Talk:Michael Roach (Buddhist)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello again,

The Dalai Lama has issued a simple and strong letter against mister Roach. You can read about it here: http://www.diamond-cutter.org/references/dalai-lama-private-office.html . If someone here values the Dalai Lama and wants to help those interested in the genuine Tibetan Buddhist tradition, please revise this entry to include this simple fact. I do not feel right to create a wikipedia user just for this.

Thanks,

gady b thaye.net


gady b , 15 of january, 2006

Hello.

I have little knowledge of the Tibetan BuddhaDharma, I know just a little bit of Tibetan, I am probably not really a Buddhist in the strict sense of the word, I cannot hold a candle to GMR's earlier activites, _however_:

  • it is essential to clearly and strongly include within the body of this article the various facts that point out that GMR, whatever his knowledge, numerous prior beneficial activities, and effect on people might be, is no longer in any way an authentic representative of Gelug Tibetan Buddhism or any other form of Tibetan Buddhism for that matter. I refer you to:

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=9832&hl= for substantial evidence, a thread in which quite a few serious people have contributed some points and criticisms which cannot be evaded or denied.

  • I have no idea why he has not been publicly and explicitly banished from the Tibetan Buddhist world by senior teachers, perhaps because he was instrumental in spreading the Tibetan Buddhadharma in the west in earlier days, but it is clear for all non-deluded knowledgeable people to see that his activites nowadays point out that any connection between him and the authentic teachings and tradition is merely a new age westernized watered down and distorted version of things, to say the least.
  • The simple fact that he claims to be a monk, yet engages in consort practice (apparently possible but only for extremely advanced practitioners, very unlikely, and not common practice to admit it even if you are abiding by the extraordinarily difficult prerequisites), that he mixes elements of hindu yogas, which might be beneficial in themselves but in strict contradiction to the purity of this particular tradition when claiming to present it authentically, his bizarre comments on christianity, spiritual relationships and similar things that are supposedly backed up by his (wildly distorting) versions of landmark texts, etc.
  • I am absolutely no authority, but there are people far more serious and dedicated than me who can easily attest to these points. We are in the process of submitting a letter to Gelug authorities, hopefully once they recognize the extent of the damage his behaviour does to this profound millenium (and more) old tradition, they will publicly disconnect from him.
  • be his status as a new age self-styled guru as it may, the public association of him with true Tibetan Buddhism should be severed from the root.
  • people should not be misled by manipulative rhethoric suggesting his unconventional activities are actually enlightened, that is a pathetic excuse. I have had some dealings with disciples of his, and while some of them are truly wonderful and precious human beings in my eyes, the sharp aroma of what seem like toxic narcissism and brain washing is hard to ignore, and what these people claim to be Buddhism is ridiculous.
  • I have mellowed down my tone to a considerable extent, so people will not be offended by what may seem like a bad attitude, while actually behind his smiles he is the one who is perpetrating vast damage on this precious, sublime, profound and rare treasure of world heritage. The depths of shock this issue is causing to many of the most serious and dedicated practitioners and, perhaps more importantly, the effects it has on people who are sadly not well versed in these matters and are deluded into thinking these are the true teachings of Tibetan Buddhism are very sad indeed.
  • wikipedia has tremendous potential, but is still in its infancy regarding quality assurance. This is my first ever post here, in an effort to put things in perspective, dealing with a world which I humbly supremely cherish.

sincerely,

gady b (I will check this page for feedback).

Hi. Feel free to improve the article and make it better. Kt66 21:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank You, but I think while I can quite easily detect a blatant fraud, someone more knowledgeable should put things in perspective on the page itself. - gady b
Yes a good decision. So we will see. For the interested reader there is the link on controversies if this will take to much time. Kt66 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Critical Links

Is there anything wrong to put this link in the article? Kt66 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The web page you're citing here is a personal web site put up by someone who wants to create controversy about Geshe Michael Roach. I don't know if it's appropriate to refer to it here or not, but my inclination is to suggest that it is not. If you read the Wikipedia guidelines, they give very specific guidelines about what kind of web pages to use as source material. In general, it's considered acceptable to use a web page written by a person or organization as a secondary source in an article about that person. When writing about a person or organization, the guidelines say that you shouldn't use a web page written by another person or organization.

Having said that, if you look at George W. Bush's wikipedia entry, there are links to external articles critical of Bush. There is a link on His Holiness the Dalai Lama's web site to a web page written with a distinctly pro-Chinese slant. On the one hand, seeing both sides of a controversy is generally a good thing - it helps to keep our minds flexible and avoid dogmatism. On the other hand, it would be nice if the sites in question were at least rigorously researched, well thought-out, and based on documented facts, not hearsay and innuendo.

My experience reading the diamond-cutter.org site is that it meets none of these standards - the author or authors clearly have some working knowledge of Buddhism, but they report many things as true that I know for a fact to be false (all of them seem like honest errors, not deliberate misinformation). They advance arguments in a monastic context that are refuted by widely-used monastic texts from that same context. Many statements are made that are literally hearsay, and implications are made based on facts in a way that I would describe as innuendo. So it would be nice, if there needs to be some critical discussion of Geshe Michael, if that discussion were better grounded in fact and scripture, and if there were no hearsay and innuendo.

In the interests of full disclosure, I will point out that I am a student of Geshe Michael's, and that I am not the person who deleted the references to the page (if I were, why hide my name when doing the deletions and yet reveal it now?). --Ted Lemon 20:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ted. The tone of the site wasn't nice but the facts are true. So in Wikipedia it is common to mention controversies neutral. And it is true that Geshe Michael can't be named as a monk if he had only one time sexual intercourse. In the monent you have done this you lost the vow of a monk - completely. This is the Vinaya this was taught by Atisha and Tsongkhapa, this is his tradition. So either we work this in the article or we leave the link there. Because for a balanced view there has to be minimum a remark on that. Kt66 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Kt66. You say that the facts are true, but the "facts" are hearsay. The teachings you refer to are a carefully selected and very small subset of the full teachings that are given. Tantra is secret, not meant to be discussed in public, and of necessity therefore the only sources you can cite are compromised, in the sense either that they are incomplete, because the Lamas who wrote them were aiming them for a non-tantra audience, or they are written by persons who are not practicing tantra, and thus aren't qualified to speak about it. The Vinaya teachings, and the teaching by Lord Atisha to which you refer, are sutra teachings, not tantra teachings. It is very much traditional that sutra leads up to tantra, not that tantra leads down to sutra. So using a sutra text to make assertions about what is or is not true about tantra is simply misguided.
Hi Ted. I'm very sorry for you, the facts are not hearsay for me, perhaps they are hearsay for you. I myself shared teachings of him and checked it out. What the critical site says to that I can completely agree. I don't agree to the tone of the site but the facts. GMR enjoys in sex. intercourse and that's why he isn't a monk anymore. This is quite easy. Tsongkhapa wrote more on Tantra than on Sutra and also Atisha was a tantric adept, nevertheless they kept the Vinaya and emphasised it and gave the example of not doing like GMR has done now. Tsongkhapa hadn't any consort allthough he was surely higher realiesed than GMR. He showed the example how to attain Buddhahood in the Bardo. If you look to the history both emphasised the celebacy not that monks later get consorts..??!! - this is a compeltely distorted idea. But if you have attained a very high level at the Bodhisattva Bhumis (the 10th!) and you can control all the inner winds, there you must (once) rely to a consort to control these, but than you have to give back the robes. When you say Tantra is secret this is true, but this rule is also violated by GMR, because he says he sees Vajarayogini and the like... I think he has a misunderstanding of emptiness and created his own world and his naive students follow this. They can do because everyone is free. However a critical link or a critical remark I see as ness. in the Wikipedia article, yours Kt66 12:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
KT, a couple of points. First, you make assertions about Geshe Michael's sex life. These are classic hearsay. Have you had intercourse with Geshe Michael? Have you watched as Geshe Michael has had intercourse? If not, why are you asserting that he engages in this practice? It's hearsay. I don't mean to say that your thoughts and feelings on this matter are not valid - for you they are, and you need to work through them. Whether your conclusion is that Geshe Michael is bad or Geshe Michael is good is immaterial in this context, though. It's fine for you to go through this process on your own, but in order for you to publicize it in a wikipedia entry, it needs to be the case that someone reputable is saying these things. No-one reputable is saying these things. The web site to which you insist on linking is run anonymously - the domain registration is deliberately, at some cost, anonymized. The people making these assertions on the web site do so anonymously. This is the diametric opposite of "reputable." You yourself are too shy to even state your name here - you are just kt66. And yet you want your opinions to receive a worldwide audience.--Ted Lemon 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ted. Ok I see you think I make assertions and all this is hearasay. This is funny for me. It is quite more funny how you ignore the facts and can conclude that my "thoughts and feelings on this matter are not valid". Today I phoned with a regognized authority in Buddhism and asked him to this. This authority warned me three years ago, that he thinks GMR has gone crazy, because he has a consort which he names "my angel" and what GMR himself put on his internetsite - he was freely telling that he has a consort and what he "practice" with her and that he has great attainments, is a Boddhisattva and that he sees everywhere Vajrayogini - in this manner. After this I downloaded the PDF files of his own internetsite and read it - and I agreed: quite strange what he was telling. I can pass these files to you if you didn't read it yet. And if you look more deeply GMR asked HH the Dalai Lama, his teacher Khen Rinpoche Lobsang Tharchin and Lama Zopa Rinpoche that he is a great yogi. He asked for a statement on this. The first two didn't reply at all. Lama Zopa advised to act like the nun which was wrongly accused for breaking her vows: she shopped off her head and said: if I have broken my vows, than my head shouldn't return to the course otherwise it should. - The mentioned Buddhist Authority I asked on that said: This was quite skillfull of Lama Zopa Rinpoche, because he showed what realisations one should have acting like GMR. This Buddhist Authority said also he thinks why Sera Monastery gave his support to GMR is, that he supports with many money Sera Mey. So you see not only me and some see GMR approach controversial. By the way I'm a buddhist monk myself and I asked also another monk: he said the content of the diamond-cutter.org site he agrees to but not the tone. I see it in the same way. I do not know if you are really Ted Lemon, so it doesn't matter, what name I put here in. I will stay anonymous because I have Dharma friends who follow GMR and I want not disturb our relations. I put this informations here for the interested newcomer, who will get confused about what Buddhism is and how GMR acts. Ok Ted tell me why GMR didn't loose his monk vows while having a consort - by the way they have sex. intercourse, she herself discribed at GMR internetsite (pdf file interview) how the mala changed the neck when they made the "ritual". And even GMR himself is telling: if monks have experience they go to the Tantra College and have a girlfriend. And he indroduces her as his girlfriend in the public- really if this is not strange and you are not able to recognize this, I'm a little bit concerned about you. If there is a need I will cite his own comments on that which he gave in public so there is no need to argue with "secrets". Normally I would like to avoid that, but if you can not accept the link in the article I will discuss this here. Why not. So we can proof all this. So please you have now to put your argument: "thoughts and feelings on this matter are not valid" also to the mentioned buddhist authority and the other monk. Wish you the best, Kt66 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
by the way Tibetans don't talk in the public about this. They talk to each other privately. So you will not get an official statement. I do talk in the public, because he uses the public medias and this article is public. Less people can ask Tibetans about GMR. So thats why I put the link in the article to give the opportunity to have a balanced view. Kt66 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Kt, the burden is not on me to prove my point, because the only point I'm making here is that you haven't proven your point. You don't give references. You seem very confused. You refer to people you've talked to on the phone, but you don't say who. You say you're a monk, as if somehow that means that what you say is correct. Since I can't verify that you're a monk, even if I accepted that merely being a monk was sufficient to give you the authority to make the assertions you are making, you still wouldn't have that authority, because you haven't said who you are.
It is true that Geshe Michael introduces Christie-hla as his spiritual partner. I've seen them teach together. A lot. I can certainly verify that this is true. I don't think I've ever heard him refer to her as his "girlfriend." I've never witnessed them engaging in any of the activities that you've asserted here that they engage in. Indeed I've never seen them engage in any activity that didn't seem, to my limited knowledge, to have a wish to help others as its basis. Perhaps what holds your Tibetan friends back from saying unkind things about Geshe Michael in public is precisely this - they would be ashamed to be heard saying such things about someone who, to the best of my knowledge, which I admit is limited, appears to spend every waking hour helping others.
Also, please read what I said before more carefully. I said that your thoughts and feelings are valid, not that they are not. What I said your thoughts and feelings aren't is proof of anything. Since what you are saying isn't verifiable, it's not right for you to say it here, even though it is valid for you to think it and to be concerned about it.
As for whether or not I am Ted Lemon, if you have friends who are students of Geshe Michael, they know me. Ask them to confirm with me that it is me, Ted Lemon, who is writing this here. I will probably be seeing your friends on Monday, when the next Diamond Mountain term begins.--Ted Lemon 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ted, first I excuse myself, you’re right, I didn’t read well, you said the opposite about the validity of "my" feelings than I understood. So please excuse me in that point for my wrong understanding and false accusation.
You say for pointing out the controversial points there “it needs to be the case that someone reputable is saying these things”. This I can not agree allthough it can be helpful. The authority comes by knowing the scriptures, having some understanding and experience of the Dharma and use the own common sense: We don’t need that much an outer authority we need more understanding on these points from the perspective of the Dharma. Outer authorities can give us that understanding. If it helps you, my name is Lobsang Gelek I follow the same tradition as GMR does. The scholar authority I mentioned I keep secret because he never wants to be involved in any conflict and I accept this, nevertheless he gave me an answer and agreed what I think on that. Everyone has to check himself and can use his Dharma understanding, his common sense and ask authorities in that.
You said:
“Kt, the burden is not on me to prove my point, because the only point I'm making here is that you haven't proven your point.” Sorry I have proof my points as stated yet and as mentioned before me was advised to proof this by one of my Buddhist Teacher three years ago. He advised to check out this behaviour of GMR because I thought to build up a relation to GMR. He knew that and asked me to be carefully. But I can agree if we would say: “Kt, the burden is not on us to prove our points, because the only point we’re making here is that Buddhist newcomers haven't proven their points – and they are advised to do so.”
As for the activities of GMR and his “angel” perhaps I will publish the given Interview of him and Christy if needed. The interview is 25 pages long but gives a good inside to that stuff. But before doing so I add a letter of Lama Zopa Rinpoche written to GMR and published at GMR own site:

Letter of Lama Zopa Rinpoche to Geshe Michael Roach

Dear Geshe Michael, This is my response to your letter. This is what I think if I can express. If your conduct will be the way you explained in the letter then it will not be normal from the monasteries point of view or according to the monasteries point of view.

Where the need is more important than what is to abandoned (gagcha le skyang gopa chewa) along with that one should be able to perform other miracle powers, show control or freedom like Milarepa or like any of those yogi’s such as Dukpa Kunleg , then in this way people can see the realizations and power and so devotion grows in them. Even they have mistaken appearance, people see their special qualities of showing control and high realizations, in this way seeing the mistakes does not destroy peoples faith and instead they see only qualities.

An example is Gelongma Palmo – she had leprosy in her left hand and it was about to fall off then she was advised by King Indrabodhi to go to the place where om mani padme hum naturally appeared on the rock. After she achieved Chenrezig she had the appearance of a 16 year old girl with a very beautiful body and she stayed close to the 17 monastery so a lot of people thought she didn’t have her vows and she received a lot of criticism from the people in the city.

(It seems this place is in Nepal where there is this naturally appearing mantra on the rock, which is the manifestation of Chenrezig’s holy speech (Chenrezig’s 6 syllable mantra). I read her story and I had interest to find this place, where there is this mantra naturally appearing on the rock, for it to be known and for it to be an incredible source of inspiration. This way people collect virtue and especially can generate bodhichitta. It seems generally people now days don’t know where the place is. The knowledge of where it is has not been kept from ancient time. The story is there but the knowledge where it is, is lost. I heard that it is one of the high mountains around Katmandu, a place where only sadhus live. Maybe due to pollution the mantra disappeared from the rock, or maybe there is no more purpose for the mantra to be on the rock, it could be either way or it could be both. The mantra disappeared from the rock and manifested on a mushroom that grew nearby. That mushroom was taken to Dharamsala and it was offered to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It is in His Holiness’s temple today.

Khadroma - the oracle of Tsering ChenGna who lives in Dharamsala (Tsering ChenGna is part of the 5 long deity sister goddess). Publicly Khadroma is viewed as an oracle; of course she is not just that, she is someone in reality very highly attained or enlightened. When she made pilgrimage to Nepal she visited the very high mountain called Lhangru LuLungta and on that mountain there is Nagarjuna’s cave. She actually saw red Chenrezig in the cave and from red Chenrezig’s heart the syllable (or mantra) in essence red light went from there to Dharamsala and absorbed into the mushroom in His Holiness’s temple (which has om mani padme hum on it). Later when she returned to Dharamsala she saw the mushroom in His Holiness’s temple. This is just a side story, I am hoping to get this mushroom from His Holiness to put inside the Maitreya statue.

Gelongma Palmo in order to destroy the heresy of the people of the city who believed she had broken her vows and to inspire them and bring them to enlightenment, she cut off her head and put it on a spear and danced in space and said “if it is true that I am not pure, not a fully ordained nun then my head should not come back, if it is true that I am pure then my head should come back”. Then her head came back on her body, like before, and that proved to the people in the city, the words of the truth. The head from the spear came back to her body as before, so everybody in the city completely believed that she did not have any mistakes and is pure, destroying all their wrong views and heresy and this caused them to have incredible devotion to her. She became Dorje Phagmo Geshe Lama Konchog said secretly she is Dorje Phagmo who has cut off her head and carrying the spear. Outwardly she is Gelongma Palmo.

Just to clarify I don’t mean you have to be enlightened to do that kind of conduct, it might seem that way from the story but all it means is having high realizations and showing to others through external miracle powers. Of course I don’t mean only external miracle powers, because even Hindus can have that. By showing miracle powers then other people can generate devotion and non heresy by seeing the miracle power, something external, then they can have faith in high realizations seeing that you have control and are free and whatever conduct you do does not have the stain of samsara.

If one performs those behaviors to develop people’s devotion then it is not just an ordinary miracle that is needed, one needs to do a special kind of miracle, for example the 6th Dalai Lama pee-ed from the top of the Potala and just before the urine hit the ground he drew it back again inside his vajra. Also there is the story of the previous incarnation of Gonsar Rinpoche he pulled in mud through his vajra. This is just my suggestion I don’t know what other Lama’s and Guru’s will advise. With much love and prayers, Lama Zopa

my everyone prove himself. Kt66 11:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lama Zopa has a marvelous sense of humor. And what he said at the beginning is correct. Geshe Michael is not a normal Lama. I think we can all agree on that. You seem to think he's unusual in a bad way; I think he's unusual in a good way.
You knowing the scriptures as you know them is valid for you. You knowing the scriptures as you know them is immaterial to me. What matters in a debate is that we make a logical assertion, and we back that assertion up with reasons on which both you and I agree. If we don't agree on a reason, then we have to figure out why, and either prove or disprove that reason. So in order to debate, or really to have any meaningful conversation at all, the debate or conversation has to be based on points of scripture and points of personal experience on which we agree.
You have a view of the scripture with which I agree on many points, and disagree on some. Your impression based on your personal experience is likewise different than mine, even though we have both read the same documents and perhaps met and talked to the same people. It may be that my understanding of the scripture is wrong, and yours is right. It may also be that my understanding of what is going on is wrong, and yours is right.
But in order for you to convince me of that, you need to present logical arguments that follow the basic rules of logical reasoning. You can't just make assertions and then express shock and amazement when the assertions you make do not sway me. Well, you can, but that amounts to using me as a conversational foil, which is at the very least impolite, and certainly not consistent with my understanding of proper monastic behavior regarding idle speech, nor proper behavior toward a teacher according to the vows of the greater vehicle.
When you are advancing a logical argument before an audience, as is the case here, it behooves you to follow the ground rules that are established for presenting such arguments in this context. The rules for what ought to go into a wikipedia entry are very clear and easy to follow. You've specifically stated that you don't agree with some of them. To advance your position here, in contravention of the ground rules for writing articles here, and further to publicly state that you do not respect those rules, again strikes me as contrary to proper behavior for anyone with any kind of vows, whether lay or monk vows.
You asked here if there was anything wrong with putting up a link to the bash site for Geshe Michael. I gave you what I think was a fairly thoughtful and balanced response. You have subsequently filled this talk page with further verbiage from the bash site, rather than speaking to the appropriateness of your behavior here. You have even cut-and-pasted copyrighted material here. A big hunk of it! My only goal in having this conversation was to help you answer the question that you asked. I seem to have failed to help you. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Please don't feel that you need to respond to this further on my account. The greater wikipedia community would probably love to be quit of this ongoing spamfest.--Ted Lemon 04:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ted, my last reply to you. What you say "sounds" good. But it seems to me using Dharmawords to whitewash critical thinking and common sense. Mainly you based your opinion here about that the site is hearsay. I replied that it is not if you look at the monsatic vows he has broken by using a consort and is therefore no monk anymore. This is one of the main points at that site. Than you argued with Tantra and hidden and Sutra ideas to establish the idea that GMR is practicing higher than Sutra and thereby we can not look on him with Sutra understanding. After I replied that GMR himself uses Tantra not secret and is talking in public about his Tantra Experience and added as the clear different example Tsongkhapa and Atisha once more, you could only insist on an buddhist authority. So I added it. I think we had a kind of conversation and that is quite fine. All the best yous, Kt66 12:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse

I said "GMR has broken his monks vows by using a consort". This impression arised when I read his and Christy Mc Nelly 25 pages interview published on his own site. This interview gave me the clear impression that they do what should not be done by a monk. They told in that interview that this is no fun, because it is difficult to get the wind in the central channel and Christy (he named her his "angel") told how the Mala prayer string moved mysterious from his to her neck without touching it while this activity to get the winds in the central channel. This description gave me the impression that they do what should not be done by a monk. Perhaps my impresssion is wrong and of course I saw it not myself. So if my impresssion is wrong, my arguments are wrong, then I falsely accused a monk, if this is so I accuse by heart for it and enjoy if somebody correct me and give me proper information. Who can do this? Kt66 23:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious Michael Roach could not perform miracles in order to authenticate his own claimed bodhisatva status. That means, he is purely a liar, else show it! It is also clear that Michael is hiding behind the academic debate of "WHAT-IF". If your behavior is wrong, then it is wrong and you are not worthy of respect as a holder of phd in divinity of Tibetan Buddhism. But you can claim who you are. At least, forget using the title "GESHE IN TIBETAN BUDDHISM". Such a disgrace!