Talk:Reginald Ray

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Buddhist Saints article within this entry seems outdated as far as the work that is becoming his legacy. A new article about meditating with the body should be inserted by someone who has done this training extensively. Donalds (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lama?

Is he a Lama? He is in the Lama Category? Billlion 20:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda think it can be removed but its a little unclear. I don't think he uses that term to discribe himself, but he seems to be moving in that direction. Sylvain1972 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Students of Chogyam Trungpa don't use the title lama. Instead they use the title Acharya. Davidreid 02:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is true, but Acharya Ray recently formed his own organization and seems as if he may be headed toward some kind of break with the Shambhala sangha. He gives pointing out instructions and conducts his own initiations into Vajrayana practice, which Acharyas have not been authorized to do. Sylvain1972 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reggie would entertain this question by first asking what value the questioner placed on Tibetan culture versus the teachings of the Dharma. Titles are handed down in a cultural context, sometimes for political reasons and nepotism. He would then very graciously point the questioner in the direction of a lama, wishing him or her well, AND/OR he would invite the questioner to PRACTICE(meditate), which would help the questioner with his or her quest in the first place.67.41.113.220 05:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray has stated that Chogyam Trungpa asked Ray to be a spiritual teacher, 'to teach the way he did."

A more accurate description would come from Ray's "'Indestructible Truth'" in a Chapter about Tulkus. One could describe Ray as a "direct tulku." Donalds 07:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themes of Dr Ray's Teaching

Perhaps there should be a section on some of the primary themes of Dr. Ray's teaching. Here are a few ideas:

importance of the body for modern meditators

the Buddhist path of meditation is a way to reconnect with the primordial spirituality characteristic of pre-agricultural, indigenous cultures

the highest possible spiritual attainment is to become completely individuated and to engage the world fully

I'm not sure how to organize or present this stuff. Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.185.75 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements in the works

Edited intro to refect Reggie's retirement from Naropa and divorce from Lee Ray. Intend to add section about Meditating with the Body as per Donald's suggestion above.

Full Disclosure: I consider Reggie Ray to be my teacher and am currently a part-time employee of the Dharma Ocean Foundation. My intentions are to be fair and accurate in improving this article to best reflect Reggie's life and works. Any errors in this regard are made in good faith. --Ceasegen (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The provided reason for Reggie Ray's divorce is irrelevant and unfair to his former wife who is not a notable figure in the public sphere. ChopperCut (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged misconduct

There was a large section removed by an IP which I was initially going to undo except the IP has a point in the edit summary. The allegations are completely unsourced and unreferenced. I would advocate keeping them out until such references arise. If true, they surely will be. Other, referenced material was also removed by the IP. This should be discussed further and I did undo that. Ifnord (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree allegations may be unsourced but I don’t think it makes sense to remove the whole section. In many other living person pages it may say “alleged misconduct”. This is important here because it’s the reason Dharma Ocean is dissolving. If you read the page now there’s no reference that it is even dissolving, referenced by the letter from the board that was deleted as well. I may propose a more brief update to include these points. Any thoughts? Gtg926y (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)gtg926y[reply]

The section should be removed because Dharma Ocean continues to operate as a functioning organization with a board of directors, website, and program offerings.

I'm not clear on what is a valid source for this sort of allegation, but there is a signed letter with accusations of spiritual abuse from many former students here: (Redacted)

It seems a letter does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources "regarding contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced." The policy states such content should be removed immediately and without discussion. This is because such letters can make slanderous accusations that are not verifiably true.

The letter includes links to a number of other online letters and discussions, as well.

January 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fchasw (talk • contribs) 11:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP controversial information can only be included when there are reliable, preferably secondary sources. If not, content must removed straight away. Just telling you how it is—I wasn't the IP that removed anything though. IMHO, a signed letter on Google Drive is not sufficient if it that letter has not received any media coverage. For all we know, the letter may never have been sent.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article now reflects the dynamics of those accusing Ray of misconduct and the article is out of integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information posted in regard to allegations is inaccurate, not current, and not verifiably linked to reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia policies. The policy is clear: "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Further, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Reggie Ray continues to teach, is not in retirement, the Dharma Ocean Foundation has not closed, and there is an active Board of Directors (per official emails from the organization and the website). The links to online letters, discussions, and websites should be considered "poorly sourced" because they are not verifiable and the authors and their motives are unknown. ChopperCut (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed to see that the allegations have no place on this page. In case it has not been mentioned yet, the crisis was discussed by Matthew Remski: https://matthewremski.com/wordpress/reggie-ray-flips-his-own-abuse-crisis-into-his-own-ultimate-dharma-teaching/ . Remski is part of Conspirituality and is a leading investigator and reporter on sexual abuse in Buddhism and Yogic traditions. I think he qualifies as a reliable third party source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.186.33.100 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]