Well I suppose you hold westerners in much higher regards as to the consistancy of the teachings than I do.
I have had one director of a place themselves ardently support for the existance of a soul and then point to a american author as substantiation of such view.
So I err on the side of caution seeing perhaps a greater chance for corruption of the dharma, even at a personal level .
I don't have a answer but one is required I think.
I tend towards thinking this thing can be reformed or that the monastic can be changed to more reflect a open relationship.
Me if I was god of this religion
...I would set things up so only unknown donations are accepted for the monasticism.
Known would be strictly rejected always every time....so it would have no influence at all.
What purpose knowing if not to be known.
Less donations now more later as I see it....if god of this religion be I
that would be the rule.
So who sits at the table....would not be the benefactors perhaps but those closest to the lama at the time of the sitting.
Then would this thing have a real chance for general acceptance though I know that is not the focus of this thread.
I personally don't believe in spreading the word..but found out how things are I have personally witnessed many leave it all behind, and find few once found continue to explore it. So ripe are the memories of theistic abuse in this culture.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.