An Englishman's journey through Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.

hermitwin

http://fora.tv/2010/03/19/Stephen_Batchelor_Confession_of_a_Buddhist_Atheist

I found this very intersting, what do you guys think about his experience?

compassionate_warrior

I"m reading the book right now. I think he provides an important perspective. I think it's interesting that his lama wouldn't allow any questioning of rebirth/reincarnation.

Dakini

Stephen Batchelor isn't the only one to become disillusioned with the dogmatic side of Buddhism. One of his former colleagues in the same Tibetan monastery wrote a similar book. These two guys may represent the tip of the iceberg.

Sabre

Buddhism without karma and rebirth is like a hamburger without meat and a bun, but if it makes him and others happy, who am I to judge?

compassionate_warrior

Buddhism without karma and rebirth is like a hamburger without meat and a bun, but if it makes him and others happy, who am I to judge?

Have you weighed in on the latest thread on rebirth here, Sabre?

ThailandTom

It was interesting reading the comments presented below

SwissSis

I've read the book and to me it confirmed experiences I made myself with tibetan monks, lamas, dogmas in buddhism. I was first not very critical regarding Buddhism, but I became critical after having met many monks and nuns in Tibet, Ladakh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, seeing and sometimes also sharing their lifes, also talking to them. Many people from the west have a very dreaming view on Buddhism. Go and see how Buddhism is practiced in buddhist countries. Live with the people there, share their lifes and really go into it, stay there for a longer time. Then you will see how much theory there is and how much of it is practiced. I like to see the daily life of people. Stephen Batchelor's book is highly interesting, because it talkes about direct experiences of a man who lived within the buddhist community. I congratulate Mr. Batchelor to this book. He was very thoughtful in what he did. Many westerners think, that nuns and monks are more happy, always nice, so unbelievable peaceful and so on. If you live with them you will quickly find out, that they are human beings as well and that they also struggle with life and that they are maybe not more happy with their believe as you are with your ordinary life. It's usually a projection of our own wishes to see these people in a holier shape. Batchelor has taken down Buddhism from its throne, and put it onto the earth again. And that's what I really like about him and his book.

seeker242

I don't know, it seems to me that aversions for particular teachings, tradition and ritual is just as incorrect as clinging to them.

compassionate_warrior

I found this very intersting, what do you guys think about his experience?

So what do you think, hermitwin? I'm still working my way through the book, but let's get a good discussion going! Thanks to SwissSis for the book review and personal perspective.

Dakini

I don't know, it seems to me that aversions for particular teachings, tradition and ritual is just as incorrect as clinging to them.

This is an important point. Everyone picks and chooses, when they come to Buddhism, don't they? Some prefer the Thai Forest tradition, for whatever reason, some go for Vajrayana, some for Zen, etc. So preference (which involves its opposite: aversion) is always a factor. But one important question posed by the book is that what happens when a devoted Buddhist runs into problems with the school he or she has chosen? Does one give up on Buddhism altogether? Does one try another school, as the author did, and as some of our own members have done? I think that's a valid option--to try another school. It shows a commitment to Buddhism, for one thing.

hermitwin

What do I think? Batchelor teaches meditation, so he accepts that part.
If he is sincere in his analysis, all the best to him. He has been a monk and been a full-time buddhist far longer than i have. I keep an open mind....

compassionate_warrior

He has also translated a mass of important texts, so he really knows his stuff.

Vajraheart

I don't know, it seems to me that aversions for particular teachings, tradition and ritual is just as incorrect as clinging to them.

This is an important point. Everyone picks and chooses, when they come to Buddhism, don't they? Some prefer the Thai Forest tradition, for whatever reason, some go for Vajrayana, some for Zen, etc. So preference (which involves its opposite: aversion) is always a factor. But one important question posed by the book is that what happens when a devoted Buddhist runs into problems with the school he or she has chosen? Does one give up on Buddhism altogether? Does one try another school, as the author did, and as some of our own members have done? I think that's a valid option--to try another school. It shows a commitment to Buddhism, for one thing.

I like all forms of Buddhism, except this new Western form that discounts reincarnation.

compassionate_warrior

I like all forms of Buddhism, except this new Western form that discounts reincarnation.

It sounds funny when you put it that way, Vajraheart! Sort of absurd, no? But as I was explaining to Thailand Tom on the current "Rebirth" thread, what attracts many Westerners to Buddhism is the logic, and the apparent (until they get deeper into it) lack of faith-based tradition. No bearded guy in the sky, no Son of God, no make-believe. So when they come across the concept of rebirth, they have trouble reconciling that with their view of Buddhism as a system of logic. Suddenly, Buddhism turns up what to Westerners seems to be a religious element. Some Westerners can't handle it. Stephen Batchelor couldn't.

Vajraheart

I like all forms of Buddhism, except this new Western form that discounts reincarnation.

It sounds funny when you put it that way, Vajraheart! Sort of absurd, no? But as I was explaining to Thailand Tom on the current "Rebirth" thread, what attracts many Westerners to Buddhism is the logic, and the apparent (until they get deeper into it) lack of faith-based tradition. No bearded guy in the sky, no Son of God, no make-believe. So when they come across the concept of rebirth, they have trouble reconciling that with their view of Buddhism as a system of logic. Suddenly, Buddhism turns up what to Westerners seems to be a religious element. Some Westerners can't handle it. Stephen Batchelor couldn't.

Reincarnation is a physiological fact for me, unlike god. So, yes, it's absurd... for me. But, I think whatever works to evolve a person is what's good for them, so I think it's fine if a person personally interprets it in that way, for themselves. I personally think it reveals a lack of direct in-depth experience of the methods presented by the Buddha though. As you grow in contemplation, and go deeper in meditation, reincarnation becomes quite obvious.

compassionate_warrior

It sounds like you have a powerful meditation practice. I'm not there yet.

Vajraheart

It sounds like you have a powerful meditation practice. I'm not there yet.

Had, I used to meditate 4 or more hours a day with intense focus for many years, plus lots of other practices within the tantric traditions. I more contemplate my experiences these days and work on applying them to daily life in an attempt for integration.

I practice Dzogchen now.

Dakini

How is reincarnation a physiological fact for you, Vajraheart? Where does physiology come in?

DharmaField

Reincarnation is a physiological fact for me, unlike god. So, yes, it's absurd... for me. But, I think whatever works to evolve a person is what's good for them, so I think it's fine if a person personally interprets it in that way, for themselves. I personally think it reveals a lack of direct in-depth experience of the methods presented by the Buddha though. As you grow in contemplation, and go deeper in meditation, reincarnation becomes quite obvious.

Vajraheart shows the problematic nature of first-person accounts as an authority, or as incontrovertible fact. Questions of what makes something true are ones that science and philosophy have grappled with for centuries and this still remains an important and interesting discussion. Tibetans Buddhists, who have a huge investment in reincarnation - as it premises their entire non-democratic political system - seem to have a much greater propensity to have so-called direct experiences of reincarnation than others. Stephen Batchelor's book shows how this is a logically flawed view, as it assumes some abiding essence or atman. This is contrary to the Buddha's foundational premise of his experience which is A-Atman or Annata. Moreover, whilst early suttas refer to rebirth the comments are never specific nor in the entire Buddhist Pantheon is there any evidence of a sophisticated historical account of a historial previous life experience outside of that which was already known by Tibetans. There are no high Lamas remembering life in other civilizations and making notes of the differences. In other words, there is no objective evidence of any knowledge outside what fits within the normal modes of knowing. There are some studies which have massed evidence of reincarnation, but these are hotly contested on methodological grounds, not to mention that there are other alternative explanations that might explain the data - time bubbles, quantum nature of consciousness, etc.

The point is, that we can stick to the narrow horison of traditional Buddhist thinking and its propensity for magical thinking or we can merge this horison with the enormous enterprise of world thought, which encompasses other religions, science, history, etc. This does not mean that we have to forego meditating and practice, but I believe that being open to learn is what started Buddhism in the first place. Question number 1.: How can we not suffer when faced with Birth, Sickness, Oldage and Death? I agree with Stephen, having meditated for decades the answer is not something that takes multiple lifetimes to get. But no-one, including the real person who has been deified into the Buddha, has the last word on the matter.

DharmaField

...

Vajraheart

How is reincarnation a physiological fact for you, Vajraheart? Where does physiology come in?

As in, the aspects of bodies are dependent upon previous bodies, and this is obvious to me due to insight gained through meditation and contemplation of meditation experiences.

DharmaField

This is not reincarnation but becoming and the dependency is unknowable - so when asked what is the source? Can you speak of it?

Vajraheart

Vajraheart shows the problematic nature of first-person accounts as an authority, or as incontrovertible fact. Questions of what makes something true are ones that science and philosophy have grappled with for centuries and this still remains an important and interesting discussion. Tibetans Buddhists, who have a huge investment in reincarnation - as it premises their entire non-democratic political system - seem to have a much greater propensity to have so-called direct experiences of reincarnation than others.

It has more to do with Tantric fast speed methodology than being Tibetan. Tantra is considered a faster path to delving into the unconscious.

Stephen Batchelor's book shows how this is a logically flawed view, as it assumes some abiding essence or atman.

No, it doesn't. It means that instances of consciousness have non-material references as well as material references, as do the physiological elements that make up matter also have non-physical reference, or manifestations. Stephens interpretation of the how's and why's to re-birth are flawed. He should have read Abidharmakosha.

This is contrary to the Buddha's foundational premise of his experience which is A-Atman or Annata. Moreover, whilst early suttas refer to rebirth the comments are never specific nor in the entire Buddhist Pantheon is there any evidence of a sophisticated historical account of a historial previous life experience outside of that which was already known by Tibetans. There are no high Lamas remembering life in other civilizations and making notes of the differences. In other words, there is no objective evidence of any knowledge outside what fits within the normal modes of k

Well, there are those kids who remember past lives before they grow older into conditioned forgetfullness who do remember things that are not conditioned towards that fact. Like that one boy who was on the news years ago who remembered being a fighter pilot, but forgot the memories later on in life.

Vajraheart

This is not reincarnation but becoming and the dependency is unknowable - so when asked what is the source? Can you speak of it?

The source is an endless regress of inter-connected phenomena playing within multiple dimensions of expression within both higher and lower frequencies of physical and non-physical material realms.

SherabDorje

The source is an endless regress of inter-connected phenomena playing within multiple dimensions of expression within both higher and lower frequencies of physical and non-physical material realms.

That's easy for you to say.

DharmaField

The source is an endless regress of inter-connected phenomena playing within multiple dimensions of expression within both higher and lower frequencies of physical and non-physical material realms.

I think the higher and lower frequencies of physical and non-physical material realms is Tibetan magical thinking. The endless regress of inter-connected phenomena, I can agree, is what we are all incarnated from, but with no special continuation - which is the essence of Bachelor's argument - I haven't read the other - and will get back to you if I am convinced. As for the kids who remember being pilots etc, I think you haven't read a Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" as there are plenty of claims out there that run the entire gamut from UFO's to moving objects with the mind. Too many of these are proved false and as I said cases of re-incarnation have not been entirely robust under critical scrutiny and are hotly debated.

YahooSerious

It is a little surprising to have just joined this group and then immediately come upon this discussion. It is the philosophy of secular buddhism of which Stephen Bachelor is an example, that has recently drawn me to the dharma. To my very skeptical point of view the core of Buddhism resonates and when decoupled from some of it's dogma resonates profoundly. This is not to say that I don't appreciate and study teachers from Mahayana and Theravada schools, I'm quite sure I have much to learn from both.

compassionate_warrior

So could you explain what you mean by "secular buddhism", Yahoo?

seeker242

I don't know, it seems to me that aversions for particular teachings, tradition and ritual is just as incorrect as clinging to them.

This is an important point. Everyone picks and chooses, when they come to Buddhism, don't they? Some prefer the Thai Forest tradition, for whatever reason, some go for Vajrayana, some for Zen, etc. So preference (which involves its opposite: aversion) is always a factor. But one important question posed by the book is that what happens when a devoted Buddhist runs into problems with the school he or she has chosen? Does one give up on Buddhism altogether? Does one try another school, as the author did, and as some of our own members have done? I think that's a valid option--to try another school. It shows a commitment to Buddhism, for one thing.

Everyone does pick and chose their tradition yes. However, to not want to practice the rituals of Tibetan tradition and to pick the zen tradition instead I think is quite different that rejecting something like karma as a whole or rejecting all traditions and rituals. Something like karma is one of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism. I don't know any school or sect of Buddhism that rejects the concept of karma. Does such a school even exist? So if you reject the concept of karma, are you really practicing Buddhism? It seems to me that saying you are a Buddhist that does not believe in karma is similar to saying you're a Christian that does not believe in Jesus. I don't think aversion has to come into play when picking a tradition. I personally picked zen over Tibetan because zen was more appealing and a better fit for me, not because I didn't like Tibetan. I like Tibetan but I like zen more so I practice zen. It seems to me that people like Bachelor reject all other traditions and try to make their own tradition which involves leaving out fundamental teachings of the entire religion because they don't like those parts. Seems kinda strange to do that.

Sabre

He has also translated a mass of important texts, so he really knows his stuff.

I've read a lot of gnome-stories when I was small. Now I know everything about them!

Honestly, having translated masses of text, doesn't really say a lot. The Buddha said it already: you can not find the truth by reading and thinking. This is why all traditions meditate. Not just to get calm, but to clear the mind to get the insights. I heard Stephen Batchelor say in his talk that was posted, he never had any of those insights. Well, with all respect, really, but maybe he was just doing it wrong then... If you ask me, he must have got stuck on the 8-fold path somewhere, probably on right view.

He may do whatever he wants, really, but it makes me kind of sad that he calls himself a Buddhist while he has simply scrapped one of the most fundamental teachings that has been there for hundreds of years. Now, of course it is not required to have full faith in rebirth if you can't, but opposing it strongly is just attaching to the opposite. And I get the feeling he solidifies the idea that rebirth doesn't exist in his readers. That makes me sad. Because let's all be honest - is that an idea created by thought or by heart?

Sabre
:vimp:

Dakini

Everyone does pick and chose their tradition yes. However, to not want to practice the rituals of Tibetan tradition and to pick the zen tradition instead I think is quite different that rejecting something like karma as a whole or rejecting all traditions and rituals. Something like karma is one of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism. I don't know any school or sect of Buddhism that rejects the concept of karma. Does such a school even exist? So if you reject the concept of karma, are you really practicing Buddhism? It seems to me that saying you are a Buddhist that does not believe in karma is similar to saying you're a Christian that does not believe in Jesus. I don't think aversion has to come into play when picking a tradition. I personally picked zen over Tibetan because zen was more appealing and a better fit for me, not because I didn't like Tibetan. I like Tibetan but I like zen more so I practice zen. It seems to me that people like Bachelor reject all other traditions and try to make their own tradition which involves leaving out fundamental teachings of the entire religion because they don't like those parts. Seems kinda strange to do that.

I haven't finished the book, Seeker, but my impression wasn't that the author rejected karma. He rejected the idea of rebirth. As many on this forum have pointed out, and continue to point out, one can believe in karma operating within the current lifetime, one doesn't have to accept rebirth. Apparently there are schools of Buddhism, or teachers within some schools, that advocate focussing on the current lifetime, living in the present, and not thinking about past or future lives, which are seen as irrelevant. So until I finish the book, I don't know that Batchelor has departed as radically as you suggest from Buddhist teachings. I'll get back to you when I finish the book.

Vajraheart

The source is an endless regress of inter-connected phenomena playing within multiple dimensions of expression within both higher and lower frequencies of physical and non-physical material realms.

I think the higher and lower frequencies of physical and non-physical material realms is Tibetan magical thinking.

That's a strange comment for a Buddhist, it's mentioned in the Suttas, and is staple in Theravada. Do I need to mention the 31 planes of existence? This has nothing to do with Tibet as it's been a part of Buddhism since Indian beginnings.

Too many of these are proved false and as I said cases of re-incarnation have not been entirely robust under critical scrutiny and are hotly debated.

You find what you seek. You will prove to yourself whatever you want and I suppose this argument can go either way... yes?

I would simply recommend going deeper in meditation.

Vajraheart

I find it funny that people want Buddhism to fit neatly into their materialist logic, and they think it dogmatic to believe in rebirth and karma? What about the dogma of believing otherwise?

Well... I suppose a person must start where they are comfortable before their comfort zones are more deeply challenged through meditative experience?

I would just recommend not being so dogmatically attached to the ideas that keep one from seeing reincarnation and karma as a valid fact of life.

YahooSerious

So could you explain what you mean by "secular buddhism", Yahoo?

Knowing that the definition will be important I cast around the net for a reasonable definition and have yet to find one I could simply cut and past. So what I mean by Secular Buddhism is the practice of Buddhism that can be directly experienced in the here and now; a practice that, to the greatest extent possible, is free of dogma and cultural adornment. For me personally, this also means belief in karma but not rebirth. If ever I find objective evidence to refute this belief I would, of course, be happy to revise it.

For those who have an interest in this topic I would recommend http://www.thesecularbuddhist.com/ and associated Facebook page.

compassionate_warrior

Thank you, Yahoo. What you describe strikes me as a description of the Buddhist practice many members of the forum are pursuing, but there has been no name for it up until now. And calling it "secular Buddhism" helps explain why so many Westerners don't consider Buddhism to be a religion--if it doesn't have the trappings of a religion in their experience, then it's logical to give it a secular description, as "psychology" or "philosophy". I see a few puzzle pieces starting to fall into place here.

Some contributors here might be interested to know that Batchelor made a thorough study of the Pali Canon after leaving Tibetan and Zen Buddhism, and discovered that in the Kalama Sutra, the Buddha taught that it isn't necessary to believe in rebirth. "Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself." I think Batchelor rejected the idea of rebirth not only because he couldn't accept it intellectually, but also because he found passages in the suttras that contradicted some teachings and the dogmatic style in which he'd been taught in both traditions in which he'd participated.

Dakini

Well, I think this Buddhism that "is free of dogma and cultural adornment" is possibly what people mean when they speak of "Western Buddhism". As some of our members keep saying, the basics: Eightfold Path, the 4 Noble Truths, the precepts, non-attachment, mindfullness, karma as applied to the current lifetime, and meditation. I see nothing wrong with Batchelor, or anyone, creating a sangha around that. This is what a lot of people, including some on this forum, are doing, anyway. If believe in karma affecting infinite lifetimes helps some people, fine. For those who can't except rebirth, also fine.

I don't think there's a requirement anywhere that cultural practices and rituals be adopted along with the teachings. I don't know why "rejecting" an alien culture's rituality would be a bad thing. It's a choice. Buddhism has always adapted itself to the cultures where it finds itself. Batchelor seems to be addressing a need among Western practitioners, and that's not a bad thing. And a sangha or "Western school" that includes suttric study would be a good thing.

I don't think Batchelor's rejection of rebirth represents "aversion". I see it as a matter of it not making sense to him; he turned it over in his mind, tried to see if it makes sense (as the Buddha suggested we do), and the answer he came up with was, "no", it didn't make sense for him. Although I myself know the reality of rebirth, I don't begrudge others the choice to forge a path that excludes that belief, especially those who have studied the Pali Canon, which I haven't done

I also find it interesting that one of the highest authorities in the Kagyu lineage, Shamar Rinpoche, has founded a network of dharma centers, called Bodhi Path Centers, that do not teach Vajrayana. He has decided that Vajrayana, specifically, tantra, is not appropriate for the West, or even, he says, for the East at this time. So his centers teach the basics, as mentioned above, and teach the bodhisattva path. This also sounds like a more Westernised Buddhism. I wonder if this is a trend?

Cloud

I think it's important to view karma as it applies to not only cultivating awakening of this mind in this life, but creating good conditions for future lives. Regardless of whether we think that we personally exist in the future, others will... and our actions in this life create the conditions that they will live in. The world is a joint effort, moving forward.

Both those who believe in literal rebirth and those who don't (and those in the middle), should all still understand that we're making the world how it will be for future generations.

Dakini

understand that we're making the world how it will be for future generations.

Right. Rebirth or no rebirth, we're still trashing the planet, the economy, etc. etc. :bawl:

Cloud

Yup. or rather about the way we're going.

Vajraheart

I think it's important to view karma as it applies to not only cultivating awakening of this mind in this life, but creating good conditions for future lives. Regardless of whether we think that we personally exist in the future, others will... and our actions in this life create the conditions that they will live in. The world is a joint effort, moving forward.

Both those who believe in literal rebirth and those who don't (and those in the middle), should all still understand that we're making the world how it will be for future generations.

Good points, and I agree.

compassionate_warrior

I didn't mean to turn this into another thread on rebirth, lol. As far as I can tell in the book, the author is trying to get to the truth of what the Buddha really taught and believed. It reminds me a little of the people who have set up a Western dharma practice called, "Against the Stream". They see the Buddha as a radical in his time, and these dharma practitioners see themselves as radical Buddhists. Radical in the sense of going back to the roots of the teachings, but also in the sense of putting compassion into action to bring about social change, help the poor, and the like. And to make it accessible to everyone, irrespective or race or class. Buddhism in the West is evolving.

Cloud

@compassionate_warrior, I e-mailed/questioned the Against the Stream people a few months ago... turns out they're pretty much just Thai Forest tradition. I don't think there's anything special about them at all. At the time there was a discussion on NewBuddhist about American Buddhism...

compassionate_warrior

Well, I know they run their own soup kitchens for the poor and that they emphasize access to marginalized communities. I think their Thai Forest orientation is their way of getting back to the basics of Buddhism. Have you read the statements on their website? This is a younger generation that believes in putting compassion into action to address social ills.

At any rate, I'm not sure but some Buddhists may forget that the Buddha was a social radical or reformer in his time, somewhat similarly to the way that mainstream Christians forget that Jesus was a radical. The book discusses this side of Siddhartha somewhat. I find this perspective refreshing.

YahooSerious

@compassionate_warrior I have been listening to some of Noah Lavine's pod casts from Against the Stream. I've found them accessible, direct and insightful although he has at times a unique and some might say abrasive way of delivering his message. The dharma talks seem to be very practical and I feel like one can apply it the moment you hear it. Seems like I noticed a credit to Martine Batchelor (Stephen's companion) for support on the Against the Stream web site or in a pod cast.

Sabre

...

Of course, you are totally right. If people want this kind of Buddhism, they can have it. Totally fine. I have no problem with that. But I don't know of Batchelor encourages self-exploration in his readers. If he doesn't, well nothing I can do about that, but it would make me a bit sad personally. Buddhism shouldn't be about dogma's in any way.

Sabre

...

Buddhism shouldn't be about dogma's in any way.

With this I mean the "no-rebirth" kind of Buddhism also shouldn't have that aspect as a dogma.

Dakini

Thanks for the clarification, Sabre. Good point. I haven't finished the book, so I don't know what his approach is in the end. I'll let you know. But he seems to be leaning towards "no rebirth", since he feels that this is what the suttras (according to his research) support. Well, if he has begun a "no-rebirth school", at least all the no-rebirthers now have someplace to call home.

Dakini

(later report, after nearly finishing the bood) Stephen Batchelor's position is that one can remain agnostic regarding rebirth and karma. He goes into more detail regarding his position in "Buddhism Without Beliefs". The results of his research into the suttras is pretty interesting. He quotes the Buddha as saying "those who hold training as the essence, or who hold virtue-and-vow, pure livelihood, celibacy and service as the essence--this is one dead end.' Ud 6.8
He comes up with some pretty interesting quotes from the suttras that lead him to his "secular Buddhism".

Dazzle

.

I also find it interesting that one of the highest authorities in the Kagyu lineage, Shamar Rinpoche, has founded a network of dharma centers, called Bodhi Path Centers, that do not teach Vajrayana. He has decided that Vajrayana, specifically, tantra, is not appropriate for the West, or even, he says, for the East at this time. So his centers teach the basics, as mentioned above, and teach the bodhisattva path. This also sounds like a more Westernised Buddhism. I wonder if this is a trend?

If you are interested in the Kagyu lineage, you need to research it more, Dakini, and the situation of the two Karmapas. Those in the lineage who follow Karmapa Orgyen Trinley Dorje who was the candidate who was offically recognised by Situ Rinpoche etc and the Dalai Lama, don't regard the Sharmapa (and Ole Nydahl's 'Diamond Way' buddhism) as one of the highest authorities in the lineage at the moment! You should also reseach the intrigues around past Sharmapa tulkus leading to the cancelling of their recognition at one point !

Unfortunately yet another example of internal squabbles and intrigues in Tibetan Buddhism.

Simonthepilgrim

Batchelor's journey is a useful one and I am grateful for his account. He was immersed in chosen disciplines, tested them, ultimately finding them wanting and moving on. Many of us have had the same experience. Indeed, we expect it: we are a migrating species.

Dakini

If you are interested in the Kagyu lineage, you need to research it more, Dakini, and the situation of the two Karmapas. Those in the lineage who follow Karmapa Orgyen Trinley Dorje who was the candidate who was offically recognised by Situ Rinpoche etc and the Dalai Lama, don't regard the Sharmapa (and Ole Nydahl's 'Diamond Way' buddhism) as one of the highest authorities in the lineage at the moment! You should also reseach the intrigues around past Sharmapa tulkus leading to the cancelling of their recognition at one point !

Unfortunately yet another example of internal squabbles and intrigues in Tibetan Buddhism.

I'm aware of all that, thanks. Whether or not the other Kagyu high officials "don't regard the Shamarpa as one of the highest authorities in the lineage at the moment" doesn't mean he's not a high authority. The Shamarpas have always been among the "big four" under the Karmapa. And he disassociated himself from Nydahl long ago, one reason why he advocates /not/ teaching sexual practice or anything tantric in the West. You can read his statements about Nydahl and about his position vis-a-vis Vajrayana on his website: www.shamarpa.org