Lama Ole Nydahl and His Opinions
I watched a report from Tibet in which they visited a Buddhist nun over 80 years old. She lives alone at the foot of Mount Everest. She is vigorous and cheerful. Looking at her, I believed that this woman had indeed been praying every day for 35 years for the salvation of humanity, for the good and prosperity of all.
Lama Ole Nydahl does not resemble that nun either in behavior or in energies. Theoretically, both follow the same Buddhism. The absurdity and harmfulness of Mr. Ole’s views are so great that I am quoting below fragments found on the Internet from the book “216 Answers of a Yogi”. It is to be published soon by “Red Elephant” Publishing House.
Below are comments from the CUD portal.
What is most important in Buddhism?
OLE: The most important thing in Buddhism is that we do not get overly caught up in what happens in the mind, but rather deal with the mind itself. There is no end to the dreams, thoughts, memories, expectations, hopes, and fears we may have. They were not there before, and soon they will disappear, they will pass away. To treat them seriously is rather foolish.
Enjoy the show, listen to the radio if you like the program, or do something else if you do not. Whatever you see, know that you cannot keep it anyway.
The only thing you will always have and that cannot disappear is the clear light of your mind itself. That is what is real.
Are there better and worse times for meditation?
OLE: I would say that everything is the art of the possible. You have to place meditation within your life and life within meditation. You should simply meditate whenever you can. You have work, various things to do, and you need to make sure everything fits together. And my best advice: begin the morning by taking refuge so that some liberating or enlightened goal accompanies you all day long. Think that you are truly coming into contact with the enlightened mind in order to develop quickly and gain the ability to benefit others. Then allow a pure world to surround you at all times, focus on what is good and meaningful. Whenever you have a free moment, let Karmapa appear before you, dissolve into light, and merge with you. When looking at others, always notice what is especially interesting and meaningful in them. If you are in a room with others, “place” a Buddha in your mind above each of their heads. When moving around, driving a car, try to be fully aware of everything you do. When you rejoice in something, wish the same joy for everyone. In the morning it is very good to do prostrations. Then you will have strength for the whole day. In the evening it is good to repeat purifying mantras, removing unpleasant impressions accumulated during the day. Then sleep deeply. That is what I would advise you. Every moment is good for meditation, but not every type of meditation is suitable. As for meditation on our own mind, it is important that we do it only when we are clear. If our mind is lucid, we can simply be aware of it. When drowsiness appears, when we are lazy and unclear, one should stop meditating. You can meditate badly, but you cannot meditate at the wrong time.
How should one deal with laziness?
OLE: Buy yourself a house overlooking a cemetery. When you look out the window, think: “Now they are all lying there, and I could not help them, so I must learn something.”
What is the difference between love and desire?
OLE: Love gives, while desire only wants to have. In fact, we can say that there are different kinds of love. One tries to obtain a promise about the future — that one makes everyone poor. There is also a love that gives as much as it can and receives just as much. Something else entirely is compassion: then one gives even when one receives nothing; this is good as long as we do not make people dependent on us, but instead make sure they learn from us. We also speak of something that may be called sympathetic joy. If we have developed it, we rejoice when something good happens, even when we have nothing to do with it. Finally, the last kind of love is equality. Here we simply know that everyone has Buddha nature, even though sometimes it may be hard to see. We should always know whether we are trying to push people into some scheme, trying to limit them, or whether we are trying to give them freedom and growth. Something that gives freedom is always good.
What is the point of penance and atonement?
OLE: These things make no sense at all — there is only cause and effect. We reap exactly what we have sown. If there were some god who was the cause of all suffering, then I would say: “Let’s collect as much money as possible, build a huge rocket, and shoot him down.” Then the problem would cease to exist. Unfortunately, things work in a completely different way — it is we ourselves who put certain impressions into the mind, which later rise to the surface and begin to act.
Why do you so often give Phowa?
OLE: Phowa is the fastest kind of blessing I can pass on to people. For the modern world it is an excellent method. I have given many thousands of people access to it, and all of them said that there was life before Phowa and life after Phowa, that it is very useful. I give much Phowa because life is short.
What influence did women have on your development?
OLE: My best teachers have always been women. Since by nature I have almost nothing feminine in me, in order to become truly human I had to learn many things from women. So I would say that it has always been a great mutual giving and taking. I think I benefited from it just as much as they did.
What is the difference between perceiving phenomena on the relative and on the absolute level?
OLE: On the highest level everything reveals the unlimited potential of the mind — old age, illness, and death are just as interesting as youth, happiness, and love. The former show how things disappear in the mind, while the latter show how they appear again. Both are equally interesting. On the subjective level, when we identify with our body and with the things we possess, of course it is difficult to see phenomena that way: we have hopes and fears, we grasp some things and reject others.
However, on the absolute level everything is the free play and potential of the mind.
Which feelings are useful and which are not?
OLE: There are only three feelings that are important, because they reveal the true nature of the mind. Fearlessness, which appears when the mind discovers that it is indestructible because it has the nature of space. Joy, which arises when the fearless mind discovers its possibilities. And finally love, which we experience when we discover that all beings are like us, that they also want to avoid suffering and desire happiness. If you experience these three feelings — fearlessness, spontaneous joy, and deep love — then this is truly meaningful, because they express your timeless nature. All other feelings are a true Disneyland — today a high, tomorrow a low, today here, tomorrow there; there is not much meaning in that. Practice makes you strong, solid. The word “guru” in Sanskrit means precisely someone heavy. Not in the sense that he has heavy vibrations, but that he is simply so solid and so firmly rests in himself that nothing can shake him. As a Scandinavian myself, I have a very clear view of this. We always say that small dogs bark, and large ones do not have to. As far as I know, in karate there is a saying: “Beware the power of a calm man.” Someone who masters himself always acts at the right moment, whereas the one ruled by emotions does the wrong things at the wrong time and loses. When we practice for some time and develop, it often seems to us that nothing is happening. That is because the highs and lows once experienced become more balanced, the holes get cemented over. We notice highs only because there are lows with which we can compare them. When there are no longer lows, it is harder to see the highs. We rise higher and higher, but since the lows have been eliminated, there is no longer anything to compare this with, only the high level itself remains. It is as if we were driving uphill, shifting into lower and lower gears, and later we look out the window and see that we are moving faster and faster, because we are driving downhill. In fact, it is quite difficult to determine where we are in our development. But generally speaking, if there are fewer highs and lows, less future and past, less grasping and rejecting, if one rests calmly in the bright space of the mind, having an excess of energy and joy for others, then one can say that one is doing well.
That is the sign, so look for precisely that.
What is reborn if it is not the soul?
OLE: In Buddhism there is no soul. You cannot show me anything like that — it has no weight, smell, size, color, nothing. What is reborn is a stream of experiences.
But to get to that, one first has to understand that the mind has two aspects. The mirror and the images, the ocean and the waves. The mirror and the ocean are timeless. They look through your eyes, hear through your ears, and experience everything right here and now. It is an open, boundless space that was never born and cannot die. There are also things with which we identify — impressions, feelings, thoughts, etc. And that is the stream of experiences. This stream changes and flows on when we die; it goes through a process of transformation during which no new external impressions reach the mind. When we then connect with a fertilized egg in the mother’s womb and a new life begins, we again gather experiences. This flow of impressions cannot really be named in any way; there is nothing there that would be permanent, unchanging. Only the clear light is constant, the same in everyone, whereas what differs in us changes all the time. What really happens when we attain enlightenment? Then we are like a person standing on a mountain peak — first of all we see everything in a 360-degree radius, and secondly — the different paths by which one can reach the summit. A real soul, “me,” and “I” cannot be found anywhere. Only the clear light, which is in everyone. The ocean is the same, the waves are different.
Who is a teacher?
OLE: First you meet the outer guru, you read texts, you receive instructions. This awakens the inner guru — you gain the ability to work with concepts and feelings, which in turn activates the secret guru, which is your way of seeing the world, your view. So to be a good teacher, you have to make sure these things work together. If you simply have some experiences but do not know what to connect them with, do not know their place within the whole, you will probably lead others into a dead end. But if you have an overall framework and some experiences that fit into it, it is possible that you will be able to inspire someone. My teachings, even though I live in such a yogic way, are actually, generally speaking, very conservative. I do not “improve” the Buddha, although sometimes I forget details, because they do not interest me much. But when it comes to the overall view, path, and goal, I think I transmit them quite clearly. On the other hand, I also experience what I speak about, which adds a certain special energy to the whole.
What is the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism?
OLE: Buddhism differs greatly from Hinduism. Not from Advaita Vedanta, because its teachings are actually Buddhism, but from its other branches. In Buddhism there is no atman and brahman, no god and soul, there is nothing that must be united into a whole. The nature of all things and the nature of the mind has always been clear light. It is only a matter of recognizing this, of removing the veils covering the mind. A very important and broad part of the Buddha’s teachings says that there is no person, no “I,” no “ego.” There is nothing like that either in the body, where every atom changes every moment, or in the thoughts and feelings that constantly come and go. The mind is a never-disappearing clear light. At the very foundation, the outlook of Buddhism and Hinduism differs greatly.
What is reincarnation?
OLE: If we look closely at the mind, we notice that there is in it a sea and waves, reflections and a mirror, the experiencer and that which is experienced. If we look for that someone who is now experiencing things, we will notice that the nature of our mind is empty, that it is not a thing. This means that it is beyond birth and death, it exists beyond time. At the same time it is radiant, clear, and full of possibilities. It also has no end or boundary — the mind is unlimited. That means it has no beginning or end, no center or place where it ceases to exist. It is also difficult to say whether the sea and the waves are the same thing or something different. Probably one would have to say that it is both. Thoughts and feelings appear in the mind, freely play out in it, and disappear back into it. So if we look at the mind from the side of its clarity, emptiness, and boundlessness, it will turn out that something like reincarnation does not exist. The mind has always been, is everywhere, and cannot disappear. It rarely happens, however, that an ordinary person experiences this state. We experience it in the most intense moments: in making love, or in moments of the greatest tension. Apart from that, we experience only the images that appear in the mind. Not the mind itself, but what happens in it — and that, of course, changes all the time. Therefore we say that there is no permanent “I.” For example, in a seventy-year-old man there is nothing that has not changed since the time when he was a seven-year-old boy. Every thought, every feeling, every atom in the body — everything has changed many times. On the other hand, however, if the child had not existed, the old man would not exist either. Throughout our whole life we gather experiences in the mind, beautiful and ugly images change constantly, and we only ever see these reflections, not the mirror itself. Later, when we die, that stream of impressions gathered through the senses is cut off, because we no longer have senses. At first for a short time we are unconscious; most often this lasts three days. Then we awaken from that state for about a week, during which we experience impressions still connected with the life just ended. Then we discover that we really have died and we lose consciousness. Soon after that, the subconscious comes to the fore — it begins to show what it contains. This lasts about five and a half weeks. Seven weeks after death, the feeling that is strongest in us begins to dominate, and we are born into such a state of consciousness, in such a reality, as fits that feeling. Then we die again and are born again with this or that body, in a specific country, etc. In this way we pass from one incarnation to another. This goes on all the time until one day we reach the goal. We discover that all of this is a dream, that the experiencer is timeless, clear light, and not merely what appears and disappears. Enlightenment comes at the moment when we jump out of this river and begin to rest in the absolute state, in which we see everything and know everything. At the same time, however, we are not bound by anything.
Why does a human being live?
OLE: Conditions simply came together that make us experience human life. We can look at it as if from two sides, from two points of view. If we perceive it from the level of wisdom, then everything is meaningful simply because it happens, every atom vibrates with joy and is held together by love. Every thought, no matter how foolish, is wonderful because it reveals the possibilities of the mind, its richness. That is the highest level. One simply rests in what is, experiencing all phenomena as the mind’s clarity playing with itself.
However, there is also another way of seeing: ordinary, worldly, full of fear and expectations, grasping and rejecting. If we look at life from that level, we often experience things we do not want. There are many disturbing, confused feelings and suffering, illness, old age and death are something real, etc. So everything depends on the level from which we view the world, whether it is the level of a rich man or of a poor one. If we identify with our Buddha nature, then everything fits together. But if we think we are our “I,” we have problems.
Imagine, for example, a glass of water. When you are in a good mood — it is full of nectar; if you are angry — it may become a weapon, you can throw it in someone’s face. Usually water is simply something to drink, but if it is not at hand precisely when you are thirsty, you will think only about how to get it, greed will appear. To someone full of fear, the water in the glass may seem dangerous; for many little creatures it is an enormous lake. Yet it is still the same glass of water.
It is the mind, our attitudes, that creates the world.
What is the relation between the mind and the brain?
OLE: Very good question, thank you. From time to time I should say something about this during a lecture, but most often I forget. Usually it is believed that the brain produces a kind of electricity and that this is precisely the mind. However, there are many phenomena that this view cannot explain. I myself, for example, remember different battle scenes from my previous lives — my teachers also confirmed this. We often pick up the telephone receiver and even before hearing the voice we know who is calling us, or we think intensely about someone and then later receive a letter from them. In this context, the thesis that the brain is the broadcasting station of the whole program sounds completely improbable. It fits these experiences much better to think that it is only a receiver of the broadcast, while consciousness is a certain energy, a vibration in space. And when sperm meets egg, consciousness joins with a new body and begins to gather new impressions. Then the body dies and since the mind no longer receives impressions through the senses, the subconscious comes to the fore. Then, at a certain time, one of our feelings dominates the others and leads us into another life — we find parents in the sphere of one of the six worlds. In this way it has been unfolding since beginningless time.
What does it mean that life is a dream?
OLE: It means that everything outside and inside is constantly changing, that nothing is lasting. Actually, we speak of two kinds of dreams. We speak of a collective dream, which we all share, for example here in this hall. This dream emerges from our subconscious impressions, from our karma. The second thing is those private dreams, which depend on whether we look at the world through rose-colored or black glasses. So these are the two kinds of dreams: the collective dream and the individual dream. Let me tell you a story. About a year ago, German psychologists conducted an interesting experiment. They proved that people who do not meditate actually experience only twenty percent of what they think they experience. The remaining eighty percent comes from our “background,” our family, from the people to whom we somehow belong. Of course this does not concern such highly enlightened and liberated beings as my students, who see things as they are. Regarding dreams, the Buddha’s teachings say that although everything is a dream, there is a difference between a good dream and a bad dream. From a good dream one can free oneself and attain enlightenment. A bad dream, however, brings only more and more problems. So we can work with this dreamlike nature. In fact, there is no other philosophical view that could explain this. If we think, for example, that things are real in a generally materialistic way, then old age, illness, and death are also real. Suffering is real. On the other hand, if we think that nothing exists, then that is nihilism. Then we cannot really do anything. Yet the suffering we still experience continues to hurt us. The third way, however, consists in seeing that everything is a dream, but that we can awaken from this dream. On that level we have a goal and we have a path.
What does it mean that emptiness is form?
OLE: When you take something that seems real and then break it apart, looking at smaller and smaller fragments of it, atoms, parts of atoms, eventually you come to something called quarks, gluons, leptons, and other such particles. If you look at them, it turns out there is nothing there that could be measured or seen. On the other hand, if you look at the mind, you will see that when thoughts and feelings disappear, nothing remains. Yet that is only half the story. The other half is this: you have empty space, and scientists did this — they managed to clear a certain area of space completely of matter, of any particles, and they noticed, the scientists, that particles suddenly appeared in that space, though it was unknown where they came from. In the same way, your mind, when it relaxes, fills again with images and views. This means that the normal division we have been taught — existence and nonexistence, materialism and nihilism, existence or lack of existence — are not two separate things, but two aspects of the same thing. We Buddhists, wanting to make the sentence “Emptiness is form, form is emptiness” sound more modern, say that when there is nothing, that is the nature of the space of mind; when something appears, that is the nature of clarity or the free play of mind; and that there is space and at the same time things can appear in it — that is the unlimited nature of mind. Therefore your question touches only one part of the whole and really shows us that truth lies beyond concepts. All extreme states are impermanent; both existence and nonexistence are in a constant stream of change. In both the outer world and inside the mind, things appear and disappear all the time; they come and go.
Below is a discussion from CUD on the subject. We read from the bottom upward.
2009-07-04 12:02 Tadeusz (m)
Leszek, do you even like any spiritual masters at all? (but not the minor ones — only those with at least an equally large following :))
2009-07-03 14:49 Leszek (m)
I once had direct contact with Lama Ole. Together with his many female admirers and few male admirers, I waited over an hour and a half for the meeting to begin. Finally, my neurosis inspired me to leave the hall. When I was leaving the Cultural Center, Ole was standing outside the entrance and eagerly gossiping about something with his acquaintances. Nothing indicated that he intended to go inside.
From acquaintances I know that he finally remembered that about 200 people were waiting for him. It still took him another half an hour.
Well, he did not make a good impression on me, neither as a Silesian accustomed to punctuality, nor as a spiritual development seeker (because he emanated some kind of filthy energy). But apparently the girls went into ecstasy.
2009-07-03 14:34 Sławomir Majda (m)
Exactly the right mood: “with a view of a cemetery.”
2009-07-03 14:16 Sławomir Majda (m)
Drugged-up Jackson may easily inspire people to take drugs, but on what a scale! I was forced to listen to his songs all day recently and it seems to me they are not energies that open the heart.
2009-07-03 14:03 Dawid (m)
“I’m not saying in this life a student 🙂 Because I’m nobody’s student in this life either, and yet the subconscious does its thing.”
Yes, I think that all three of us — Mariusz, Ole, and I — have connections, for example, with black tantra and with some Eastern philosophical schools. At the same time, I notice that Mariusz reacts to Ole “regressively” — with old dislike. I, on the other hand, do not look at the man, only at the words, that is, I see that sometimes he says something one way and sometimes another, whereas Mariusz looks at the man — he has rejected everything connected with that person, even though reality is usually different, and everyone says or conveys something inspiring or not. That is why I suggest he should not look at it through the prism of “Ole.” :)))) For me Ole as a person does not really matter here. Neither positively nor negatively. For Mariusz, I get the impression, he has negative significance, but perhaps I am mistaken.
2009-07-03 13:58 Dawid (m)
Well, now I think I have included all the more important remarks.
2009-07-03 13:57 Dawid (m)
Let me write a bit more about how I see it.
As we have already concluded — in the end Mariusz and I are talking about the same thing; the difference lies in the way we look at reality. By nature I am an optimist — and I focus on what unites (while being aware of the limitations of Buddhism, but I do not focus on them). Mariusz, in this situation a pessimist, focuses on what divides. And there is nothing wrong with that — different people look at the world differently. At the same time, the same thing guides us: to reject what is negative and to confront inspirations with intuition; only I focus on what unites, without giving too much weight to what divides, while Mariusz focuses on what divides, without giving much weight to what unites.
At the same time I think Mariusz should not look at Buddhism (nor the school Ole comes from) through the prism of Ole as a person. That is because Ole should rather be something he works through from former times 🙂 Because he still looks at him through the prism of dislike. I do not look at the person, only at what he says, but in the sense that I consider each sentence separately, and I have never met anyone with whom I could agree every single time or reject every single time. No, it is never like that. I do not believe that MariuszEro agrees with everything Leszek ever said or wrote either — that is impossible, unless Mariusz is engaging in guru yoga and accepts everything from Leszek always and entirely 🙂
In the tantric school of Buddhism there are also highly developed lamas (35-ERD — Leszek once pointed one out). So we see that development is never a matter of system but of openness — it does not matter whether we call ourselves Buddhist, Christian, regressor, or atheist. It is not about the system.
“Lama Ole, please tell me whether the stream of experience has color, size, weight. There is simply no such thing. If you show it to me, I’ll… die of a heart attack.”
How I love that in “development people” 🙂 There is no desire here to understand the other side’s view, to talk about what they mean, but only mockery, criticism, rejection from the outset. Very developmental indeed 🙂 This also concerns the issue of “soul” and “no soul” in Buddhism.
But to do justice to the truth, it must be noticed that in this case MariuszEro behaves toward Ole exactly as Ole behaves toward many other people. So — Ole is being repaid by karma, and others treat him the way he treats others.
Witek also wrote earlier what emotions Mariusz’s writing about Buddhism evoked in me, and I replied that none, because I am not a Buddhist. At the same time I forgot to add that none also because MARIUSZ DID NOT WRITE ANYTHING NEW THAT I DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW MYSELF EARLIER.
And the most important clarification, so that nobody should think otherwise…
This topic was not created to propagate the thought of the Dalai Lama, Karmapa, or Ole, but only to inform people about their coming here. And that is a difference :)))) As for steering it in various directions, others are responsible for that, not I, for example in this direction right now — MariuszEro.
2009-07-03 13:34 Witek (m)
I didn’t mean a student in this life 🙂 Because I’m nobody’s student in this life either, and yet the subconscious still does its thing.
2009-07-03 13:31 Dawid (m)
Witek — wrong guess, because I am nobody’s student :))) I am really impartial, there is no ideology to lose, not even a regressological one 🙂 I think you looked at it the wrong way, especially by placing me on Ole’s side. If you placed me on any side at all, it would be wrong, in the sense of untrue.
2009-07-03 12:42 Witek (m)
Regressing is like a knife 🙂 And some Buddhist practices are already stabbing yourself with that knife.
2009-07-03 12:41 Witek (m)
This is how I see it:
Ole — a master in Buddhism
Dawid — his student
MariuszEro — an adept who gave up Buddhist teachings and goes hard against those which, in his opinion, are stupefying
And Dawid still doesn’t quite want to part with them 😛
Of course I know this will be taken as “wrong guess.”
“Then you’ll be able to assess how regressors die, and compare that with others. God forbid someone in the future conclude that regressing is crap, because someone from the family of a regressor died of illness…”
If someone dies of illness, that testifies to their intentions toward themselves. Regressing in itself is not a practice that can lead to illness, while many views, practices, and teachings from Buddhism (for example what MariuszEro described) can.
2009-07-03 12:34 Dawid (m)
aha, the claim that all practices from Lama Ole’s school are worthless because his wife died of cancer is just as wise as saying Michael Jackson’s music is worthless because he was an addict and died young from some substances… The same mode of thinking. And yet Jackson’s music may inspire, and none of his listeners will commit the same things he did just by listening to it.
2009-07-03 12:28 Dawid (m)
MariuszEro:
“So one does not need to have anyone as a model. One can be inspired by wise statements, by what is interesting, and not take stupidity into account at all.”
So we are home 🙂 We are talking about exactly the same thing; it is as if I were reading myself 🙂 You see, in the end both of us mean precisely the same thing.
“For me even Buddha is not an authority.”
And that is also OK. You only have to keep in mind that for everyone who measures ERD, Buddha is the model (pattern), whether they realize it or not.
That is why, and only in that sense, I said that Buddha is a model for people on this forum.
Witek also wrote earlier that it is worth looking at things as a whole, and I added that it is in fact MariuszEro who does not look holistically, because in the case of quoting Lama Ole he is biased (Ole wrote a nice book about happiness, etc.); at the same time Mariusz’s bias came to light a second time when he mentioned Ole’s wife’s death from illness, while not mentioning that many other yogis also died like that. I am very much in favor of holistic looking. Hold off on judgment, MariuszEro, for a few decades more 🙂 when regressors start dying… Then you will be able to assess how regressors die and compare that with others. God forbid someone in the future conclude that regressing is no good because a relative of some regressor died of illness… Perhaps in a few decades the value of dying in full awareness will also become clear to some, unless everyone becomes enlightened now or intends to achieve physical immortality :))))
“Osho also writes stupid things sometimes; I do not receive everything positively, such as praise of celibacy and its exceptional value.”
Osho may have written strange things in other matters, but certainly not about celibacy. Read the book “From Sex to Superconsciousness” — it is a complete contradiction of what you just wrote.
“I was moved by Mr. Ole’s advice…”
Psychological, scientific studies were done showing a correlation between dying earlier than statistically expected and living near a cemetery / with a view of a cemetery. Such a view probably acts in a depressing and discouraging way on the psyche (and subconscious).
“In Buddhism there is no soul. You cannot show me anything like that — no weight, no smell, no size, no color.”
Yes, Buddhism indicates that even the soul is something to go beyond. Buddhism goes very far. It is roughly the same view as that of the Christian John of the Cross, who said that the center of the soul is God, and that by itself it must be transcended in favor of God. Buddhism says the same thing, using other words, another discourse, other cultural conditions.
2009-07-03 11:57 MariuszEro (m)
hahaha, Sławek, you are giving me reasons to laugh
Lama Ole, please tell me whether the stream of experience has color, size, weight. There is simply no such thing. If you show it to me, I’ll… die of a heart attack 🙂
2009-07-03 11:55 Sławomir Majda (m)
What is reborn if it is not the soul?
OLE: In Buddhism there is no soul. You cannot show me anything like that — no weight, no smell, no size, no color, nothing. What is reborn is a stream of experiences.
2009-07-03 11:01 Sławomir Majda (m)
I was moved by Mr. Ole’s advice: “Buy yourself a house with a view of a cemetery.” All my beloved Tibet — as if I were at home.
2009-07-03 10:40 MariuszEro (m)
Dawid
So one does not need to have anyone as a model. One can be inspired by wise statements, by what is interesting, and not take stupidity into account at all. Osho also writes stupid things sometimes; I do not receive everything positively, such as praising the beauty of celibacy and its exceptional value.
That Western pioneer does not interest me. Lucid dreaming does not help me cleanse the subconscious 🙂 If some people like it, fine. I do not.
Buddha and his teachings are two different matters. Some teachings may be colored by his disciples, added to, and then labeled “thus spoke Buddha.” For me even Buddha is not an authority. He can inspire me. That is what discerning awareness is for — so that I do not take in lies and do not look for meaning where there is none.
I read Lama Ole’s lectures and I am sure there is not much value there for me. Tibetan monks, on the other hand, wrote much more clearly. Especially interesting were the gems about the bodhisattva and the greatness it supposedly brings :))
2009-07-03 08:34 Dawid (m)
“Dawid, I also use a similar approach, guided by intuition and inspiration from what is good. Sometimes, however, with burdens from certain practices it is hard to have discerning awareness.
As for me, Ole’s practice is not very interesting if his partner Hannah died of cancer. I don’t remember exactly what kind.”
A brain tumor. But in history you can gather quite a group of advanced, highly ERD yogis (over 30) who died of various forms of cancer… Hannah’s teacher, the previous Karmapa, also died of cancer — except here it is usually described as “being cursed.” One of the Western pioneers of lucid dreaming and OOBE also died of cancer. Add to that a group of yogis who died in strange circumstances (for example, murdered). And Buddha himself supposedly died from poisoning (though I think he died because he wanted to). What about yogis who died of old age? Were they worthless too?
So what are we to do now? Reject their wisdom just because they died of cancer? Reject Krishnamurti’s and Ramana Maharshi’s teachings because they died of cancer? Reject Osho’s teachings because he was killed (poisoned)?
And if Buddha truly died of bowel twisting after eating spoiled meat (as propaganda says), then we should seriously reflect on his enlightenment? Because here on this forum we hold that “atheist” as a model, the one who died painfully from eating meat 🙂 …
“And on the other hand, look at what feelings were evoked in you by speaking negatively about Lama Ole’s teachings and Buddhism and how much of that might have been mechanical.”
I think my observations were not mechanical — I try to reflect deeply, without mechanical prejudices. There were no emotions here either, especially since I have no connection with Lama Ole or Karmapa.
2009-07-01 16:30 MariuszEro (m)
I think the subject is broad and deep, very deep.
Wanting is such a basic motivation.
It only depends on what one wants.
If you do not want, you have no desire to live. In fact the whole of life is based on choosing what you want and what you do not. Some things seem desirable, others undesirable.
One has to examine burdens from practices that discouraged life, distorted its meaning, and pushed away pleasant motivations as unspiritual, low. Both Tibetan Buddhism and Christian monks, nuns, ascetics, beggars, people chosen as victims (those who do not receive attention or love from others, and who in this way “free themselves” from guilt for, for example, killing), sinners — these fit here very well. Also those who rejected sexual energy, the body, and matter itself, seeing nothing pleasant in existence.
I’ll write more. I’m keeping an eye on the dumplings and food on the electric stove, slowly coming to a boil like enlightening bodhisattvas, slowly going round and round, focused on sentient beings, whom they free from suffering by discouraging them from life ;)) Even though it’s set to 5, they keep heating and heating, and there is no end in sight :))
2009-07-01 16:07 Witek (m)
When I do nothing, I suffer the most, but when I start doing something, such disgust and discouragement appear that I want to get it over with as quickly as possible, knock on wood 😛
2009-07-01 16:05 Witek (m)
MariuszEro
But I can’t be bothered ;p damn, I still have to take an interest in something, make the effort to think about what I mean ;))
I think Buddhist things discouraged me the most 🙂 maybe also a bit from being a monk in the Christian style 🙂 I’d be grateful 🙂
2009-07-01 16:02 MariuszEro (m)
Witek:
All right, I’ll think about where in me the attitude “I can’t be bothered” came from.
Are you interested in Buddhist practices, or practices in general?
2009-07-01 15:59 MariuszEro (m)
Dawid:
Find a counterbalance if you feel like it. I just don’t know why you would in some way want to help him by searching for wise statements :))
Leszek does not happen to utter such obvious idiocies. Most of his statements immediately evoke joy in the subconscious, because understanding of causes goes with that. Not some Buddhist reluctance toward anger or hatred. I think Lama Ole has trouble expressing these emotions and admitting them, since he did boxing for four years.
2009-07-01 15:58 Witek (m)
It just came to me — why don’t I look it up myself? I can’t be bothered ;P I want to profit from other people’s progress :))
2009-07-01 15:52 Witek (m)
MariuszEro
Could you share what practices you worked through that were especially strong in building the “I can’t be bothered” attitude?
2009-07-01 15:50 Witek (m)
Dawid
“And one should not react too emotionally to some word, because that means we still have something to heal.”
By the way, of course that indicates one has something to heal, I think even Mariusz would not deny that ;)) Besides, Mariusz writes about the negative effects of certain Buddhist practices, whose harmful action is rather undeniable.
“Emotionally and mechanically, like Pavlov’s dogs, one can react to many words: ‘Buddhism,’ or even ‘bodhisattva’ or ‘Christianity.’ I know people who react mechanically to the word ‘regression,’ ‘regressing,’ or ‘reincarnation.’”
On the other hand, look at what feelings negative remarks about Lama Ole’s teachings and Buddhism evoked in you, and how much they may have been mechanical.
2009-07-01 15:49 MariuszEro (m)
(from http://diamentowadroga.pl/dd02_10/sześć_wyzwalających_aktywności…)
lama continues:
“Buddha said that by developing patience we will be able to see phenomena in this way. Among the methods leading to this, everyone can choose the ones that suit them best. Working with this myself, I always used one method: being with difficult people I used to think, ‘I am with them for ten minutes and it is terrible, but they spend 24 hours a day with each other — they are really poor people.’ That helped me a lot. Others may benefit from such reasoning: ‘Because of my karma I am with them now. Thanks to this, a lot of negativity is dissolving in my mind.’ We can also try to learn from what is happening so that later we will be able to help others when they find themselves in similar circumstances. We may also try to divide the unpleasant situation into many very small parts, each of which is not unpleasant in itself, and in this way make the whole abstract. But whatever we do, the point is that things should not seize us completely, but rather only slide along the surface of the mind and fall away, not creating new habits in it that could bring us difficulties in the future. Of course, there are also the most effective methods, which Buddha transmitted only to his closest friends — these are the meditations used in the Tibetan tradition. The highest, most perfect way to rid the mind of everything disturbing is to raise our mode of experiencing. If we strongly believe in the permanence and solidity of ourselves and the world around us, then of course anger, jealousy, desire, and pride will be very strong and very real.”
Bleh, the abstractness of pain that I may experience on my beloved butt is supposed to help me? :))
Dawid, I also use a similar approach, directed toward intuition and inspiration from what is good. Sometimes, however, with burdens from certain practices it is hard to maintain discerning awareness.
As for me, Ole’s practice is not very interesting, if his partner Hannah died of cancer. I do not remember exactly what cancer.
For me it is very probable that the reason was his attitude toward anger, aggression, hatred, and ignoring it. One can free oneself from the causes of those emotions, instead of suppressing them and manipulating oneself so that anger slides over the surface of the mind ;))
I don’t think anyone has ever improved from things merely sliding over the surface ;p
Buddhism is currently “on the table” for me, so I read some nonsense in order to work through what somewhere in the subconscious is emotionally associated :))
2009-07-01 15:44 Dawid (m)
At the same time it is MariuszEro who does not look holistically, because for all the quotations he gave, one could find a counterbalance in positive quotations with which he himself would surely agree, and which also came from Lama Ole.
2009-07-01 15:40 Dawid (m)
Witek:
I inspire myself only with what can help me; I do not need to accept someone’s whole message or where it leads. Though probably in more sectarian groups I would be “scolded” — because of course some people think you must either take something wholly and blindly or not at all.
2009-07-01 15:38 Dawid (m)
Oh, and I found a “gem” concerning beliefs about Phowa in Ole’s teaching: his disciples believe that after a Phowa course they will never be reborn again :))) (we know that cannot be true 🙂 )
2009-07-01 15:38 Witek (m)
Dawid
Of course one can gain something valuable from most religions and spiritual cults 🙂 It is also worth looking at what a given path represents as a whole and where it is heading.
2009-07-01 15:33 Dawid (m)
Very good if you can distinguish what in a given teaching is wise and helpful and what is not. What more is needed? The beginning of the first fragment you gave I like very much. At the same time the essence of the teachings of Ole’s school is more or less:
“However, the essence of the highest teachings is the experience that: ‘Every atom vibrates with joy and is held together in wholeness by love.’ It is somewhat like a small child who wakes up in the middle of the night, opens the door to a great hall, and sees many beautifully dressed people, wonderful lights; hears marvelous music being played. When we practice the Diamond Way, we develop such a way of looking at the world.”
So if we can distinguish what is valuable in a given message from what we do not need, we can enrich our practice or at least be inspired by something. And this principle applies to every message: Christian, Buddhist, regressive, or the message of Kripalu Maharaj… In other words: there is our practice, our understanding and discernment, and there are messages that can always enrich that practice. It is not that all Buddhism is “bad.” One can find many inspirations there — like these about joy, or those about dying in full awareness.
And one should not react too emotionally to some word, because that means we still have something to heal. Emotionally and mechanically, like Pavlov’s dogs, one can react to many words: “Buddhism,” or even “bodhisattva” or “Christianity.” I know people who react mechanically to the word “regression,” “regressing,” or “reincarnation.” And that is not good. Development is supposedly supposed to be freeing oneself from emotions and from mechanical, emotional thinking.
2009-07-01 15:22 MariuszEro (m)
and other gems:
(http://diamentowadroga.pl/dd02_10/szesc_wyzwalajacych_aktywnosci… )
“Instead, he advises us to consciously use our speech, to communicate with people in such a way that they can find solutions to their problems, so that they see more broadly, so that they go more ‘deeply.’ We should try to speak in such a way that enemies become friends and can work together.
By showing people how things work, we should help them rid themselves of various problems and suffering. Someone may, for example, have a problem because of a broken window (when it is hard to get a new pane). They will probably feel better when they hear that someone else on the same street had two windows smashed. (laughter) We have to speak in such a way that people’s minds are not imprisoned by a given situation, but that they can grasp it in its entirety. To someone else whose girlfriend has left him, you can say that you know someone who has already been left by three girlfriends… (laughter). Such use of speech is very useful — one just has to do it very carefully.”
Hahahaha ;-))
What am I supposed to say to my acquaintance whose legs and stomach hurt so much that she cannot function at all?
2009-07-01 14:49 MariuszEro (m)
Dawid:
from http://www.lama-ole.pl/faq/faq.htm
[fragments of the book “216 Answers of a Yogi,” to be published soon by “Red Elephant” Publishing House]
“What is most important in Buddhism?
OLE: The most important thing in Buddhism…”
Opublikowano: 22/04/2026
Autor: Sławomir Majda
Kateogrie: God
Comments