I forgot all about this story until just recently, when I spoke to a
friend in Canada who told me that she had met and spoken to one of
these Tibetans, who had told her: "Getting away from Odiyan was
like escaping from the Chinese all over again!"
I have no idea what the truth of this story really is. Does anyone
know any details? Is anyone sure of what happened there?
- Rick Finney
"RickFinney" <rickf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000129072546...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
"RickFinney" <rickf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000129072546...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
"Dharmapala" <dharm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:870pt4$n21$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
Dharmapala wrote:
>
> This is as much as has been directly reported to me from a primary source. I
> have heard other stories about it, and many of them were similar to this
> one. It is based in San Francisco, and was started by Tarthang Tulku. The
> name of the primary institution evades me, but perhaps Rick can recall.
What happens to Tarthang Tulku?
"Henry" <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:3895983C...@pacific.net.sg...
dharmapala wrote:
>
> Here is the main website of his organization, the Nyingma Institute. I don't
> know what Tarthang Tulku's status is...
> http://www.nyingma.org/inst/inst2.html
What is it going to be related with cults?
"Dharmapala" <dharm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:877atl$73q$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Apparently a past of human rights abuses, holding people against their
will,
> devesting their followers of all their money. Sounds pretty fishy to me. I
> have heard from many people that they stay away as the place "feels" like
a
> cult. If it looks likes a fish, smells like a fish, and tastes like a
fish,
> it probably is a fish. Do what you want with the info. I see Finney seems
to
> have disappeared. I wonder what he has to say for himself since he started
> the thread?
>
> "Henry" <ge...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:3896E30F...@pacific.net.sg...
<< I see Finney seems to
have disappeared. I wonder what he has to say for himself since he started
the thread? >>
Not much, since I've been too busy to keep up with
this thread--or with the newsgroup at all--for the
last few days. The replies I've seen have been quite
interesting, but I may have missed a few. Have there
been any responses from the Odiyan organization
itself?
- Rick
Dharmapala wrote:
> I guess I should add that I would place such an organization as this in with
> the Scientologists and the Shambala folks from Trungpa's camp.
Now, now. Do any of you people really know what you're talking about? You don't
seem happy if there's not a scandal to flout, or a lama to bash. So now you go
and drag Odiyan out of the darkness, and then start glibly mentioning "Shambhala
folks from Trungpa's "camp", as if he were some Col. Kurtz in the jungle,
presiding over "the horror", amidst severed heads and fawning worshipers.
Tarthang Tulku is certainly a hard-assed SOB when it comes to getting people to
do work. In fact his people probably work harder than you ever have or will in
your life, and they do it for the Dharma. They don't sit around posting messages
to this group taking pot shots at lamas because they're bored.
Tarthang Tulku sponsors the Nyingma Monlam every year in India, and he also has
published many thousands of volumes of scriptures and commentaries and
distributed them for free to lamas in India and Nepal. All this with "slave
labor", if you will. But remember: Tarthang doesn't live in a state that
recognizes slavery, his slaves are adults responsible for their choices, and as
long as they know how to hitch-hike, they are free to leave. They don't need you
to go worrying about them.
I should also remind you that neither Tarthang Tulku nor Trungpa ever engaged in
ruthless campaigns of intimidation and character assassination as did L. Ron
Hubbard and his gang of psychos. Unlike L. Ron Hubbard and most other cult
leaders, they have never wasted their time trying to destroy or discredit those
who criticize them, nor did they go creating new religions with themselves as
the all-powerful head. If anyone in the guru business ever had a heart of
darkness, it was Hubbard. So you ought not place these Tibetan teachers in the
same sentence, much less the same class as him.
JP
As for why I am down on "Ron", I am down on him for the same reason many other
people did: he tried to ruin someone I know. The person in question was a
nationally syndicated cartoonist who happened to mention Scientology in the same
satirical breath as the Krishna movement (ISKON) et. al. The result was that
dear "Ron" mounted a nationwide phone blitz to newspaper editors asking them to
terminate the strip in question. My friend did indeed lose some of his business
and also had to deal with a lot of angry editors insisting that he improve his
work, not to mention threatening phone calls made to him personally. It was only
later when a Federal investigation for tax fraud found documents related to the
organization of the phone campaign that the reason for my friend's career crisis
became known.
My point is simply this: don't slander anyone. To draw conclusions about the personal
character of any religious teacher because there is (or because one knows personally)
someone who was disappointed, disaffected or claims to have been "abused", would
require repudiating every religious teacher who exists, including the Dalai Lama.
Human nature is complex and although there is doubtless at least a grain of truth to
most unflattering stories about Lamas, an unflattering story does not ipso facto
constitute grounds for drawing a conclusion about that person's character -- because
there's always another story, often flattering, that remains to be told, and so on ad
infinitum. In any case such stories usually tell more about the storyteller him or
herself than about the ostensible subject of the story.
In law, hearsay is never admitted as valid evidence. Of course, most people don't know
the law, or logic for that matter, and will never hesitate to use flimsy evidence for
drawing conclusions. Another thing that most people don't know about the law is that
pronouncing unflattering hearsay ("slander") in public often qualifies as libel, which
is a punishable offense. And even if the law doesn't punish you for harmful and
useless speech, karma will.
Lotus Bud wrote:
> John Pettit wrote:
>
> > I should also remind you that ... Tarthang Tulku ... ever engaged in
>
> > ruthless campaigns of intimidation and character assassination
>
> Then clearly you don't know what you are talking about. It is one thing to direct
> conversation elsewhere, it is another to defend someone that is the center of more
> than one controversy.
>
> Perhaps the best response is one chosen by many that I know, there are certain
> names not spoken, and when questioned about teachers, promotes ones known to be
> valid and true to their teachings.
Clearly I don't know who I'm dealing with...
I sent a private message in response to Pettit and he published it on the newsgroup. It
wasn't meant to encourage this conversation, only to suggest another response. That was
why I didn't publish it, now why did Pettit?
It is one thing to ask for silence to slander, it's another to defend the subject as if
he's innocent when you know nothing of the charges.
If you know nothing, then say nothing and redirect the conversation.
That was the point of the original post.
I regret having responded to Pettit at all, his words suggested a sensibility and
character that evidently does not exist.
K.C.