Talk:Richard Rose/Archive 1

Categories
Mystics, Esotericism and Zen masters

I understand the average reader may not appreciate this terminology, or may even believe the whole range of these topics is pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. This is a controversy that has persisted for millienna and we certainly won't be able to resolve it here. Steve Harnish 19:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the Category (deleted by Nat Krause) "Zen masters" because Richard Rose was certainly known as such. His published works and recorded lectures make ample references to his experience and expertise in this area. He studied with two Zen masters and said that of the schools of thought he studied, Zen was the most propitious. He wrote a book that included the "mechanics" of the ancient Chinese Zen practice known as Transmission. The name of the early esoteric group was the Pyramid Zen Society. Steve Harnish 19:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the Category (deleted by Nat Krause) "Esoctericism" (I'm not sure I made the proper choice among Esoteric categories, maybe Esotericists would be acceptable) because of Rose's expertise and experience in this area. He researched paranormal phenomena extensively and his writings and recordings document this. He spoke extensively of ESP, western Magick, materializations he had wittnessed (bogus and real), "channeling", exorcisms, synchronitic events, and hypnotism. He was known to have demonstrated at least one exorcism and was an able hypnotist. He called his own system "esoteric philosophy," in the same sensed used by the esoteric philosopher Gurdjieff. Steve Harnish 19:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I recommend leaving the category Mystics in place based on Rose's published works which include descriptions of his personal mystical experience at the age of 30. Steve Harnish 19:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The normal method for resolving an issue like this is that you point me to a book (other than one by RR) that describes RR as a zen master, I look it up at the library, and then we make the article say: "according to x, RR was a Zen Master" and on that basis put him in the Zen Master category. But I doubt that there is such a souce that you can point me to, and if there is, that it is available in a library (despite the fact that, living in Chicago, I have excellent access to libraries and books). --goethean &#2384; 21:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do understand your point. There is ample material on the web that asserts Rose was a Zen master, even in the google link you provided RR +Zen etc at Google. Here is one such link Zen Master - Poet - Philosopher - Friend. Due to simple economics as well as the advent of the internet, very few people are interested in publishing hard-bound, library-quality books on who is and who isn't a Zen master.  I would also direct you to the book by David Gold, After the Absolute link at OnZen.Com, which appears on the web as an EBook, but is also vailable in paper (bound) form. Note that the forward was provided by Joseph Chilton-Pearce, a highly popular author in his day. Here's a quick quote on the book, and there are ample descriptions in it, although Idon't have time to go through it and quote chapter and verse: "After the Absolute describes in fascinating detail the true story of attorney Dave Gold's life at the hands of Richard Rose, one of the most unlikely and unrelenting Zen masters you'll ever run across." Steve Harnish 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Idon't have time to go through it and quote chapter and verse
 * Well, chapter would be nice rather than pointing me to an entire book. And statements like:
 * He is often referred to as a "Zen Master" by the people who knew him because of the depth of his wisdom and the spiritual system he conveyed to his students. But he did not expound traditional Zen, or any other traditional teaching.
 * make me think that he was not an actual zen master. --goethean &#2384; 21:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but Zen itself is considered a non-traditional form of Buddhism. This gets into the very definitions of eSoteric vs eXoteric: Esoteric wisdom asserts that the vast majority of mankind are deeply asleep and that only through very special means can they be awakened. But esotericism also says they can only be awakened on an individual basis, not collectively or en masse. There are dozens of Biblical references to sleeping humanity, "ears that can hear," etc. Sufism also asserts the same. Esoteric religion/philosophy is esoteric simply because of the tendencies in human nature to fall back asleep even after they have begun a religious practice. A reference to Gurdjieff is helpful because of his explanation of how followers of a religious leader begin to form organizations and doctrines and eventually fall back into the same rut as the leader broke out of. E.g., Budha broke with Hinduism, Zen broke with Buddhism, on and on. Once Zen goes mainstraim (or, as you say, "traditional,") we're back into dogmatism and ritual. At the core of Zen in China were the following "four precepts" of Bodhidharma (who brought Zen from India to China) Because of this particular focus of Zen, it is naturally difficult to find scholarly, academic, or otherwise "authoritative" commentaries on what is essentially a non-verbal tradition. Hope this is helpful. Steve Harnish 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A special transmission outside of the scriptures.
 * No dependence upon words or letters.
 * Direct pointing at the soul of man.
 * Seeing into one's own nature and the attainment of Buddhahood

Goethean - I hope you didn't perceive my "I don't have time" as a slight. I meant no such thing. It's just that I'm bogged down today in writing a computer program, which requires a lot of concentration. I have plenty of time and patience to explain this material to anyone who is interested. I don't take lightly the fact that you have taken an interest in this topic. Steve Harnish 22:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this would be an acceptable compromise, but if the Category "Zen master" is in place temporarily, it might capture the attention of whichever Project manager is in charge in the area of Zen. A recommendation (yes or no) from such a project manager would cerainly carry more weight than mine, as I am a Wiki newcomer. Steve Harnish 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The more I mull this over the more interesting it becomes. Suppose someone were to say, "I don't know what a Zen master is until you explain to me what Zen is." That hits at the crux of the matter. What would be the response? Zen refers to people who follow a certain practice or observe certain ceremonies? Ok, we can discount the ceremonies as purely sentimental or commemorative, but for the serious-minded among them - there must be some - why would they be following the practice? Meaning, what exactly is their aim, and furthermore, what is the origin of this practice? Of course these are the followers, so what were the aims and the experiences of the "patriarchs" who founded the movement? They have reached an objective or at least had an aim they say is transcendental? Ok, how can you prove in words, in a book, in a court of law, that such a transcendental "objective" even exists if by nature it transcends the conceptual mind? Scholarship implies the acquisition and analysis of knowledge, and the libraries in India, the collections of the Vedas, comprise mountains of knowledge. But Zen masters say their aim is to destroy knowledge, to kill the conceptual mind, so the Reality that makes knowledge and everything else in the world possible can be discovered. And are we even entitled to capitalize the word Reality until we know what it is?

Can we say a Zen master is Enlightened (another capitlized word)? What does that mean and exactly how can we prove it? Can we at least say he is happy? What if he says he has freed himselve from the need to be happy? Did he find Truth? Who is the accepted authority on what is true? Can we say it's just a delusion, a psychosis? The esoteric teachers have always said that the vast majority of humanity are truly delusional, even those who follow religiuos practices, maybe especially so, that they are living in samsara. They say they are trying to free humanity from samsara. Who then is delusional? Steve Harnish 00:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, I practice Zen Buddhism myself, and I have no idea whether Richard Rose is a Zen master or not. In fact, I'm not really sure what "Zen master" means; as far as I can tell, its something like "a Zen teacher who is famous". I've suggested before that Wikipedia should not have a "Zen masters" category at all, although I haven't pursued the matter for a while, and there are currently a lot of names in that category. Anyway, I feel like you might be drifting away from the main point with your above comments. As far as Wikipedia is considered, I would suggest that we must treat Zen as a historical phenomenon, and address the question of whether or not Richard Rose has some kind of ties to it, and what the nature of those ties are. Certainly, just being called a Zen Master doesn't make you one, in any possible sense of the term. People often call Phil Jackson "the Zen Master", but obviously he doesn't belong in that category. So, what exactly are Rose's bona fides for being a Zen teacher, not in the sense of really being one (which is way, way beyond our scope here), but in the sense of cultural and historical continuity? You say that Rose studied with two Zen teachers ... did he study with them before or after he became a teacher himself? Who are these two teachers, and what are their bona fides, etc., etc.? - Nat Krause 10:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You make the same point. Maybe the discussion should be mediated by Project Manager in the Zen masters category rather than someone who feels the category shouldn't exist.  To answer your questions, RR studied with Sokei-an and Alfred Pulyan.  The difficulty in lineage  was referred to in this excerpt from a transcript of a public lecture by RR in 1976 ("The  Path") which is available at the TAT Foundation website:  "And my belief -- here's a man,  Sokei-an, who had a rubber stamp from Japan, who could not transmit, who had very little to  give to anybody, lived his life out as a monk -- and Pulyan, a man from New York City [Kent,  CT], practically unknown, was a man who could transmit and refused to advertise; the only way  you could find him was by accident. Because he didn't believe in blowing a horn."  Steve Harnish 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I received the following correspondence from a Zen researcher who prefers to remain anonymous:

"Steve, I just read through the debate on Rose's Zen Master status. To the person arguing against it, it seems to boil down to formal, authoritative, independent recognition.

"If he had actually studied Zen history then he would know there is no such hierarchy for officially conferring the title Zen Master. The ONLY such quasi-formal recognition has to do with lineage. Pulyan wrote in a letter to Rose that the so-called lineage was simply a chain of succession of a teacher vouching for a student and that the lineage supposedly could be traced all the way back to Gautama Buddha and then asked: 'But who vouches for Buddha?' He claimed to have documentation of such a lineage but dismissed it as irrelevant.

"There is no such thing as being ordained a Zen master - as a priest is ordained a priest. That seems to be the thinking of this person arguing against the point. So it gets back to the definition of Zen and Zen Master. They are ALL of them PURPORTED Zen masters - and then other writers or 'authorities' simply repeat the claim, thus amplifying it -- so Wikipedia’s definition of a Zen Master ought to be someone who is purportedly enlightened and has knowledge or ability to convey, or be a catalyst in that same realization in another, with no reliance on dogma or ritual -- hence the lineage.

"Oh well...I suppose it’s all irrelevant." (anonymous, posted by) Steve Harnish 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * He's so secret that he can't let his IP be listed? Who does he work for &mdash; Tom DeLay? --goethean &#2384; 16:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal friend for about 35 years. His witings are available on the web.  Steve Harnish 18:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I neglected to point this out before: there are no Project Managers on Wikipedia, so there is no authority figure available to moderate this discussion. Since this is a free-wheeling encyclopedia, if you'd like I can dub myself Project Manager for the duration of the conversation.


 * I'm not arguing for "formal, authoritative, independent recognition" or anything like that. I'm arguing for an encyclopedia to discuss Zen as a cultural phenomenon, with its own internal continuity over time. So, when I say "cultural and historical continuity", I'm not talking about dharma transmission specifically, but about continuity with the community of other Zen Buddhists who have lived in various countries for the last several hundred years+. The point I'm arguing is actually whether Richard Rose is Zen or not; whether he is a master is completely a matter of opinion and should, I suggest, be left out of this and any other articles. Most of the above-referenced Zen researcher's comments above strike me as pretty irrelevant, as he has unfortunately misconstrued my initial point.


 * So, one of the Zen teachers Rose studied with was Sokei-an ... but, at the same time, Rose appears to dismiss him as a guy with "a rubber stamp from Japan, who could not transmit". Am I misunderstanding him? Unless I am, that just leaves Pulyan. What is his background? What did he verifiably (from an encyclopedia's perspective) did he pass on to Rose (who was apparently already doing his own thing before he met Pulyan)?


 * I don't understand how we practically apply the suggestion to define Zen Master as "someone who is purportedly enlightened and has knowledge or ability to convey, or be a catalyst in that same realization in another". In the second part, it's not clear whether this is intended to mean that the Zen Master really "has knowledge or ability to convey", etc., or whether we should accept people who simply claim to to have that knowledge or ability. In the first case, how can Wikipedia possibly hope to judge what spiritual abilities someone really had? This is so far outside our jurisdiction that it's not even funny. In the second case, this seems to imply that we include any spiritual teacher who claims to be enlightened in the "Zen Masters" category, e.g. Adi Da, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Nichiren, David Koresh, not to mention random people off the street, etc. - Nat Krause 16:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you ever worked closely with a real Zen master you'd see the above arguments as hollow. You say that even though you practice Zen Buddhism, you don't really know what a Zen master is. That deserves to be seen. I'd only recommend you keep searching. What is important in Zen is the result, not an opinion on what it means in social or utilitarian terms. The problem with Sokei-an vs. Pulyan illustrates the point. Some may regard the credentials RR called "rubber-stamp" as valid because Sokei-an was well-known (tidbit: related by marriage to Alan Watts) By the way, Pulyan had bona fides, but since you have expressed the desire to be the "Zen master" Project Manager I'll let you check that out on your own. Richard Rose is not making the claim. Rather, the assertion appears in the many sources linked above (see above for pre-formatted Google search). Steve Harnish 18:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

red links
In regard to this edit comment, there's nothing wrong with red links. When the article is written, the link will be created automatically. Please avoid external links with the body of the artivcle. They belong in the External links section. Specifically, the phrase "their works are available at the TAT forum" smacks of promotion or advertising and is frowned upon. --goethean &#2384; 17:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks for your help. Steve Harnish 03:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Self promotion by family
The following and similar material was removed: "In 1980 his daughter Tatia was born to his second wife, Cecy, who now manages the family farm and is entrusted with promoting his teachings through the website called Richard Rose Teachings, home of Rose Publications, through which she distributes his books, audio lectures and notes." [...] As for the phrase "Entrusted with promoting his teachings" - Wikipedia is concerned with supportable and verifiable facts. First, there is no way Wikipedia can verify this statement (regarding publishing rights or obligations). Secondly, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "promote" anything. .... 65.2.82.11 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mrs Cecy Rose is a newcomer to Wikipedia and apparently antagonized some contributors by her continued posting, re-instating material after they deleted it, and apparent lack of response to their concerns that she was violating Wikipedia standards and polices. Apparently she was unaware of these policies (referenced below). She was also unaware of the Discussion page/consensus process as well. Some of their comments were pretty strong and I am removing them now for the sake of toning down the rhetoric. Feel free to flame me if necessary here or on my talk page. One run ron 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the phrase: "Official site for the teachings of Richard Rose" - the comment was left standing for now but it should be up to the bookseller to prove the right to be the authorized source for the "teachings" - as distinct from being the legal publisher of books, etc. Presumably the bookseller has publishing rights for copyrighted materials, but it's hard to see how the bookseller has rights to ideas and/or methods, which is the sense of the word "teachings". 65.2.82.11 14:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the above: "Official site for the teachings of Richard Rose" - the comment was left standing for now ... [etc]. I believe it should be changed to read "Official site for the published materials" rather than "teachings" - because the default web page  at the linked site reads "Albigen System Promotion" and the link is clearly commercial. 70.146.49.99 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A helpful place to put this discussion in perspective is at this Wikipedia link: "What Wikipedia is not": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not One run ron 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable.

See Wikipedia:Autobiography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography

See Wikipedia:Five Pillars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

One run ron 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My thanks to Ron for his recent correspondence and my apologies to anyone at Wikipedia whose policies I may have violated in terms of self-promotion. As per his encouragement, I am submitting this response.


 * It was not my intention to promote myself or any other family members, but to bring attention to facets of Richard Rose's life that the authors of this article chose to omit. Indeed, this article is about Richard Rose. The timeline, for example, gives a wonderful overview, with photos, of Richard Rose's life. (I'm not the most computer saavy person, so my links to what was considered pages deemed commercial in nature were not intentional.)


 * I have been quite fortunate to receive supportive communication from those who have visited the Richard Rose site I put up to continue the work of publishing and distributing his literary works. I also feel that I may have a unique perspective to offer having been both wife and student for almost 30 years. But this is not about me, and is neither here nor there in regards to the issue at hand.


 * As I stated to Ron, I have chosen not to participate in making edits to the article page. The authors have done a fine job putting the article together and despite the subtle plugs which remain intact, I believe most people (as one party above has already voiced) will see beyond that and glean what they can from the gems that Richard Rose left behind. It is truly a story worthy of Wikipedia's hosting. Of course, I'm prejudiced.
 * Sincerely, Cecy Rose


 * I referenced the photo collection and family life information (reinstating the link to "Timeline" of Richard Rose Teachings website) in the External Links section and referenced this explicitly in the Biography section. This material adds life and color to the more theoretical discussion of Rose's professional activities. Some of the comments at the beginning of this Talk section are inflammatory and unhelpful and should be removed or restated by their authors in my opinion. One run ron 18:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)