Peter Young’s teachings and methods

~ anon2727 ~ Leave a comment

Other facts about Dondrup Dorje’s (Peter Young / PY) that show who he really is:

1. PY teaches that fear is the opposite of hope.

The Dalai Lama says that hope is very important. So do all other authentic spiritual authorities. PY teaches his students to therefore abandon hope if they wish to free themselves from fear. PY does this deliberately to depress the emotional and mental states of his students, to rob them of any sense of a better future for themselves. Because it is based on lies, this method, of course, never works. It just gives PY more and more control over his students as they sink into depression.

In addition, it is agreed by everyone that fear is actually the opposite of love. The opposite of hope is actually despair. PY teaches his students to despair of everything in the past, present and the future, so that he can then present himself as their only salvation. PY teaches his students that if they still feel fear (which he deliberately inflicts on them at every opportunity), then they should work even harder to abandon all hope.

As mentioned previously PY uses fear, and is driven by fear, because he does not know what love is, and is incapable of inspiring love in anyone.

This is why he teaches that fear is the opposite of hope. If his students realised that fear is the opposite of love, then they would quickly realise PY is actually treating them with the opposite of love.

2. PY teaches that human rights do not exist.

The Dalai Lama says that human rights are very important. PY teaches this to give his students the impression that they do not have any human rights, which enables PY to treat them as less than human. PY does this so that when he abuses his students, they feel that is it not a bad thing, that they deserve it, and most importantly that any sense his students might have that being abused should not be tolerated, is an illusion. If human rights do not exist, then what rights could his students claim to have not to be abused?

3. PY teaches that violence against children is correct and should be encouraged.

I (and many other students) witnessed him endorsing violence against child-monks at Namdroling monastery. I witnessed Penor Rinpoche (PR) asking his monks to stop using violence as a form of discipline against the child-monks. PR did this several times.

(It is well known that there is an a very sad, culturally driven, tendency in many Buddhist monasteries in India and Tibet to resort to violence as a means of discipline. The Dalai Lama speaks often about one of his tutors who used violence against him when he was a child).

PY specifically and repeatedly contradicted PR, saying violence was necessary. PY openly stated that PR didn’t know what he was talking about. For PY to contradict the direct teaching, and instruction, of PR shows the lack of sincerity PY has for the person he claims was his root guru.

Additionally, all educators and experts in child behaviour say that, in a nutshell, if an adult finds themselves reduced to using violence against children, they have already lost all authority and respect they might have had. It has also been scientifically proven that motivating children through violence is counter-productive.

In the bigger picture, encouraging violence against Buddhist monks, whether they are children or adults, is utterly in contradiction to all Buddhist (and spiritual) teaching.

PY says violence against child-monks is correct and to be encouraged, in order to make his students feel that when he is violent with them, it is correct and to be expected. PY justifies his violence against his own students, and makes his students feel that PY’s violence is correct, and useful.

4. If you want to know what real, recognised and endorsed by proper authorities think of Peter Young’s methods of teaching martial arts, and the way PY abuses his students, please contact Master Lam Kam Chuen. Master Lam is originally from Hong Kong, as was PY. Master Lam has known, and known of, Peter Young for many years. Master Lam is very clear about the destructive outsomes of PY’s methods. (http://www.lamkamchuen.com)

Gaslighting

~ anon2727 ~ Leave a comment

Fallout from an initially trivial event amongst C-list celebrities in UK has brought to public light the set of abusive practices now known as “gaslighting”. This is very useful enlanguaging. There’s a clearly expressed article about it here:
[www.independent.co.uk]

“Ten years ago I’d never heard the term “gaslighting”. But I realised something wasn’t right when I began to believe the person telling me that my mind was betraying me. I hadn’t just been lied to, I’d systematically and consciously been manipulated into questioning my own cognisance, driven into a spiral of self-loathing and constant anxiety by the belief that my perceptions were irrational and wrong.“

“Gaslighting … is breaking down a person’s trust in their own mind – something so damaging it can take years to recover from. It’s a daily form of coercive manipulation designed to make someone so vulnerable and confused that they rely more on their abuser than on themselves. It exists in the same sphere of controlling behaviour as isolating someone from friends and family, making them entirely reliant on their [abuser]. A common form of gaslighting exists in the chillingly common abuser’s refrain: ‘You can’t leave me – no one will ever love you like I love you’.”

Gaslighting is Peter Young’s primary method at Pathgate.

What’s truly shocking is that Peter Young very openly forces people to question their own cognisance in this destructive way. He claims it is the only method that breaks down the “non-enlightened mind”, and thus open the enlightened mind. His victims believe this, decimating their own lives as a result.

The straightforward proof that this claim is a lie is: Peter Young uses fear and violence. Only someone who knows they are in the wrong, and seeks manipulative power over another, uses fear and violence. There is no need for fear and violence. That is the big lie. Objectively, in observable fact, across the world, throughout all recorded history, and today, in every field, fear and violence closes people off, shuts them down and reduces their capacity for development.

Someone who is working from good intent, and seeks another person’s liberation, uses positive reinforcement. This is scientifically true, psychologically true, pedagogically true, and spiritually true. The Buddha also constantly told his followers to listen to their own minds, and to very beware of those fakers who taught anything else.

Spiritual Narcissist

~ anon2727 ~ Leave a comment

This is a revealing article excerpted from Prophetic Charisma:
[sustainedaction.org]

From the stories I’ve heard Peter Young tell about himself, this article about how and why people become “gurus”, describes him accurately. Those who read it will understand, scientifically, precisely why to some people it really looks like PY has metanormal abilities … and that they are fake.

A few excerpts:

“The leader comprehends his environment ‘only as an extension of his own narcissistic universe,’ and he understands others ‘only insofar–but here with the keenest empathy!–as they can serve as tools toward his narcissistic ends’, … the main point is that the charismatic personality possesses an acute perception of the feelings and behaviors of others. Yet he is unable to truly empathize with them, to feel within himself some resonance with their feelings. He interprets what he observes … but not with any genuine opening of the heart. … Lacking empathic responsiveness, he relates his observations to his beliefs rather than to his feelings.”

“It is likely that in such persons the capacity for communication with another’s unconscious … makes them a superspecialist in understanding unconscious states, while at the same time limiting their ability to understand ordinary life. Psychoanalyst Helm Stierlin relates this ability to narcissism.”

“… narcissistic leaders are ‘superempathic’ with themselves … the leader is recognized as charismatic only by those whose needs he addresses and whose values he shares. … his superempathy with his self may appear as an extraordinary insight into the world as they know it.”

“He learns to focus on their hurts … and he urges them to identify their needs with his. … to melt them into his personality, bringing them and their actions under his control. … As his followers change, he may develop a steadily increasing contempt for them … .”

“He is sustained by his subjective heroics–he is a legend in his own mind–and he tends to perceive other people as types and clichés rather than as individuals. When they behave differently from how he wills, proving that they are not part of his self, he feels rejected and treats their behavior as a personal affront, a frightening and mysterious disturbance to his solipsistic universe. Thus the prophet suffers when his reality is exposed as fantasy.”

“The feeling is of watching a pattern of behavior that is consistent but strained … too persuasive and reassuring to be real. … as if, in needing to have an answer for everything in order to appear omniscient, the leaders had organized much of their personalities into bundles of memorized ‘response sets’ … At times he may be remote, at other moments powerfully present, and later still, just peculiar.”

All of PY’s victims (“students”) have witnessed for themselves how PY epitomises these last 3 paragraphs. Even his most fundamentalist followers would agree they describe him. In fact, if he read this, I think PY himself would absolutely agree this is an accurate description of him, and how he feels when anyone doesn’t obey his every command. To him, that pain he feels when he is not obeyed is proof of his godlike status. The worse he feels about the people around him, the more godlike he is. He really is a legend in his own mind! Donald Trump is another good example of this.

The old nursery rhyme: “I’m the king of the castle, and you’re the dirty rascal” comes to mind. Perhaps it resonates with children when they are developing through (natural) infant narcissism into healthy sense of self, what the article summarises as ” … reconcil[ing] the grandiosity of ‘Mommy and I are one’ with his need to achieve a secure … identity’. PY never developed beyond this nursery-rhyme-level of human interaction. He does not have a secure identity. That’s why he HAS TO constantly show everyone that he is the king of the castle, and why he HAS TO constantly show everyone that they are dirty rascals. This is a very good example of what the Buddhists identify as karma. PY literally cannot stop himself from doing this, due to the choices he has made in his life.

One can have compassion for such a stunted, pain-filled, fear-driven person; but also we need to recognise they are extremely dangerous to everyone around them. PY is a child in permanent tantrum, but with 60+ years of practice in making sure others share the torment of his internal experience. That sharing is what you really get for your money when you go to one of his teachings. He truly believes you deserve it.