Talk:Michael Roach/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Excuse

message: 68.56.209.129, please read WP:TPG. You seem to be missing several points about how to communicate on a talk page:
#Do not remove any text, either yours or anyone else's.
#Always put your response below the full message you are replying to. Do not add text in the middle of someone else's comment.
#Use indentation. To indent, add one more colon to the beginning of each paragraph than the person you are replying to.
#Sign your messages with ~~~~, which will add your user name or IP address and the time.
#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)
thread_title: Talk page guidelines

message: :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)
replies: text: Thanks for the work you've done so far though. :-) Ekajati 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: no reason to hide the critics on GMR - continue

message: 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)
thread_title: Contradictions about his claims of having realised emptiness with 22

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: revert of [[User:Ekajati|Ekajati]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Angel & Vajrayana & the rest: Irrelevant!

message: 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)
thread_title: Checking validity of sources, Regrading GMR’s letters

message: * Letter with GMR's claims: Worldview letter
* Letter with the Lamas Replies: LamasReplies.pdf
* Interview with GMR/Christie McNally: Interview with Geshe Michael Roach & Christie McNally 
--Kt66 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All three sources I used in the web.archive.org archive

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Substituted at 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment