Talk:Michael Roach (Buddhist)/Archive 2

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.

Contents

Discussion

I don't see any point in removing the discussion here - I think it speaks for itself. What I would suggest is that while you may sincerely hold the views that you hold, it is quite clear that you have an axe to grind. Very little in this article is backed up by any kind of primary source, and certainly the final paragraph is not. I personally think that it would be better for all concerned if this article were removed. However, if it is retained, it should at least conform to the standards of a wikipedia biography article - in particular, any libelous comments should be removed, and what is stated in the article should be backed up by references to primary source material. The article must not itself stand as primary source material, and also it must not use as primary source material web pages that are put up by bash groups.

Cheers

Ted Lemon

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes all content, e.g. illustrations, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.209.129 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure why the rest of this discussion was removed by the previous editor. I'm writing this now because I've made a change to the final paragraph of this article. I personally find the scholarship of this entire article questionable, since no references are given. Frankly, the final paragraph of this article seems out of place with the previous two. However, it seems unlikely that removing this paragraph entirely will work, since there are edit warriors waiting in the wings to put it back whenever it is removed.

I happen to have been in Dharamsala and Palampur at the time of the incident mentioned in the paragraph as it now stands, so I know that what is said there is at least an accurate rendition of what I was told happened by people who were present, and it's also in keeping with the letter that's quoted on the diamond-cutter site (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the letter, and much of what is said on that page contradicts what I know of the facts, but several people I've talked to say that the letter itself is perhaps legitimate).

The additional text that I removed is not backed up by any references at all, not even the supposed letter from His Holiness' office, and therefore does not belong in a wikipedia article. Since this article actually has no references to primary sources, it probably doesn't belong here anyway. Ted Lemon 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The valid reason is that contributors are unnecessarily bashing someone, and presenting it as fact. As if this resource was akin to an encyclopedia. As children we were raised to open encyclopedias as a resource for fact. Yet this page has become a forum for opinion. And it is not even offered as opinion - it is presented as truth. To pass moral judgments and post them as objective truth seems puritanical and dangerous. If this site is going to gain popular acceptance, editorial comments must be kept out. However, when a reader finds internet graffiti regarding someone they respect and admire, we are obliged to protest.
Therefore, in order to comply with that recommendation, each time we post about negative information (someone breaking vows) we should represent the view fairly by including a postive (supports monasteries, gives teachings away for free). This would not only be proper, it would be good mind training. In order to preserve that sense of fairness I have included an article on negative transferance in the link section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.209.129 (talk • contribs)

Talk page guidelines

68.56.209.129, please read WP:TPG. You seem to be missing several points about how to communicate on a talk page:

  1. Do not remove any text, either yours or anyone else's.
  2. Always put your response below the full message you are replying to. Do not add text in the middle of someone else's comment.
  3. Use indentation. To indent, add one more colon to the beginning of each paragraph than the person you are replying to.
  4. Sign your messages with ~~~~, which will add your user name or IP address and the time.
  5. Please consider creating an account if you want to be part of the effort to work on and improve this article. People who edit without an account are frequently taken less seriously and their edits may be reverted or considered vandalism.

Hope this helps you communicate more effectively on WP. Ekajati 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


no reason to hide the critics on GMR

Hi there! It is mere a joke even to delete the link to the controversies related to him. The link lists as well statements (interviews, letters) given by GMR and HH the Dalai Lama. Please let the link there. Also it should be put in the article that there exists controversies about his lifestyle, this is WP Guideline. Please do not handle with controversies as the New Kadampa Tradition is used to do. Many Regards, Kt66 17:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in Michael Roach and am not trying to hide anything. Please read WP:LIVING - all negative or critical material about living persons must be impeccably cited. Web sites created by critics are generally not acceptable as sources. Please give citations to printed books and journals. Again, read WP:LIVING and try to observe it. Ekajati 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the policy which is applicable to the website in question:
"Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."
I think that is clear enough. Criticism and controversy may of course be reported, but require highly reliable sources such as published books and academic journals or other materials which undergo editorial verification. Ekajati 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you very much for improving the article. It says:

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. this will not fit to the website I think (it lists different sources and also uses published material of GMR). What reason is there that the website is "solely partisan or obscure or derogatory"? At the time there may be no "published books and academic journals" but it is obvious that there is this controversy and that his behaviour contradicts the Pratimoksha/Vinaya. Just look at the foto and the rules. The WP guidlines are not for misusing to avoid critic. If it lists he is a buddhist monk and he acts the opposite it can be mentioned. By the way where you have found the WP guideline: Web sites created by critics are generally not acceptable as sources.? --Kt66 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ekajati. I think you can now agree just to put the self statements of him and what he puplished himself. This will avoid long discussions I think. For people who are interested in further views, they can follow the Alternative View Link. Thank you for your care and work, --Kt66 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

angel topic

Better, but I've had to reduce it a bit. Nowhere do you introduce a factual account that the woman was acting as a sexual consort. So I removed all the material that assumes that. The poem states that he worked with her "in the proper way" - it is perfectly possible in Vajrayana to use visualization and other methods of working with a partner which stop short of actual sex. You will have to find a reference in print in a book from a reputable publisher or academic journal which explicitly states what you claim. said by Ekajati
if it is visualized why he needs to have Christy McNelly and defending his behaviour? Speaking of her as his "angel"? In the interview he never refused that she is his consort. I myself heard from him speaking as a "dream wife"... See interview below. --Kt66 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
nothing is there about sexual consort, but of course we can not work without facts, so I will use his word "angel". When GMR stated he worked with her in a "proper way" then the question is; what he means with that? As a monk you should not even stay alone in a room with a woman together, not to speak of doing Yoga or "physical exercices" which both discribed as painful...I cite the interview:
Geshe Michael Roach:...But the gross physical act for me, I don’t think it’s disgusting or dirty or something like that, but it’s not interesting for me at all. You know, I don’t have any, it’s not something uplifting or it’s not an inspiring thing to do. I believe the sexual energy is exp…
Christy McNelly: yeah, powerful.
GMR in the interview elsewhere: Lots of injuries and hard days, and the heat is incredible. We had two very fine teachers coming and training us during the break times. People tend to focus on physical union, but 99% is, I mean the ballet is very typical. Your body has to be extremely well trained to even consider these things.
About what he is talking? --Kt66 07:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Angel & sources

If you can find such a source, I can counter with sources that many high lamas, such as Kalu Rinpoche, have worked with consorts and that it is actually quite common for lamas to do so in secret. Roach's trespass here from the point of view of tradition would only be the act of being honest about it rather than hiding it as is traditionally done. said by Ekajati
This with Kalu Rinpoche is hearsay, was told me by Dr. Alex Berzin; he said he was really to old to do that. It is not common at all. See the biografy of Tsongkhapa: he did the complete opposite he never had a consort he emphasized celebacy of course! Or just listen to HH the Dalai Lama - who is regarded as a genuine teacher:
"According to our tradition, we are monastics and are celibate, and we practice the Tantrayana simultaneously. But the way of practice is through visualization. For example, we visualize the consort, but we never touch. We never implement this in actual practice. Unless we have reached a stage where we have completely developed the power to control all our energy and have gained the correct understanding of sunya (emptiness, reality), unless we truly possess all the faculties through which those negative emotions can be transformed into positive energy, we never implement practice with an actual consort. Although we practice all the higher practices, as far as implementation is concerned, we follow Vinaya. We never follow according to Tantrayana. We can't drink blood!! (everyone laughs). In terms of actual practice, we have to follow the stricter discipline of Vinaya. In ancient India, one of the reasons for the degeneration of the Buddhadharma was the wrong implementation of certain tantric explanations." -from "Life as a Western Buddhist Nun Conference", Dharamsala, India, March 4th 1996
"As far as my own understanding goes, the two claims—that you are not subject to precepts and you are free — these are the result of incorrect understanding. Even though one's realization may be higher than the high beings one's behavior should conform to the human way of life. Criticize openly. That's the only way. The fact that the teacher may have done many other good things should not keep us silent." HHDL
Listen to Lama Zopa Rinpoche too...who said: 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.--Kt66 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Roach's trespass here from the point of view of tradition would only be the act of being honest about it rather than hiding it as is traditionally done. said by Ekajati.
OK let's listen the traditional point of view:
Ordained Bodhisattvas may under no circumstances engage in sexual intercourse...
the text on the Bodhisattva Ethics goes on: Why may an ordained Bodhisattva never engage in sexual misconduct but may kill, steal or lie, since these are surely all defeats of the individual liberation vow? A defeat of the individual liberation vow is created the moment orgasm is experienced as a result of sexual intercourse, while in the case of the other activities, various factors must be present for the action to constitute a defeat. When a Bodhisattva who holds the individual liberation vow undertakes any of the other actions, these decisive factors must not be present and the ac¬tion must never constitute an actual defeat. For example, Bodhisattvas may never steal for their own benefit but may steal for the benefit of others. If an ordained Bodhisattva is in a position where sexual intercourse for another's benefit is unavoidable, the Bodhisattva must first give back the individual liberation vow and thereby become a lay person. These guidelines apply to ordinary Bodhisattvas—those on the paths of accumulation and preparation—who have the altruistic intention, hold the vow and are working for others through intensive practice of the six perfections. These Bodhisattvas have so much familiarity with their practice, gained throughout many previous aeons, that they are able to maintain a completely pure and virtuous state of mind from the preparation right through to the conclusion of any so-called negative action. Bodhisattvas may only perform such actions when they will be of great benefit to others, when no alternative means are available and no other person could perform the action. Strict criteria always apply and holding the Bodhisattva vow is never an excuse for in discriminate conduct. The higher vows do not purify any transgressions of the individual liberation vow nor is the tantric vow an excuse for unethical behavior which pollutes the Buddha's teaching. - Geshe Sonam Rinchen a well known genuine teacher in his commentary on the Bodhisattva vows (Snow Lion Publications, The Bodhisattva Vow, page 141,142, ISBN 1559391502)
Geshe Sonam Rinchen: If an ordained Bodhisattva is in a position where sexual intercourse for another's benefit is unavoidable, the Bodhisattva must first give back the individual liberation vow and thereby become a lay person.
in the interview with GMR he is asked: So because it must create confusion for people, I mean, it will create confusion for people... I mean, you’re a monk; you’re wearing robes, on the one hand, you’re a monk. You’re in the Gelukpa tradition, which has its own… I mean there’s the Sakya and the Kagyu and sometimes they wear robes, and they’re with women, and then people say, “Oh no they’re not really monks. They’re doing something else…” Now this is just going to create another level of confusion that requires clarification just upon first sight of you and how you represent the teachings. So how, I mean why stay a monk?
Geshe Michael Roach answers: When I took my monk’s vows, I swore: “Jisi tsoi bardu” means until the day I die, I’ll keep my vows. So on the one hand, I can’t give up those vows. I swore to keep them for my whole life. Secondly those vows are the power. Having kept those vows for my whole life. Pretty well, I mean no one’s perfect, right? But I’ve never broken them in a serious way. Having kept them carefully my whole life is why, is the only reason this practice has come to me. I didn’t ask for this practice. I prayed constantly for Vajra Yogini to come to me. One of the first things she taught me was to pray for her to come and stay with me. And I did that for years, every night before I went to bed. And so it’s the power of having kept my vows that in my perception has brought her to me, and to break them then is crazy. It’s the foundation of all accomplishments. It’s the goal of all mahayana monks who have tantric initiation to have Vajra Yogini come to you and teach you directly. That’s the goal of becoming an ordained person.
Geshe Michael Roach in that interview at another place: but if one emanation of Vajra Yogini told me that I should disrobe, I wouldn’t take it as literal, and I would never disrobe.
The difference here from the point of view of tradition
Tsongkhapas monks behaviour is seen as faultless:
"Tsongkhapa died at Ganden in 1419, at the age of 62. He attained enlightenment after his death by achieving an illusory body (sgyu-lus) instead of bardo. This was to emphasize the need for monks to follow strict celibacy, since enlightenment in this lifetime requires practice with a consort at least once." see Biografy of Tsongkhapa by Alexander Berzin
All together: My feeling is to justify GMR's behaviour he and his followers have no sense of shame to corrupt and discredit the buddhist monastic order. This is my feeling and this is what I with a great sense of shame and a deep feeling of embarrassing directly saw and hear from him in person by a public teaching. It is very pity. And because his behaviour is clearly seen as controversial - which is even accepted by him - it should be mentioned in the article with a further link. However, these are my last contributions. I can not spend my time in this way. All sources I used are reliable sources. That GMR and Christy Mc Nelly's and their followers sayings about Buddhism and the Buddhist Ethics are reliable is not guaranteed. Where there are people who find this good what GMR does and says, it is their choice.
Je Tsongkhapa warns on faulty Gurus, citing the Ornament for the Essence:
Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the three vows,
who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma,
and who engage in actions that should be forsaken.
Those who worship them go to hell and so on as a result.
(see Tantric Ethics: An Explanation of the Precepts for Buddhist Vajrayana Practice by Tsongkhapa, ISBN 0861712900)
I conclude with HH the Dalai Lama and a conference of Western Teacher (GMR was missing there):
5. Particular concern was expressed about unethical conduct among teachers. In recent years both Asian and Western teachers have been involved in scandals concerning sexual misconduct with their students, abuse of alcohol and drugs, misappropriation of funds, and misuse of power.
This has resulted in widespread damage both to the Buddhist community and to individual involved. Each student must be encouraged to take responsible measures to confront teachers with unethical aspects of their conduct. If the teacher shows no sign of reform, students should not hesitate to publicize any unethical behavior of which there is irrefutable evidence. This should be done irrespective of other beneficial aspects of his or her work and of one's spiritual commitment to that teacher.
It should also be made clear in any publicity that such conduct is not in conformity with Buddhist teachings. No matter what level of spiritual attainment a teacher has, or claims to have, reached, no person can stand above the norm of ethical conduct. In order for the Buddha dharma not to be brought into disrepute and to avoid harm to students and teachers, it is necessary that all teachers at least live by the five lay percepts. In cases where ethical standards have been infringed, compassion and care should be shown towards both teacher and student.
(see: Open Letter to the Buddhist Community)
Take care, --Kt66 07:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

no reason to hide the critics on GMR - continue

Again, the website is partisan - it was specifically created to give a negative view of the subject, as and such, cannot be linked to. Of course, you may use any of the sources they refer to, as long as they are neutral rather than partisan, or vetted by having been published by a reputable publisher. The burden is on you to find suitable sources and cite them in order to meet WP:LIVING, which is non-negotiable.
If you find it parsian you can say this. But perhaps you see it as parsian because you are parsian too? It would be good to give reasons, why the website fulfills the criteria of
Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.
so what concrete is "solely partisan or obscure or derogatory"?
The article is also parsian because it offers just what GMR view is and that of his followers. So we have to delete the article too, is it? The website offers what it says: a different view and documents to it. I will revert some passages which you deleted, because they have sources. See the interview below it is not in contradiction of what GMR says. If we do not come to a conclusion with the link (which I will readd once more) we can ask a WP Admin or stuard. Thank you, --Kt66 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you've done so far though. :-) Ekajati 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)




Contradictions about his claims of having realised emptiness with 22

If GMR has realised the unconditioned, the ultimate truth, he is indeed a holy being from buddhist point of view, because he is quite free from gross mental afflictions (skt: Klesha). With such a realisation he is extraordinary. However, according to the Vinaya and Pratimoksha such realisations should never be expressed to laypersons. According to the Vinaya and Pratimoksha, which he has to follow because he is a monk, he should have NO close relation to ANY woman (except his mother or sister/family), no close contact and the like. However, when he is a holy being the sign is, that he has no gross mental afflictions (negative, disturbing states of mind) or can easily overcome it. This is contadictionary to what he told about his feelings, as he discribed it:

The Diamond Mountain, University & Retreat Center, PO Box 190, St. David, AZ 85630, USA published the following letter in 2003:

16 January, 2003
Dear friend:
As the three-year retreat here at Diamond Mountain enters its final months, we have received the following message from Geshe Michael Roach, which he asked to be relayed to you. He says that perhaps the most significant spiritual realization he can claim from the whole experience is that he has come to see what a big head he had gotten in the years before retreat, due to all the attention of people attending his talks and so on. He has also been confronted with his pride and arrogance, envy and competitive feelings, especially towards his fellow Dharma students and other western Dharma teachers. And he has come to see how badly he failed in working together with others like yourself, and in taking proper care to be open and up-front with everyone — especially his own Teachers — about his activities, their goals, and the personal history behind them.
And so he has asked us to make available a copy of the enclosed letters, which have been sent to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and to each of Geshe Michael’s major Tibetan Teachers. They describe a new direction that he will be working on especially after retreat, but most importantly they attempt to explain in a frank, honest way the personal experiences that have led to this juncture, and to Geshe Michael’s current practices and path. The letters are self-explanatory; Geshe Michael would like to share them now almost as an act of confession for his failings in the past; and with the hope that you will forgive them, and the prayer that when this retreat is ended he could have time to meet together and do whatever we can together to help the Dharma in this world.
Sincerely,
Retreat Caretaker Staff
Diamond Mountain Retreat Center

The next point is, GMR contradicts the Tantras as well because he declares in public his tantric experience (which is not for the public at all) and justifies his outer behaviour with secret meanings, mixing both levels together, boosting himself being more honest than the great masters claiming indirectly they acted like him. That's why the best method for proofing his attainments is what Lama Zopa Rinpoche advised:

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. (see the letter of LZR to GMR)

Did he something like this? Kyabje Serkong Dorjchang who claimed also to have realised a high level gave proofs by making knots into the horns of yaks, thereby he convinced HH the 13th Dalai Lama and received the titel of Dorje Chang. He also brought fruits from Shambala, never seen in this realm. So perhaps we have to wait what GMR will show in the future...until a perfect demonstration it can be doubted what he says, I think. --Kt66 09:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Please do not put copies of sources on the talk page, that is a copyright violation.

Also, please do not break up or otherwise edit another editor's comments on the talk page: respond below them on the talk page. I will not respond to your comments if you do this. Please follow talk page guidelines. Thanks. Ekajati 14:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ekajati,
excuse please my break ups. I will not do it again.
Regarding the Copyright violations I can not follow: Where is the Copyright violation? The material is not protected by copyrights and where given free, without copyrights, by the internetsite of Geshe Michael Roach. Please give any proof where you base your argument upon of Copyright violations. Thank you very much. I will readd it below. Of course if there is indeed a violation that's my fault but I can see no copyright at the sources and it was published without copyrights. Thank you very much, --Kt66 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would you think it is copyright free simply because it is on the internet? Everything is copyrighted from the moment of creation, regardless of whether there is a copyright notice or not. Look at the bold text below the "Save Page" button: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." Ekajati 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no copyright violation. The material was public announced, downloadable, public adressed without any copyright note. we will see what other people say.

OK you seem to be as good in reverts as me ;-) The sources can be found at [1]

I have no problem if you inform an admin I would enjoy it. Never I met such a situation at WP. I accept. However, you gave until now no reason why my changes on the critics section is in any way by any mean against WP guidelines. So I will wait: Please tell exactly what is against what. Thank you. --Kt66 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

revert of Ekajati

Dear Ekajati, please be so kind to explain why you can not accept that the "angel-story" and the respond of Lama Zopa Rinpoche is included in the article. This is both a fact, both given based on reliable sources and a basis of the controversy around GMR. It is also not parsian, because it just list the quotes and what they said.

Secondly in the article the passage of argueing with Vajrayana is a view expressed by him and his followers and it is common to give another view if it is in a unbiased manner. To all the rules of WP there exist not contradiction in the article, as far as I can see it; so please don't revert without discussion and giving reasons. Thank you very much for your cooperation, I think you are as interested as me to have a proper, unbiased and nonparsian article. Thank you very much. --Kt66 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Angel & Vajrayana & the rest: Irrelevant!

In response to Ted Lemon's proposal that this article should not exist at all, I disagree in that I feel Michael Roach's accomplishments and sponsorships to date, in particular his attainment of Geshe, and his sponsorship of the Asian Classics Input Project, are by any reasonable reckoning a Wikipedia-worthy subject.

I do not dispute the fact that the subject has been hijacked to grind axes and promote contemporary agendas. On the one hand, to deny that there is a controversy by refusing any references to it (on the basis of vague accusations of libel) is a transparent gambit of the unmindful religious conservative.

On the other hand, Kt66's long and ignorant accusations of current misdoings based on irrelevant, boring, and fantastic religious precedents is the transparent gambit of the unmindful fanatic.

Take your pick, but keep it off Wikipedia, please.

St3veh 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear St3veh. Thank you very much for your comment here. I am just sensitive towards repression of critics and hiding information which maybe relevant for Buddhism newcomers who search for proper information in the internet (WP) regarding Buddhism and their teachers and groups. This kind of "repression of critics and hiding information"-feeling awakened in me when I saw the many changes and discussions here and the fact that at the end even the link to the controversies was elemenated. Of course I over reacted. I am sorry and excuse myself for having created emotional trouble. However you, User Ekajati and all the other editors are invited to contribute in a constructive manner especially because I lack the ability to do so. Also I am very happy if all the facts about Geshe Michael Roach's virtuos deeds, like sponsoring Sera and many projects he supports are mentioned in the article. My focus was mere the point of (actively hiding) controversial topics regarding his lifestyle. Even obvious points of wearing earrings and long hairs (which can be seen at the picture as well as with just knowing his lifestyle) and are not the lifestyle of a monk, where deleted. So I felt the urge to insist. However, thank you very much, may it become better, --Kt66 12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

New Ways after a Three-Year-Retreat

I wrote the section once more, the article is listed as a stub and the development after his three year retreat is excluded from the article. It has to been included as well as that there exist this controvery regarding his lifstyle. I wrote based on Wikipedia:reliable source the following, if you can not agree with, please discuss why:

In 2003 after his three year retreat Geshe Michael Roach wrote letters to his teachers, including his main teacher, Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche and HH the Dalai Lama[1], claiming that "at the age of 22": "I saw ultimate reality directly, And I achieved bodhichitta, The Wish for Enlightenment, I entered the gate To the first level Of the bodhisattvas." Further he described his relation to a woman (Christie McNally): "I have stayed together In the great retreat, in the proper way, With a Lady, who is an emanation Of the Angel of Diamond, a Messenger"[1]

Some Lamas from Sera monastery (where he is also a sponsor for) answered him whereas his teacher, Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, as well as the Dalai Lama didn't answer.[2] Regarding the point of staying with a woman, Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche answered[2]: "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."

The announcement of high spiritual attainments, the close contact to a woman (Christie McNally) and wearing long hairs and earrings as a buddhist monk have raised some controversies. Regarding this Geshe Michael Roach said in an interview 2003[3]:

I said, “I honestly believe that it’s more important for me to do what a divine being might indicate for me is important for me to do than all of the impressions that people might have.” What I’m trying to say bluntly is that if a lot of people thought I was being a bad person or a bad monk or even a corrupt person, that was less important than doing what I felt a divine being wanted me to do, even if everyone thought it was crazy. And I’ve never had a doubt about that. I think that it’s more important for me to get enlightened and to follow what I perceive to be direct divine instructions than to be thought of as a bad person. But frankly, it’s very difficult. Frankly, I value the perceived integrity of the sangha very highly. It’s very important to me. And so it’s been very difficult to think that people might lose faith in me. So it’s not a light thing for me to do and it’s not something easy for me to do, but the balance of what’s more important is very clear to me.

All this is based on WP Rules:

To argue that Geshe Michael Roach has removed the letters from his website makes the sources not invalid, also to remove the sources from the talk page (Copyright violation), does not deny their validity and reliability. That there is further a controversy about him is obvious, to exclude this point from the article by just claiming the Internetsite which provides information for that controvery is hearsay is also not more than hearsay, so please let's discuss. Thank you for your consideration. Please do also not just claim the included section is against rules, please give reasons why. Also please consider, that rules were not created for misusing avoiding critic but to protect the living persons on false facts and accusations the section I added is neither false fact nor false accusation, it is just what the sources (Geshe Michael himlself or Lama Zopa Rinpoche) said and is not only validated by the source I have given but also commonly known. --Kt66 11:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the above section - Work on consensus here first please

I removed the proposed section, written by Kt66, from the main article until consensus is reached. This appears to be a good faith effort on Kt66's part to work toward consensus and to strive to adhere to Wikipedia policies/guidelines. I've posted the comment below to Kt66's talk page as well.

Verifiability remains an issue: Though you reference a 2003 posting to Michael Roach's internet site, it is not verifiable. In review of archived versions of his website in 2003, I have yet to be able to find such information. The 2003 pages indicate that his three year retreat would end in 2003. (It should not be up to the reader to have to do an extensive search to try to verify information. The "burden of proof" is on the editor who is adding the information.)

— ERcheck (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I answered ERcheck (talk):

Dear ERCheck,
thank you for your answer, reaction, care for WP quality and comment. Where there are "review of archived versions of his website in 2003" available?
OK I checked the PDF files: for instance the "Letter of Replies" (18 pages):
  • the date of storing at my computer (download) is: August, 17th, 2003,
  • the letter was published by DIAMOND MOUNTAIN RETREAT CENTER and is dated: March 28, 2003
  • The letter expressing his attainments and relation to Christy McNally was published at www.world-view.org in 2003 because the "Letter of Replies" (18 pages) says: "If you haven't read Geshe Michael's original letter, you should get a copy from www.world-view.org under the quick link “open letter” before jumping into these responses.")
Of course this is original search in a way but the point now is to check if the self-source is in accordance to WP rules and can be used even if the publication were later removed.
Perhaps you could re-check the archive of www.world-view.org, 2003, quick link “open letter”, if you feel it is worthwhile.
Thank you very much. --Kt66 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Kt66's sources appear to be legitimate via web.archive. I guess that's okay. However, the problem remains with this section that it is not at all clear what it is trying to tell the reader. The root of the problem is that these people aren't saying what they mean clearly. The most interesting part is when Lama Sopa writes to him: "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." But what does that mean, really? "Your conduct will not be normal"? Not only that, but "Your conduct will not be normal from some point of view." I think that we are supposed to read in between the lines here, but that is not our job as encyclopaedia editors or readers.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the sources meet the requirements of WP:BLP. They are primary, not secondary, sources (i.e. letters). If they were published in books or journals, that would be one thing, but getting them off web archives seems to be a stretch... —Hanuman Das 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok how than we can use the website of Diamond Mountain University of Geshe Miachel Roach as Reference for his study with Geshe Thubten Rinchen? The published letters were published there too (both websites of GMR: Diamond Mountain and WorldView.org published these 3 letters (Documents) via PDF) - see the webarchive. If it is not acceptable what Diamon Mountain or World-view.org and other sides of GMR have published than also the information there can not been used for any reference too. So we have to delete the new reference of User:tommy12 too, isn't it?
To make the problem more clear: I can set up a set of internetsites about my person and education. I establish myself as a genuine teacher and found good (naive) westeners who follow me. I can publish (let publish) at my site all what I wish, because my followers just follow. Than due to a lack of information Wikipedia will overtake all what I claim at my internetsites (or those of my followers). Is this the verifiability and reliabality Wp wishes for? This was the case with NKT and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso too, but the point there could been solved because there existed the 7-years-doctorial research of David N. Kay - and really he is more hard in his precise analyse than the critics ever were (as far as I see it). At the end he is discribing that NKT fits to the fundamentalist self of Robert Lifton. So in that case WP and the readers had the luck to have this WP:reliable source. Otherwise only NKT informations could been used for the articles. And until this month even the BBC article on NKT was parsian and quite faulty, however now BBC corrected. This reveals the subtle difficulty regarding appropriate information. That's why I tend towards waging the desicion carefully if a critical link - even if parsian - is included in the article; especially in that case of GMR. --Kt66 08:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You are exactly correct. The rules of Wikipedia specificly allow a person's or organization's website to be used as a (qualified) sources. You are incorrect that just anyone can do so and then get on Wikipedia - they have to be notable. Also, any controversies will not be able to get put on WP just because a few disgruntled people set up a negative website. Again, this is precisely what WP rules are intended to do. Also, the organization gets to change its website. If they take something down, it can no longer be referenced. WP rules require not linking to something that may be a copyright violation. That means that the webarchive is right out - it violates the copyright of the site that it mirrors. It is useful as a search tool, but not as a Wikipedia reference or link. Until the negative material is published in books like Kay's, or in newspapers, magazines, etc., it cannot be reported on Wikipedia. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on other people's research and other publisher's legal departments to vet the potential liability of the source. I am happy to include a critical link - as long as the publishers of the site have the balls to put their names on it. I can create a site that trashes you in a few moments work (if I knew your identity) - would you want that information then linked to by WP? —Hanuman Das 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience and explanations. There are the rules, the rules have to been followed. Thank you very much. --Kt66 07:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
And thank you for you patience in taking the time to understand. I'm sure that in time appropriate critical articles or links will be found. Few spiritual teachers avoid such criticism, even I think ones that have done nothing wrong. It seems to be part of the nature of the East/West dialog on the whole idea of Guru. Not all may deserve the temporary protection WP affords them, but the rules do protect valid teachers from having their articles trashed by disgruntled ex-students. All in all, I think that the latter is more important. —Hanuman Das 12:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is mere "trashed by disgruntled ex-students". I am familar with spiritual abuse, before you go to the public with that you have really a hard time. And for a long time you can not say anything - in my case not even to close people - because you fear going to hell (if it is related to a Guru), shame and the like. Spiritual abuse has as sexual abuse as well (or both together) a quite hidden inner logic and it is common that the abused person is not believed in the beginning, sometimes if they go to public - out of their weekness and inner wounds - they can be abused once more: by the public itself (see the example of that girl from Austria this year). If you were abused and talk about it, you have to have quite inner strength, this strengh gives you the selfesteem to speak about but people will out of that self esteem not really believe you. On the other hand there are women who really go beyond reality because they have such strong desire that they really project against a person and also this has a logic and maybe also believed although the abuse never happened (I met such a woman with her claims towards a Lama too). So it is a quite difficult stuff. But what is obvious that GMR is close to a woman, HE is talking about this, lived in a Yurt with her for three years in the retreat and the like, announced himself to be a Bodhisattva, realized emptiness... So he raised up that topic himself. That he said he is a Bodhisattva, realized emptiness.. all this means he is a holy being (+ the idea to be beyond investigation of common buddhist behaviour). His view to himself maybe a fact or a mere projection (not having the ability to discriminate reality from imagination/wishes.) The latter would bring the basis for much suffering to all related to him. I had teachers suffering on the latter and really this brings you and the teacher including the followers into a temporary hell. So "trashed by disgruntled ex-students" or people who took up responsibility to protect people from being misled - who knows really what is the case? You see also Devadatta was a good monk in the beginning, after gaining supernatural powers he went astray. However it would be nice if he is a Bodhisattva on the first level, this I enjoy. There can not be enough Bodhisattva on the first level. If he is a Bodhisattva he will follow the rules of a Bodhisattva: - nothing to do that people loose faith for instance, this includes not to violate the Vinaya/Pratimoksha rules. It is not the conduct of a monastic Bodhisattva to have sexual intercourse with a woman, Tsongkhapa as well as Atisha completely rejected this and taught the strict celebacy. He tells the opposite: He says it is common, "if you are an advanced monk, than you will go to the Tnatra Collge and than you will have a consort." this made me perplex. It's not true. However, the main subject here is: the sources/passage at WP based on reliable, verifyable sources and all what is according to WP rules. --Kt66 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the above discussion give the impression that we must append to all of the information we get about Mr. Roach from his website the statement that this information comes from his website and/or represents his own POV.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Checking validity of sources, Regrading GMR’s letters

Report:

I checked worlview.org from Oct 28, 2003

http://web.archive.org/web/20031028000517/http://world-view.org/

the “open letter” link does not function perhaps PDF files are not archived or archived elsewhere?

Then I checked Jun 13, 2003 http://web.archive.org/web/20030613141403/http://world-view.org/

The link “open letter” lead to a site where all the letters I mentioned (and downloaded from) are mentioned:

It says there:

Geshe Michael Roach recently began to speak openly about his spiritual career and some of his practices. The links below provide copies of information that was provided to attendees at Geshe Michael's Easter 2003 Three-year Retreat teachings. Anyone who would like a copy of that information can click on the links below.
Geshe Michael's letter to his Lamas on his 50th birthday.
Letter to Lamas
Letters of reply from Geshe Michael's Lamas.
Lamas replies
Worldview letter of reply presented at the Easter 2003 teachings.
Worldview letter
Interview with Geshe Michael Roach & Christie McNally.
Interview Transcript
Transcript of Geshe Michael's Easter 2003 teachings on the life of Naropa and his practices.
Transcript of Easter 2003 Teachings.
Will be available shortly.

The first two links lead to an error, but the third link Worldview letter gives you a pdf file including his “Letter to his Lamas” and statements of being Bodhisattva, realising emptiness, Woman-relation and wearing now long hairs as his angel does. This point can also be used as reference, because I mentioned in my suggestion this too:

I wear my hair
As the Angel Herself does,
And her bracelet
And other accoutrement
Together with my robes.

Then you’ll find the interview transcript, stating his relation to a woman and the expected controversies about it at: Interview with Geshe Michael Roach & Christie McNally

I will check if I find in the archive a functioning link also to the "Reply of the Lamas". So two mentioned sources are now validated. --Kt66 14:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All three sources I used in the web.archive.org archive

--Kt66 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement from former follower

Even if it can be verified that a former follower of Roach made a statement or wrote a letter, it does not necessarily make it an appropriate entry. It is original research on the part of that letter writer. For example, a Wikipedia editor could post a letter on an internet site and then use it as a reference. This does not fit with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, even though a letter is posted on a public internet site, copyrights still hold. So, the letter in its entirety is not appropriate.

As salient, the newest addition (which I will be reverting for the above reasons), does not clearly make a point. What is it trying to established? As noted in a post above, it seems to be left to one to read between the lines — which is not encyclopedic?

Note - the addition was already reverted by another editor. — ERcheck (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

— ERcheck (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus: Again, as I have noted previously, consensus should be reached on this talk page before this information is added. — ERcheck (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A statment from a former follower has nothing to do in the main article. What can be done if published on a Wikipedia:reliable source it can be part of a possibly critical section in the article.

There exist an Open Letter of another former follower at Lamrim Radio - Tibetan Buddhist Internet Radio which seems to me to be reliable source (???). The owner published in the past teachings from many Lamas, including the Dalai Lama, Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche, Lama Zopa Rinpoche..., and also Geshe Michael Roach and later removed Geshe Michael Roach from the i.radio, publishing an Open Letter to My Teacher. What do Wikis think about this?

If it is in accordance with the WP guidelines I will the removed letter - which was wrongly put in the main article - move to the talk page, the main idea is: it makes clear why we have now this "controversial" bracket at the top of the page. If not proper to move it here, please ERcheck remove it. Thank you, --Kt66

I don't see any reason this needs to be on the talk page, even.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you I'll delete it. --Kt66 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Cutter website

I don't think this is an appropriate link per WP:EL and WP:BLP for the following reasons:

  1. The website is essentially biased - it does not present the controversy, but rather one side of the controversy. That is, it is partisan and anti-Roach.
  2. The creators of the website do not identify themselves. It is an anonymous work.
  3. The content of the website may change at any time. Even if it were determined to be totally verifiable today, there is no guarantee that it will remain verifiable

In light of the burden placed by WP:BLP not to link to potentially libelous websites and the requiredment in WP:V that the author of a website must not be in doubt if it is to be used as a reference, I think we must err on the side of caution and not include it.

For the record, I am not a Buddhist but a Hindu, and have no interest in this Buddhist teacher vs. that Buddhist teacher, but am simply looking at this from the pov of who is taking responsibility for what this website says. The answer appears to be "no one." —Hanuman Das 21:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. However, I don't see what in WP:BLP prohibits a critical website. It's true that WP:EL says not to link to "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". However, by this logic, we should also removes links to Mr. Roach's own websites, if they are found to contain non-verifiable claims about him. I'm not sure what to do.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the rationale is to protect WP. By that token, we can expect Roach not to sue over info found on his own website. WP:BLP does address this directly with respect to source:
"Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject."
Since the website is anonymously self-published, it could not be used as a source. I think that for non-living people, such a site could be linked to, but for living people, it should not. If the site were non-partisan, presenting the controversy in an NPOV way and it were published by an established and reputable organization with people willing to put their names on it, there would be no question about it being appropriate to link to. But anybody can get a domain-name and put up a website. Is this website put up by an identifiable non-profit corporation? A group of ex-students? A rival Lama? Way too questionable, IMO... The way WP:BLP reads, we are not to give a site the benefit of the doubt, but to err on the side of caution if there is any question. I think it is likely that only once the controversy is discussed in books and journals will WP be able to go into it in much detail. Somebody has to think there is enough to it and their sources are solid enough to put their name behind putting it in print and be willing to risk legal action. Then we can report what they have said without risk of legal action against WP. —Hanuman Das 23:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
On a further note after reading further on the site, the whole intent is rather hypocritical.The whole site is an exercise which violates the principle of "right speech" according to the Buddhist tradition: "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech." The speech on the site is intentionally divisive, furthermore it is to a great extent simply gossip or idle chatter. Bah. —Hanuman Das 23:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Buddha alo criticized Devadatta in several ways, and even send his two greatest desciples to inform Devadatta's disciples on true and wrong Dhamma and thus 'save' those monks while deviding Devadatta's Sangha. So it seems that in the case of informating and protecting the general public and disciples, it is ok from the buddhist perspective to 'criticize' (to make critical, true information available), off course as long as one speaks truthfully. Technically 'devisive speech' refers to having the intention to make friends enemiesof eachother. If the intention is to help people, the result maybe a devision, but the speech is ok and moral. I felt this needed to be said. Also Wikipedia should be very careful not to become a no-negative encyclopedia through fear. The goal is NPOV. I don't see anything wrong with the website Diamond-cutter, I believe it presents the information objectively, and if you doubt it they give you the email of the Dalai Lama's office, amongst others. Greetings, Sacca 02:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, as I said, I am not a Buddhist. There is always more detail than meets the untrained eye. On the other hand, the anonymous editors of the website are not the Buddha. It is one thing for the Dalai Lama or other Lama to take on the karma of making a negative statement about another Lama, another thing entirely for the average Joe to do so... —Hanuman Das 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is: Misbehaviour of monks and breaking the rules of the Vinaya or Pratimoksha or even if this is accused (based on reasons) towards a monk/nun is a task for the ordained Sangha Community, the (experienced) ordained Sangha Community has to care about this subject. The fortnightly purification ritual (tib. Sojong, pali: Uposatha) builds tha basis for this as well as the summer rainy retreats (3 months staying together in the monastery) which is advised a monks should partake. If it is the case that monks can have consorts - as GMR claims - than at the summer rainy retreat (tib. Yar.nä, pali: Vassa) you will see different monks with their consorts (ha ha ha ;-) As far as the western countries concern such rules can only function if there exist a strong, honest and pure Sangha Community. When in the Forest Sangha (Ajahn Sumedho) happend just things like that: a monk was leaving the monastery and going against the rules - without stopping his misbehaviour after warning (what is in accordance to the Vinaya laid down by the Buddha) - they wrote letters to the monk's sponsors and supporters telling: we do not acknowledge this person as a monk, you should distance from him (something like this). So the Forest Sangha lives purely in the Ethics, such problems therefor if they raised are easily solved. From that point of view there is "not the need" for the Buddha's physical presence, there is mainly the need for a proper functioning ordained Sangha in the west - especially among the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition. So the faults of faulty behaviour (or accusing of doing so) that lay followers of Buddhism are confronted with are mere a reflection of the difficulties of transfering the Dharma (Three Jewels, including functioning Sangha) to the west and what huge tasks haven't been done until now. Especially the need of a functioning western ordained Sangha and the proper installation of the rituals is a must I think. If this will be provided/developed we will have lesser problems in the future. All the difficulties arising from NKT/Kelsang Gyatso would never arise if the Sangha is based upon the Vinaya and their rules. So the point is more - if there is no Buddha anymore who said clearly: Devadatta is on the wrong way (regarding the Dharma), the elder Sangha has to do that. --Kt66 08:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
While I have no particular opinion about the merits of the diamondcutter site in terms of right view (I have only looked briefly at the site), I should like to point out that, I believe, the passage you have quoted from WP:BLP refers to the inclusion of information from websites as facts on Wikipedia. With this, I quite agree. However, it's not at all clear whether this is supposed to cover critical websites that we do not endorse but simply link to. In any event, we have an important interest in not getting sued (which is eminently reasonable) but we also have an interest in NPOV—WP:BLP certainly does not demand a Bauder-esque "Sympathetic Point of View—and so we should attempt to treat positive and negative sources approximately equally. Since we have no choice but to treat the critical sources with suspicion, we should do the same for sympathetic sources whenever possible. In any event, I definitely want to be careful to follow the BLP rules, so I'd like to investigate this further by posting a message about it to the Village Pump.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it falls under point 2 of "Links normally to be avoided" in WP:EL as well as an unreliable source and/or unverified original research. WP:RS discusses anonymous sources and says "Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all." I would be much more likely to agree with its inclusion were it not anonymous. Then at least one could say the the site presents the views of so-and-so or such-and-such a group. As it is, it seems extremely dubious to me. —Hanuman Das 06:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to follow User:Nat Krause's argumentation, especially because - although Diamond-Cutter.ORG is biased - the websites of GMR as prime sources are of course biased too. So we have the dilemma of biased information. To include the link would give the chance to the reader to get the idea that there are disputes about GMR.

My suggestion is, two further Admins/Stuards should check this case and leave their comment and at the end the Admins and experienced WP editors should reach a consensus on indluding/excluding the Diamond-Cutter.ORG link. I asked User:ERcheck (Admin) for his opinion yet but until now he didn't answer. So we can wait or invite further experienced editors or admins and come to a conclusion about it. What do you think on that? --Kt66 07:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I give my opinion now? I am in favor of inclusion of the link. Also, if Google would give the link back as a result, would they be liable for prosecution? I don't think so. But maybe the Wikipedia case is a bit different? But it's just a link, we don't claim the contents of the link are truth....Greetings, Sacca 12:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)