Talk:Lu Sheng-yen

message: Can anybody here find one single quote where Master Lu says "Dalai Lama has endorsed me!"? This is rediculous. Master Lu has never said this! Where is the information where Master Lu said those exact words? About the claim that Master Lu has taught several thousand monks in India: would it help clear anyones doubts if i provided the pictures of Master Lu giving the teaching to the monks? Would it help if I had a picture of Master Lu's picture being honored at a Tibetan temple in India? I know Master Lu very personally and I know he doesnt drive a Rolls Royce, so where is this information coming from? Master Lu is also not married. Just look at his ring finger. He doesnt live with his former wife but his former wife is his main disciple/assistant/confidant. If these Tibetan monks are so concerned over Master Lu than why did the Dalai Lama's secretary come to the Redmond temple to meet and enjoy each others company several months ago? If you dont believe that one just go to www.tbsseattle.org and the whole story and pictures are there. Why do people waist so much time on hurting a man's reputation when they could be using that same energy to be practicing dharma. Isnt that sick and disgusting?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.255.242 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the reference and you are correct. I've modified the text to correspond to the reference. Also, coincidently I'd just come across an article that demonstrates that it's just a Chinese term for Rinpoche or perhaps more accurately Tulku and has been applied to the Dalai Lama. No real issue here, just an interlingual communication breakdown... GlassFET 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Living Buddha

message: How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.
*"I am one of the "devoted followers" and I want to say that this new edit is very fair. Thank you for your even mindedness, I really appriciate your respect because this is very important. The recent is article is balanced and I wish not to see anyone change it back. Thank you for your courtesy!
Lucas
*In order to avoid disputes, please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.  Verifiability is upheld by citing reliable published sources.  Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages.  Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.  --A Y Arktos\talk 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding constant disputes

message: Another thing to note is Wikipedia's policies on living people. Only the most reliable references may be used for things like the sexual accusations I have removed. That means that if it hasn't been published in a book or a peer-reviewed journal, it can't be mentioned in the article at all. Web-only references are not considered reliable in general, and can not be used at all for controversial criticism of a living person. This is not a personal bias of mine, but strict Wikipedia policy. —Hanuman Das 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Living people

message: Please note that all criticism must be sourced and cited. It is not appropriate for a Wikipedia editor to make a judgement about a subject. It is only appropriate to report the judgements of others. To ensure that such judgements are third-party judgements and not the opinions of the editor, the source of the critical comparison must be cited. As I just said to Hanuman Das:
:I've done my best to help out with the defusing some of the inappropriate criticism. First, I don't see any definitive statement that he took monk's vows, from whom he took them, and whether or not he later abandoned them, nor dates for any of these events if they even occurred. Second, vegetarianism in Buddhism is the exception rather than the rule, as noted in Vegetarianism in Buddhism, so the fact that he does not prohibit eating meat is in no way unusual and thus not a valid criticism. In general, it is necessary to establish the facts or lay out the actual teachings with citations before presenting criticism of those teachings. One must also cite who has made the criticism. If the criticism cannot be cited to an actual person or organization, then it is original research and not permitted. The field of Buddhism is very large, with significant differences of doctrine between schools. It just won't do to have amateurs criticising a teacher of one type of Buddhism based on the rules of another!
If these guidelines are kept in mind, then the article will be much improved. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I dont understand this sentence, "at one point he claimed to be a monk." This sentence is trying to hint something dismissive or fake without any point. Master Lu became a monk, I think on his 30's and he is still a monk to this date. Also under the heading of CONTROVERSY, if the allegations of sexual misconduct were proven to be groundless in the court of law  due to the lack of evidence,  should these allegations still be considered as Controversies? I hope the page moderator(s) to consider these points. (19,November,2006)
:The problem is verifiability. So far, the only info on his monkhood which has been provided is a mention in a lecture which says something to the effect "at this time, I am a monk". What we need is a source which says when he became a monk, who ordained him, and that he still is a monk, since of course one can give back vows and go back to being a layperson. 
:On the controversy issue, since there are reliable third-party sources that indicate that the controversy occured, I don't see what the problem is. Stating the facts in the media and citing them is the best way to keep further unveriable allegations out of the article. —Hanuman Das 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:V. Facts do not need to be true on Wikipedia. There just has to be a citation as to where the information came from. If the source can be considered reliable by WP:RS then the fact can be reported. If not, it can't. I personally am uncertain as to whether Master Lu is still a monk. All I know is that he was at one time a monk. If you can find the details, great. While you are at it, get the years for his marriage and birth of his children so you can show that he took his monks vows after they were born. As for vandalism, that is standard on Wikipedia, no way to avoid it. However, there are several people watching the article and revert information added in violation of the rules about biographies of living people. My suggestion is that you create an account so that you also can put the article on your watchlist and make sure that all information added to the article has a source and is not just the personal opinion of another editor. I do this myself on several controversial articles, it woould be good to have more help on this one. —Hanuman Das 14:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, just to set you straight, I am sure that he was a monk at one time. I am not sure whether or not that is still his status. I'm also aware of the lay lamas in the Nyingma lineage, so I know that the devil is in the details. Things are phrased the way they are to force those who want to say that "OMG he is a monk AND he is married" to find the sources for dates and details of both his monk's vows and his marriage. It's my understanding that he was married and had children before taking vows of celibacy, and accepted full responsibilty for continuing to support his wife and family after taking whatever vows he took. That is, I think, to his credit and belongs in the article as long as a clear source for the details can be found. —Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you could provide links to online sources, I'd be happy to update the article for you... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. I've simply taken out the monk sentence, as it is not essential to the article. Details on his ordination(s) and status can be added any time a source can be provided. —Hanuman Das 15:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monk issue

message: I find some problems with the controversy section. First, it does not seem to be correct to simply cite the subject's words which might possibly be seen as controversial by some people. I think that it is necessary to cite a third-party source which portrays them as controversial or which reports on controversy which has been caused by the writings.
Second, the information from Tibetan Review seems suspect. For example, I don't believe that there are any other sources confirming that Lu has a Rolls Royce. I don't in fact believe that he does. Since the Tibetan Review clearly appears to be critical of Lu, I think we need citation of the facts as well as the response from Tibetan Review. I also note that there is no attribution of authorship for this cited critique. Is it an article? editorial? opinion piece? I'd like to see quotes, actually. GlassFET 15:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, going through the history, I see the two paragraphs using only Lu's writings as sources were added by an IP, User:75.47.154.36. I am probably going to remove them, but will continue going through the history to try to determine whether this might be seen as a controversial edit. GlassFET 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, finished going through the history and see these paragraphs have not been challenged or removed before, so I'm removing them now. What we need to see here for both NPOV and BLP purposes is evidence that these writings have given rise to some third-party documented controversy. Otherwise they are only opinions of a Wikipedia editor based on their own interpretation of the intent and meaning of the writings. GlassFET 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a controversy? 

message: I happened to be in the middle of the controversy over contributions to Gary Locke, the former governor of Washington, and I thought you might like some inside history.  The whole thing was rather comical.
For those not familiar with Chinese culture, gift giving carries with it certain rules.  The gift is always accepted without comment and it would be a major insult for it to be returned.  Typically gifts are given without expectation of a return.  Money is given in a red envelope, usually with a lucky script on the cover.
So, Gary Locke was invited to speak at a temple gathering (the temple is not directly associated with Grand Master Lu by the way), and after the talk Master Lu handed Gary a red envelope.  Gary knew he had to accept it, but as soon as he felt the envelope, he knew there was a problem, it was too thick!  Personal contributions are limited to $1,000 each.  As soon as he could, Gary and his manager opened the envelope, and found that it contained 50 $100 bills.  Oops.  Of course, Master Lu knew nothing of US campaign laws, but now Gary had to solve a tricky puzzle, how to give $4,000 back to Master Lu without insulting him.  
Through his contacts in the community Gary connected with a family close to Master Lu, the Chen's.  He contacted one of the Chen brothers, explained the problem, and asked for their help.  The brother took the extra money back to Master Lu and explained the whole situation, but now it was Master Lu who had a problem, he had given $5,000 and that somehow had to be made whole.  His attitude is quite amusing considering that Master Lu has a fine mind and surely understood why it wasn't necessary, but living Buddha or not, he's still Chinese apparently!
So, to close the circle, various members of Master Lu's family and one of the Chen family daughters agreed to contribute $1,000 each, and they did.  Honor and form was maintained.  But due to all the press about the L.A. temple gifts to the Gore campaign, the press did some digging up here and discovered the transaction from Gary's campaign, who duly recorded the whole thing, and the local paper made a big stink about it, like the other 4 $1,000 contributions were an attempt to do an end-run around the rules.  The reporter even dropped sinister hints that one of the contributors, Heidi Chen, couldn't be found and might not even exist.  The reporter might have done a little research, because Heidi was married and listed under her husband's name.  When I read that in the paper I had to laugh, having been on the phone with Heidi a few minutes earlier.
Of course the press was right to some extent, but it was harmless, the small contributions were gladly given by the other individuals, all of whom firmly exist, and didn't mind at all giving a little money to a Chinese candidate for governor.  Big scandal, eh?  
Now, I also have to talk about his Rolls.  Master Lu has many disciples all over the world, and they give him many gifts.  It seems that one of the disciples who took refuge in him, a Japanese I believe, wanted to buy Master Lu a fine car, and offered him the choice between a top of the line Mercedes and a Rolls.  Master Lu called me and related this story, only his command of English was not great at the time, and all I could gather from him was whether he should choose . . . beans or rice??  After a few seconds I realized what he was saying, reversed names in Chinese of course, he was saying "Benz" or "Royce"!  Well, considering the bad publicity at the time involving the Bhagwan, naturally I instantly said "Benz".  But he took the Royce instead.  In any case, it's not like he extracted money from devotees and marched down to the dealership to buy an extravagant car, it was a gift, and he only has one (if it's still around), not a fleet.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorro6204 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The political contributions and . . . the Rolls 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lu Sheng-yen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050811234038/http://www.tbsn.org/ to http://www.tbsn.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See Special:Contributions/Gajones76. SparklyNights (t) 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (November 2023)