![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For the real story [1], 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. [2] 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)
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:
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 Rama432:
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.
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.
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)
More clean up of pillar 1 and 2 violations:
LibHead 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
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).
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 <nnn> degree black belt in <style> on <date> from <Sensei>.' 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)
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. [7]
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)
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?
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)
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.
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.
Does this sort of stuff really belong on wikipedia? User:Jamie Kitson —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For the real story [1], 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. [2] 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)
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:
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 Rama432:
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.
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.
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)
More clean up of pillar 1 and 2 violations:
LibHead 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
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).
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 <nnn> degree black belt in <style> on <date> from <Sensei>.' 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)
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. [7]
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)
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?
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)
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.
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.
Does this sort of stuff really belong on wikipedia? User:Jamie Kitson —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
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)