And the paradox of such a view is simple - can you truly believe that one who has a proper and correct understanding and realisation of the Dharma as discussed by Nagarjuna could really be drawn into a cult as you suggest?
How many people have a proper and correct understanding of the dharma as discussed by Nagarjuna? Even to have a thorough understanding of emptiness and the two truths as expressed by Nagarjuna is a very tall order. Many Lharampa Geshes I have spoken to tell me they still struggle to understand the subtle import of Nagarjuna's teachings, and they are the top scholars produced by a system that takes nearly 20 years of thorough study and contemplation.
As for the critique of monastic systems, although ven. Indrajala's views might sound extreme, they are in fact based on a profound understanding of Chinese language and culture, and a long period spent living in Taiwan, including as part of a large Taiwanese Buddhist organization.
I am reticent to speak about Chinese Buddhism as a whole in this respect though because, for example, I found my stay at City of Ten Thousand Buddhas very different from the stay in Taiwan. Although CTTB is an extremely strict monastery the attitude is much more relaxed somehow. There is less of an emphasis on form and regulations- no one checks how your blanket is folded or shoes arranged. As long as your room is not a disaster zone no one will bother you. Group activities are less, there is more personal space.
While this might sound like a harsh critique you will find most Westerners who were part of seminary programs in Taiwan express the same things. I know a few, including a man who was a Theravada bhikkhu for some years and went to Taiwan to experience things and found the lack of space and acceptance of his "'Western-ness" hard to take. I spoke to former students from Indian and Nepalese backgrounds as well and they expressed the lack of acceptance they felt, and that it was not just the precepts of Buddhism that were enforced, but completely foreign cultural norms that were imposed. Because the Nepali and Indian students came from poor families, unlike the Westerners they often end up staying for years, but unfortunately upon return to their home countries they do not continue their pursuit of Buddhism (though the Chinese they learn is a useful and marketable skill)
The sad thing is of course that any such discussion will never be heard because of it will be seen as "lack of gratitude"-how can you eat at our monastery and then criticize etc.
I want to clarify though that this system is not enforced out of cruelty. Its proponents see the monastic formation work for some of the Taiwanese kids that make it through, and think that if the foreigners would just submit they would get the same benefits. Taiwan is an island culture and as such is rather insular. It is also pretty racially homogenous with two ethnic groups that are closely related-Chinese and Taiwanese, with a tiny native population. So the people are not as exposed to different cultures, which I also think leads to a misunderstanding.
The Tibetan monasteries are also extremely difficult places in many ways, but as the Tibetans in India by now are rather exposed to foreigners, and many of the Geshes in the administration have spent time in the West or have relatives who have, there is a bit more of an acceptance for the quircks of Westerners. They might find us weird and say so, but they tolerate it. Sera Jey, for example, understood that due to adapting to the culture it was harder for Westerners to focus on their studies. So they allowed some FPMT students to build a separate house for the Westerners to live. As they have to learn the language and study harder for the same results, Westerners are also excused from some ritual and service requirements of the monastery. As they acclimatize, some Westerners naturally choose to do these things any way.
For those who don't want to submit to a traditional monastic system, the Tibetans don't insist on that either (though behind your back they might say it was better if you had). Places like Tsongkhapa Institute, Nalanda Monastery for the Gelugs and Samye Ling for the Kagyus along with non denominational Institutes like Thosamling nunnery insist on a level of discipline but in a Western context, separated from Tibetan cultural norms. Teachings are translated into Western languages by trained translators.. So for those who don't want to learn Tibetan, or even know Tibetan but cannot or don't want to live in India, there are options. (Sadly, there is the huge problem of lack of financial support for Sangha- something we need to emulate the Chinese monasteries in, but that is the topic for another thread).
In the Theravada Forest Tradition, Ajahn Chah let his Western disciples build their own monastery in Thailand where things were done in English, and left the running of it up to the discretion of Western abbots. The system has produced present luminaries like Ajahn Brahm.
I am not saying that the Taiwanese system cannot produce Westerners who are a huge benefit to the dharma- ven. Hui Feng is a living example. But how many such examples do we have? Don't you think it is a shame that there are not more Westerners well-versed in Chinese Buddhism? Imagine if every Chinese Buddhist organization had even 5 monks like Ven. Hui Feng, or 5 monks like Ven. Heng Sure. What do you think that would do for the dharma? It would take Chinese Buddhism out of the Sinosphere and into the broader worlds.
Sadly, if no accomodations are made this will never happen.
My two cents.