Talk:Frederick Lenz/Archive 1

For the Real Story beyond hearsay, Read/Hear the Original Enlightenment Teachings of Dr. Lenz
For the real story, take the time to hear / read what Dr. Lenz had to say about: Meditation, Enlightenment, Ecstasy, Brilliant states of mind, Humility, Revolution, Perfection, Silence, Power, Light, Wisdom, Zen, Buddhism, Tantra, Happiness, Selfless Giving, Career Success, Excelling at School, Balance, Being Independent, Gaining Strength, Overcoming Conditioning, The Enlightenment of Women, Miracles, Purity, Zen and Sports (and much more)...

People can talk about their views and ideas of Dr. Lenz or anything else, and their opinions (all of our opinions) and views have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. The point of Dr. Lenz' Enlightenment Coaching was to teach people how to go beyond words, ideas, views, opinions, and into the heart of existence, that which "IS", beyond the mind's knowing. Dr. Lenz taught thousands of students how to: Have brilliant, progressive meditations; to have successful careers that generate so much money they wouldn't have to worry about paying bills; to be independent and powerful women with confidence in the source of existence; to be compassionate men with integrated sensitivity and depth; to have tremendous fun while working hard and playing hard; to be compassionate; to be real; to be fearless; to find the ultimate truth within. and "American Buddha". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.15 (talk • contribs).

Response to The Real Story: Thank you for your posting regarding Dr. Lenz's teachings. I have found them to be very refreshing. While it is easy for people to make disparaging comments about the views and actions of others, it's fortuante that these teachings are freely available, so that any individual can decide for themselves how they feel about the source materials. Buddha's name be praised. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Get an opinion on the story - Please Read This by Original Page Author
Original Page Author says: Supporters of Lenz are likely to remove most or all external links to documentation of Lenz as an alleged abusive cult leader from this page. To get the full story, please read my final version of this website before the inevitable editing by Lenz supporters.

I appreciate that many students of Lenz see him as a great spiritual leader, and are discouraged by people claiming that he may have behaved inappropriately or taken advantage of the people who believed in him. I know there's a good chance you'll be tempted to heavily edit the article to remove most or all allegations and evidence of impropriety on his part. Before you remove information you feel is unfairly critical of Lenz, I ask that you consider the large number of former Lenz followers who have broken with him and now say they feel he abused them. Maybe they were wrong, but even so isn't it best that they left a situation that clearly wasn't working out for them? Don't his other followers deserve access to the same pieces of information that helped those people make up their minds?

I think we all have a moral obligation to be honest about the serious charges and facts weighing against Lenz, in particular:
 * He was incarcerated for a year for selling drugs
 * According to Newsweek, a former follower claims he forced her to have sex with him at gunpoint
 * The woman he was with at his time of death was found covered in bruises. The three dogs he was with at his time of death had been given phenobarbital.  The body of Lenz was found wearing a dog collar.
 * Although he claimed his goal was to spread enlightenment, Lenz himself reported that he made 5 million dollars per year from his students; he owned several mansions, lear jets and expensive sports cars
 * Dozens of articles have appeared in national news magazines in which former students of Lenz describe him as an abusive cult leader. Many articles focus on allegations that Lenz coerced female followers to have sex with him, often after giving them illegal drugs.
 * Lenz' ex-inner-circle student Mark Laxer wrote an entire book describing Lenz as an abusive cult leader

I don't want to spend the rest of my life in a flame-war with Lenz supporters, so hopefully this will be my last entry. Again I encourage the curious to read my original version of the article before editing.

response to criticism of original article
Response to Rama432:
 * I did not realize Lenz found the term "guru" offensive - Guru is Sanskrit for "teacher," and usually taken as positive or neutral, not negative. I have no problem with describing Lenz as a "spiritual leader" rather than "guru."

Response to LibHead:

May I ask what your association is with Lenz and his teachings? In particular, are you a member of any group(s) related to Lenz? And if so, which groups and what is your title and role in each group? Are you Norman Marcus, or anyone associated with The Frederick P. Lenz Foundation for American Buddhism?

I was friends with a woman who had been in Lenz' group and gave him between 1-2 million dollars. Although she describes him as a cult leader and agrees with many allegations of misbehavior, she is overall grateful to him for helping to encourage her computer career, which ultimately made her a multi-millionaire even after giving so much of her income to Lenz. I became interested in the subject because this woman was dating a friend of mine, and when she described both he and Lenz as having very similar personalities I started reading about Lenz. Allegations that Lenz was emotionally abusive helped me realize that my friend, though I still love him and believe he has the best intentions, has the same troubles and unfortunately I had to break off our friendship to preserve my emotional health. Reading about Lenz and writing this article helped me sort out my personal boundaries around cults, cult leaders and emotional abuse. The biggest challenge for me is letting go, so it is my plan to not produce anymore entries on Lenz, though I may chime in on the talk page once or twice.


 * R.e. removing image of Daltrey :: fair enough, particularly as the link remains.
 * You said "The word "possibly" certainly alludes to an opinion by yourself instead of a substantiated fact." :: This is inaccurate: it refers to the printed opinion of many of his former followers.
 * Referring to the allegation that Lenz forced a follower to have sex with him using a loaded gun, you said: "I have not come across any references to any lawsuits brought against Dr. Lenz let alone any convictions that might give credence to such a statement." :: You are correct that no lawsuit was brought against Dr. Lenz, but the wiki entry did not claim one was. The wiki entry claimed that one of his followers said that Lenz forced her to have sex with him at gunpoint, which was reported in Newsweek, one of the most widely-circulated magazines in the world.  There is no legal danger to wikipedia for citing an article from Newsweek.
 * "Clarified Dr. Lenz's spiritual teachings as American Buddhism" :: works for me.
 * You said: Removed the following as it is not encyclopedic content and furthermore is hearsay. "In high school, Lenz went by the nickname "Crazy Fred." Later at Stony Brook college his professors called him "Goofy Fred." :: The nickname "Crazy Fred" is in Lenz' highschool yearbook, and his doctoral supervisor Gerald Nelson is on record confirming that he referred to Lenz as "Goofy Fred," therefore this is not hearsay. It seems relevant because followers of Lenz who struggle with reaching an evaluation of his character often cite this piece of information as a valuable step toward reaching a conclusion.
 * You wrote that "Articles on Lenz, even when critical, often describe him as tall and good-looking." is "not encyclopedic." As news articles on Lenz often mention this point, and as it bolsters the description of Lenz as charming, particularly to women, it seem relevant.  I have improved the encyclopedic-ness of the entry to 6'3".
 * r.e. the idea that Lenz may not have a black belt in Karate, or may not have earned it in highschool as he claimed: I have no doubt that Lenz knew some karate, but articles critical of Lenz often point out that he has never produced any evidence to back up this particular claim. It's such a minor matter I'm happy to let it drop.
 * You said: Going forward please do not use ex-cult.org as a source outside of the Criticism section (without further discussion here). It is highly opinionated and I (and it looks like other authors!) doubt the verifiability of that source. :: Exactly two users, you and Rama432, both supportive of Lenz, seem adverse to ex-cult.org.  That does not make it a poor source.  Nor does calling it "highly opinionated" - more opinionated than the material published by Lenz himself in which he is described as an enlightened being who can perform miracles?
 * You say "The Newsweek article might actually exist, but the citation used below is definitely not Newsweek (or legit)." :: In my experience dealing with people associated with Lenz and his teachings, the Newsweek article is the single most widely-discussed document ever published, and you seem very familiar with Lenz and his teachings.  Are you claiming to not be aware that the Newsweek article actually exists?  Newsweek does not provide an online archive of that article, so removing the information for want of an online citation seems highly questionable.  If you were unhappy with the poor quality of the online link, why didn't you edit the citation into a text-only form, as per Wikipedia's guidelines?

Date of Death
Dash77: Regarding the date of death of Dr. Lenz:  a minor correction and a more substantive issue. The minor correction is that 'Sunday, April 11, 1998' was listed as the death date--however, April, 11, 1998 was not a Sunday so hopefully everyone can agree there is a problem there. I changed it to Sunday, April 12, 1998 which is consistent with the date elsewhere in the article and is the date most commonly used for Dr. Lenz' death. However, there appears to be some controversy on this, because the Social Security Death Index lists the date of death as April 13, 1998.

Original Page Author: Dash77, you did a great job, congratulations! How great that the article now includes the results of the settlement and an overview of Lenz' computer projects. r.e. the date of death: police report that they found Brin Lacey in the mansion "after midnight on April 12th"... in other words, April 13th. But it appears to be ambiguous or at least uncertain whether Lenz actually passed away before or after midnight: the 12th or the 13th. I believe Lacey reported that Lenz floated away from the dock, face-down and unmoving, before midnight. That strongly supports April 12 as the correct date.

Dash77: Hi Original Page Author, thanks for the update! That would make sense, actually. Probably Social Security defaults to use the later date (where there is controversy) until proof is received of death on the earlier date that would justify paying survivor benefits from an earlier date. In this case there were no survivor benefits (no one had a valid claim to be his spouse) so the issue became moot. But yes, I think it far more likely the actual date was April 12th. Presumably it was not that long after midnight that they found Brin Lacey or they would have said so...meaning Dr. Lenz probably died before then.

LibHead
Reference: For the Real Story beyond hearsay, Read/Hear the Original Enlightenment Teachings of Dr. Lenz below. There are several places I'd like to clean up based on Wikipedia's 2nd pillar of neutral view point. The image you have posted is not of Frederick Lenz. Underneath the image you state, "possibly the inspiration for self-promotional posters Lenz distributed in the 1980s". The word "possibly" certainly alludes to an opinion by yourself instead of a substantiated fact. There are a few other points, a few typos (like capitalization in Dr. Lenz's thesis), and some more sections on his accomplishments that I'd like to clean up in the coming weeks as well. LibHead 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up the introduction with the following changes: LibHead 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed "a.k.a. Zen Master Rama" as it was repetitive of "a.k.a. Rama"
 * Removed libelous content - "he used this claim to persuade and sometimes force female members of his cult to have sex with him". I have not come across any references to any lawsuits brought against Dr. Lenz let alone any convictions that might give credence to such a statement. We should be careful of these statements in this and other articles as they put WikiPedia and its wikipedians in legal danger to suits of libel and slander.
 * Clarified Dr. Lenz's spiritual teachings as American Buddhism. The Frederick P. Lenz Foundation for American Buddhism was established after his death in an effort to preserve his teachings of this form of Buddhism (not simply an extension of Hinduism and zen buddhism). The details of these contributions is probably best expanded on in the article American_Buddhism in wikipedia.org.

More clean up of pillar 1 and 2 violations: LibHead 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the following as it is not encyclopedic content and furthermore is hearsay. "In high school, Lenz went by the nickname "Crazy Fred." Later at Stony Brook college his professors called him "Goofy Fred."  This topic is constantly brought up by hate groups that seek to discredit Dr. Lenz."
 * Same for the following, not encyclopedic. "Articles on Lenz, even when critical, often describe him as tall and good-looking."
 * Removed, "though this has never been verified." regarding his black belt. There are many, many karate dojos in Long Island (as there are across the country) that last for any given number of years. Many of his students studied martial arts with him (reference the book American Buddha), so I feel safe to say he was an expert at martial arts and karate in particular.

It looks like the original version of this article is drawing heavy editing (which is good!!). Looks like the original article is having trouble with authenticity. In particular the sources do not meet Wikipedia's requirement for Reliable Sources. Going forward please do not use ex-cult.org as a source outside of the Criticism section (without further discussion here). It is highly opinionated and I (and it looks like other authors!) doubt the verifiability of that source. LibHead 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Per above comment removing the text below. The Newsweek article might actually exist, but the citation used below is definitely not Newsweek (or legit).


 * Lenz allegedly told his followers that if they stop following him, they would "suffer forever in the sixteenth level of Hell."
 * Professor Gerald Nelson, a member of the English department at Stony Brook and Lenz' doctoral supervisor, said, "He was always coming to me with these book ideas and asking me, 'Do you think it will sell?'  My honest opinion was that he was a hustler. But I thought he was goofy and harmless."
 * On February 1, 1988 Newsweek magazine ran an article titled "Who Is This Rama? The master of Zen and the Art of Publicity is now having some very serious problems." The article reports that an ex-student of Lenz named Anny Eastwood claims that Lenz invited her to Malibu, where he "waved a loaded pistol and forced her to have sex with him."  The same article reports the suicide of Lenz' student Donald Cole at age 23.  Cole left a note apologizing to Lenz for failing to live up to his guru's expectations.

LibHead 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't added it back in but I would prefer that the comment about the black belt not being verified remain. I studied with Dr. Lenz (Rama) from 1992-1998 and I am not aware of him ever directly teaching martial arts. This is in contrast to his approach to computer software, where he did take a somewhat more hands-on approach. I was never afforded the opportunity to study martial arts directly with Dr. Lenz or even with anyone who studied with Dr. Lenz. Certainly many of his security team members had black belts, but it is not clear whether even they directly studied martial arts with Dr. Lenz. Definitely we never heard anything along the lines of 'Dr. Lenz received his degree black belt in on from .' This makes me somewhat skeptical because he made no secret about other, more verifiable, achievements such as the dates of educational milestones or publication of books. Martial arts was something that was strictly a recommendation that Dr. Lenz gave--the student was on their own to seek out a dojo of their own choosing. You couldn't study in Dr. Lenz' dojo because no such dojo existed.

I wasn't Dr. Lenz closest student but I studied with him for six years, and if the black belt were 'verified', I think I would know about it--and I don't. Like many other things in Dr. Lenz' universe, it remains shrouded in mystery.

--Dash77 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that a number of changes, mostly with a positive view of Dr. Lenz, were made over the last day or so by one (or more) anonymous posters. I share a positive view of Dr. Lenz so I will be letting these changes stand myself, but people who view Dr. Lenz positively might want to be prepared for some criticism on a couple of points. There do not appear to be references (none were posted anyways) for the claims that Anny Eastwood had an initially positive reaction to her personal encounter with Dr. Lenz or that Donald Cole was chronically depressed long before he met Dr. Lenz. Since my view of Dr. Lenz is positive, I won't challenge or change these statements, but those who support Dr. Lenz should be aware these statements are vulnerable to challenge if unsubstantiated, and references should be posted. (I strongly suspect both statements to be true but it is far more likely to pass muster on Wikipedia if substantiated.)

The only statement I disagree with is the statement that all who studied the yoga of career with Dr. Lenz became independently wealthy. If 'all' were replaced by 'some' the statement would certainly be very true. He definitely helped people to increase their incomes but students had varying success with this, and not everyone who did well financially during his lifetime has continued to do well thereafter. As it stands, there is some truth to the statement but I find it too sweeping to agree wholeheartedly.

--Dash77 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments to recent changes, December 4, 2006
The last line of the summary paragraph (referencing Laxer's book) was moved because he studied with Dr. Lenz a very short time and is by no means a definitive authority on Dr. Lenz. Also, it was common knowledge and documented in affidavits by a number of people, that Laxer was emotionally attached and unstable, and became severely frayed when Lenz did not live up to his expectations - therefore, his book should not be referenced in the summary paragraph.

There was a change made to the first paragraph of the article. Dr. Lenz did not "popularize" American Buddhism. The study of truth and enlightenment has never been "popular" on this planet and will probably never be. He studied the essence of truth of all paths, and evolved American Buddhism from the core truth of some of the more prominent pathways to enlightenment.

The reference to Dr. Lenz' body is rude and antithetical to what Rama focused on in his life and teaching - that is, spiritual development, therefore, it has been removed as uncouth hearsay. He never spoke in public about the physical characteristics of humans. The only thing he referenced in terms of the size of individual's aspects were Heart, Ego and Mind. Therefore, to bring this up is idle gossip and inappropriate. Although Dr. Lenz was not fixated on the body, physicality or sexuality, he did not adhere to the hypocritical mores of a "religious" victorian society, that is quick to judge, yet in truth is one of the most violent countries in the world fraught with sexual crime. He had an over-arching understanding of the issues at hand, and yet had a great deal of compassion for the hang-ups that most Americans are conditioned with. These sensibilities come through all of his teachings, if there is an interest in finding out what Dr. Lenz actually had to say about these matters. 

Finally, the opening paragraph of this Discussion page was a misnomber. This person never studied with Dr. Lenz and misleads by stating - "Get both sides of the story", yet her verbiage states clearly that she wants the readers to "get her side of the story", and from a person who never knew Dr. Lenz. She assumed that Dr. Lenz supporters would remove her original article, but that has not happened. It has been left mostly intact. Her header was false and misleading, and therefore has been corrected to state her intent more accurately.

note: I just read that it is not wikipedia etiquette to change someone's discussion paragraph, but since the original first Discussion paragraph was put there by a detractor so as to bias anyone that comes to the site with her biases, it seems that renaming it was appropriate - I leave it to the administrators to decide. 63.163.173.154 08:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey you! Or should I call you IP 63.163.173.154? May I call you "Sixty-three"? It would help other editors if you'd register a username and have a consistent identity. You've apparently been extensively involved with this article so you might as well get a name and "stay a while". I agree with most of your comments. I made numerous small changes to make the article more compliant with out standards, mostly formatting, changing references to a newer style, and removing the "Dr."s (Wikipedia doesn't use academic titles). This article still needs considerable work; mostly cutting out argumentative material. We're not here to prove anything, just to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Remember WP:NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Will. Thank you for your notes. I am clueless when it comes to how to use Wikipedia correctly, but I'm trying to learn. I follow your links, and am open to getting better. In your last note to me, you state that the article needs considerable work, cutting argumentative material. Can you give me an example, and I would be happy to change things, reframe them (all parts, negative, positive, all parts) in order to be in alignment with wikipedia, but with the objective of getting the truth out in a fair manner that actually speaks to Dr. Lenz' life and teachings (vs. the "anti" tirades, or the "pro" gushing). To be honest, it's hard for a pro person to gush, because Dr. Lenz was a tough teacher. He wasn't into gushing. He wasn't into anything but the truth. And he didn't encourage his students to respond to accusations, but rather to get on with their progress. Either way, I'm very open. Thanks much! - Sixty-three 63.163.173.154 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working to improve the article. The section, "Adversity with cult watchdog groups, deprogrammers and former students", appears witten to vindicate Lenz rather than to neutrally report on what difference sources have said. If you were a student of his then I should remind you of our core policy, No original research. Rather than your own personal recollections of the man and his philosophy we need to use sources which can be verified by any editor. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to reorganize that section of the article a bit. The section, as previously written, was very confusing because it started with Lenz' defense against the 'cult' accusations before even stating what those accusations were. I've reorganized it to begin with a summary of the allegations made against Lenz and the primary defenses offered.  I've then reordered the various specific allegations and defenses thereof to be next and in more or less chronological order.  I've moved the more general discussion of the MO of cult opponents to the end.  That discussion is important but the reader will understand the general context better if the specific examples are first discussed.  This section, as previously written, would have been incomprehensible except to someone familiar with the subject matter (on one side of the issue or the other).  I think it still needs work but I hope it reads a bit better now.--Dash77 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That helps. -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment and example, Will. I understand. I have taken your suggestion and brought greater documentation and referencing to the statements made in the last few paragraphs about deprogramming methods. The attempt is not so much to vindicate Lenz, but rather an elucidation of his core teachings. There is anti-Lenz sentiment rifled throughout this article with circular references back to anti-lenz websites and postings. Most are not legitimate (in that they write their own opinions and views, and then reference themselves as authoritative. These references stand unchallenged. You have pointed out that I should not reflect with views and opinions, yet if I put those up on a website and then referenced them in this article, would that be considered non-original research? I must admit, I'm a bit confused about how this works, and what is appropriate - but I'm trying to learn!) So I have taken your advise and referenced documented anti-cult methods used to craft hearsay, so that the reader can understand the source of the anti-statements. Such "anti-cult"  standard negative vergiage has been documented as being pre-scripted during deprogramming sessions. These crafted accusations of enuendo were never proven, and yet are splashed all over this article. That seems important to expose. There is an attempt being made (by the person that started this site, no less), to "expose" Dr. Lenz. It seems fair to "expose" the untruths, and to refute them with the actual teachings (vs. reflections). The anti-lenz campaign became a large part of his legacy, not because it stopped him, but because it didn’t stop him, and so it seems important to discuss it (since someone put that paragraph in and I have been trying to work with what was here when I came. I wouldn't have chosen to add that paragraph if I had started this article.). Based on your suggestion, I have added references to lectures, objective findings, facts, etc., about anti-cult methods, as well as references to Lenz' actual teachings.  Thanks again for your assistance. sixty-three63.163.173.154 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Will - something weird happened. I was finishing the new references in the Adversity paragraph, and it said that there was an editing conflict. The strange thing is that edits I had made yesterday, and that Dash77 had made yesterday, were wiped out. I added them back in as well as my new edits. When I went to see if they made it okay, I noticed some strange history saying it had been reverted back (3 times) and something about a pop-up. I'm out of my league. Don't know what this means. I've just been sticking to standard text editing, and don't know how to deal with this?


 * 63, I've put the article back to where it was following Dash77's edits. It is not the role of this article to indict the critics of Lenz. I'm concerned about the sourcing. I checked one source, http://www.americanbuddha.com/, but it seems to only have random quotations. I couldn't find where there was support for this assertion:
 * The women became extremely successful, confident, joyful, and independent, from a career and life-style standpoint, while the men became more attuned to their sensitive aspects, which empowered them with deeper and more integrated compassion. They too enjoyed great success with careers and lifestyles.
 * Can you use a more specific URL to point to the page where we'd find this information? -Will Beback · † · 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sixty-three and Will, thanks for ensuring that my changes were restored. Will, can I ask why you deleted Sixty-three's addition of the reference from Prof Hadden?  Perhaps the changes have been getting complex and difficult to keep track of, and there was no specific intent to delete that reference?  Prof Hadden does seem to be an established scholar, and so seems to be a credible source in support of many of Sixty-three's assertions about how the so-called 'anti-cult' movement operates/operated.  Was there a reason for this deletion or is Sixty-three welcome to put that reference back in?--Dash77 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Will, I am sure that Sixty-Three will correct me if I am mistaken, but I am wondering if, at least in certain cases, when Sixty-Three refers to the site http://www.americanbuddha.com/, the intent is actually to refer to the book American Buddha, available for purchase at Amazon.com. This book has fairly extensive information about studying with Lenz that documents many of the assertions that Sixty-Three has made.--Dash77 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your repsonses. Yes, Dash 77 is correct in regards to the book, American Buddha. As far as your comment about 'indicting the critics of Lenz', that is not my intent. It is to address the accusations upon which this article was originally based (see bullet points at the beginning of this page), and those which are contained in references all over this site, including references 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17...(and many more to the end) There are many negative comments - I don't attempt to edit or delete, but rather to put into context. That was my sole purpose in adding references about the anti-cult movement, since half of this article is referencing those quotes. It is only done in this one paragraph, and it seems fair to represent where the accusations of Lenz as "cult leader" are sourced from. What do you think? 63.163.173.154 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
The following comment was posted justifying a request to make the article more neutral: "This article needs some serious NPOV and fact-checking work. Numerous embarassingly [sic] ridiculous assertions of fact. Obviously composed almost entirely by devotee(s) of Mr. Lenz".

The article was started by a person apparently opposed to Lenz and more recent revisions have primarily been by former students of Lenz. The article describes miracles attributed to Lenz. Miracles are, by their nature, generally difficult to prove--the Bible, for example, provides neither more nor less documentation for the miracles attributed to Jesus Christ than the writings by Lenz students provide for the miracles attributed to Lenz. A neutral Wikipedia article about a religious figure can only mention the miracles attributed to that figure and then mention the opposing points of view. I agree that the article--which was originally slanted to be rather hostile to Lenz--has by this point perhaps tilted in the opposite direction. However, dismissing miracles as reported by those who happen to believe in a religious figure as "embarrassingly ridiculous" doesn't strike me as a good starting point for an attempt to move to a more "neutral" POV.--Dash77 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article sucks big time. It contains great dollops oif original research, and the fact that ity is substantially bigger than the article on Isaac newton is a patent absurdity. Cruftbane 08:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was written by a complete FanBoy. It sucks.User wpostma

This article was written by a complete fanboy - seconded. It includes mountains of completely inappropriate praise. Rambles on about how sexy his hair was in a section about spiritual enlightenment, then in the trivia section goes on to mention he "never" talked about people's physical aspects.

"Tommy was played by Roger Daltrey, who later used the same photograph as the cover to his 1973 solo album Daltrey. During this period and for most of his life thereafter Lenz wore his hair in the same style as Daltrey/Tommy. As neutral observers point out, people all over the earth with curly hair who wore it long also looked like Roger Daltrey. [29] Lenz supporters cite this as a trivial matter unfairly raised to demonize Lenz. In fact, direct witnesses who were with Lenz in 1980, claimed from the beginning that he started to wear his hair curly and natural when after a swim in the ocean, his hair dried in a curly state, and the women he was with commented on how beautiful his natural curl was, and that he ought to stop combing it straight."

^^^ Spiritual development my ass.

I'm sorry but we couldn't help join the party and jazz it up.

-Anonymous.

Brenda Kerber
If anyone reading this page has information regarding the 1989 disappearance of Brenda Kerber (a former Lenz follower), please contact me at kdraggy86@yahoo.com. I am her son, and I'm trying to find information regarding the brief time period from when she moved to NY to her subsequent disappearance. Her disappearance is a mystery that was never solved.


 * It is my understanding that even those Lenz students who were very close to Brenda honestly do not know what happened to her. Studying with Lenz was demanding psychologically (and in many other ways) and certainly students occasionally suffered breakdowns as do participants in virtually every demanding human activity.  But I don't get the sense that Brenda was especially close to Lenz and therefore it is highly unlikely that Lenz had any real knowledge of the circumstances of her disappearance.  You might try getting to know some of the former Lenz students--I think that you will find that if you are respectful towards them, they will respond in kind and might ultimately point you to someone(s) who knew Brenda.  That might help you fill in some of the missing pieces but I honestly think no one knows exactly what happened in the end.  If it is true what your grandfather suspects--that Brenda committed suicide--that is a great tragedy but there is also no reason anyone would know any details beyond the entries in her diary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.253.192 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The lady doth protest too much, methinks.--108.14.214.112 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the person who posted anonymously as 71.141.253.192 over fifteen years ago, although I am male, not a "lady". The disappearance of Brenda Kerber was finally solved early in 2021 when her remains were discovered in a submerged car in Muscoot Reservoir. I definitely extend my condolences to Kdraggy86 and the rest of Brenda's family on their loss. Dash77 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Trivia?
Does this sort of stuff really belong on wikipedia? User:Jamie Kitson —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the bit about dulcimers is interesting, as is the bit about being a black belt. I've removed the rest, though, and I'll be doing more textual liposuction over the next few hours. DS (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is awful, badly written, trivia-stuffed, unencyclopedic POV mess.
I am trying to thin it out as best as possible, but I can't help thinking we'd be better off reverting to the version linked to further up the talk page. Any comments? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have cut it down now to about 2/3 its original length, but I still have very serious concerns about sourcing and the general content of the article. It is still very long. POV wording is still relatively prevalent. Many of the sources used are too closely linked to the subject of the article. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now 41% shorter than an hour ago :) 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another white guy?
Why is it always white guys who proclaim themselves masters and guides of such and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.27.65 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
 Teachers noted for compassion, throughout history, often become ill when taking on the karmas of their students. In my opinion, this sentence should be deleted. ChristianR (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It was, sometime before June 2009 WQUlrich (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest (so far) edit
I deleted one short, obviously promotional paragraph. I also changed quite a few loaded adjectives and inaccurate nouns. (For example, there appears to be no evidence that Lenz was actually a "musician".) It seems reasonably well-balanced now, but the criticism section is under-referenced. In addition, I think most of the section on "Zazen" really belongs in their article and the section on his computer-related work may be too long. WQUlrich (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there room for any more references?208.222.13.22 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at those references more closely. Some relatively unimportant things are thoroughly cited, while some very significant things aren't. They should probably all be reassessed.WQUlrich (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

comparison with marpa and padmasambhava
I put a cite ref tag here. comparing this person with, essentially, buddhist saints or demigods is stretching it, and needs a solid ref to stand. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest Edits
I made a few edits on this page, cleaning up the grammar, and formatting it better. In general, I feel this article needs a large number of citations and references, or unsourced material should be pulled off. The majority of the content on this page is unsourced and many of the citation errors and clarifications have not been addressed yet. If I had the resources to make citations then I would do so, but I don't have any.

I would encourage those with proper resources to cite the content of this article, or someone should pull it off, because in it's current state, it cannot be relied upon as having any kind of accuracy, supporting references, nor containing neutral POV. Therefore, I have added the reference tag to this article.

Basically, this article needs some work! --Devanagari108 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Death, suicide or accident?
One ref linked to article says suicide, he had taken 80 valium. Other accounts I read said he had some kind of downers in blood, he was depressed by lawsuits; he could easily slipped off the dock... What is official report? GangofOne (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The official account is suicide. I've never seen any reliable source state anything else. Dash77 (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Frederick Lenz. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061223195256/http://home.dejazzd.com:80/jszimhart/snowboarding.htm to http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/snowboarding.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Still a mess
This article is still rife with promotional language and half-developed topics. It's clear that the subject is controversial, yet as it stands at this writing, the article only says, in effect, "some people criticised him". Those controversies are both notable and intrinsic to the subject, and so require a full section, complete with citations.

If Lenz' followers are interfering, or militant axe-grinders, or both, then I suggest we edit-protect the article. Any road, it's old enough now that it should read much better than it does. Laodah 06:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)