this:

Share this:

Related