Comments-Tragedy at Diamond Mountain-An Update
[
www.elephantjournal.com]
Follow the discussion Comments (35)
will be notified. Thank you for your input.
+3 Vote up Vote down
HighlySkeptical · 2 days ago
What's with all the literary theory and bending-over backward attempt to be "spiritual?" There are really only 3 questions here and they're about criminal prosecution.
Roach is in total violation of 501(c)(3) charity and fundraising law, this much seems clear from your account. Why isn't he being prosecuted by the IRS?
McNally is crazy dangerous, not crazy enlightened. Believing herself to be a goddess, she stabbed her husband 3 times, and then, if your tale is true, later fled with him to cave, when he became ill. As the food ran out, he starved to death. But she didn't. This could only lead one to suppose that she ate what food there was herself, thus deliberately inflicting a horrible death via starvation/dehydration on him. This is one of the most painful and tortuous ways to die, as everyone knows.
Where is McNally now and why isn't she 1 - in the hands of the police or 2 - in a mental institution?
As to why the Board isn't talking - that's clear. The criminal negligence and financial liability is still thick about them. Why haven't they likewise been arrested for negligent homicide?
All the spiritual and literary theory mumbo-jumbo in your article really just evade these crucial questions. Please man up, Remski, and be a journalist. Ask the tough questions no matter how much the cultists cry and howl. Has Roach paid off the local police? Anyone else is these circumstances would find their keister in jail. Report Reply
3 replies · active 20 hours ago
+7 Vote up Vote down
matthew 75p · 1 day ago
HS: thanks for your input. I don't think I've evaded the potential problems with DM's 501(c)(3) status, nor McNally's possible psychiatric issues. I've made reference to both several times. I will not go so far as to speculate on foul play.
I make no attempt to be spiritual in either piece: not sure what you're referring to here. As for being a journalist: I'm not, and I don't know how many times I must say it. I'm a man with personal experience of the group and access to public documents. That's it. But I'm happy that my efforts allow the tough questions to be broadcast for consideration. Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down
HighlySkeptical · 1 day ago
I appreciate your reply Matthew. As you know the rumors are that the bigamist McNally is being hidden away by Roach's supporters and being paid by her ex-husband so she'll keep quiet. The New York Times did several large articles on Roach & McNally at one time when they were very popular - notice now however the eerie media silence. His money has power, I guess. Report Reply
+2 Vote up Vote down
matthew 75p · 20 hours ago
As I said in the piece: I believe national media coverage is coming. Report Reply +8 Vote up Vote down
(Name omitted for privacy) · 2 days ago
A very thorough and soul searching article. I think you did a good job of owning your prejudices (which I found distracting in the previous article) so that I could tease them out from the facts. Especially useful for me was your exploration of cults, as I am still processing my involvement with Anusara yoga. Report Reply
0 replies · active 2 days ago +9 Vote up Vote down
Caroline · 1 day ago
Thank you for this. I am struggling at the moment with trying hard not to alienate the Michael Roach enthusiasts in my life while simultaneously hoping that this terribly sad incident gives them the wake-up call they desperately need...
I appreciate, as Michelle has said above, you "owning your prejudices" - it makes this article really useful. Report Reply
0 replies · active 1 day ago
+5 Vote up Vote down
(name omited for privacy)33p · 1 day ago
Lama Marut was ordained by Geshe Michael Roach and Christie McNally in February 2005. He was a student at Diamond Mountain. Marut has a spiritual partner who co-teaches with him. Yesterday he took off his robes for teaching purposes and said he may wear them when appropriate. You can listen to his 5-minute explaination. [
lamamarut.org] Report Reply
0 replies · active 1 day ago +7 Vote up Vote down
Kevin · 1 day ago
Thank you for the follow-up. The comments from Karen Visser are especially welcome in placing this in a larger context. I admit to my disregard of my better judgment in my involvement with this community for the reason of wishing to be part of a community. When I was first involved with them in 2008 and heard of GM's teaching during HH the DL teachings -- I was appalled. Even though I did not accept that seeing a pen as a pen and not as a chew toy logicked out to the world coming from me, I was unable to untangle (due to my lack of knowledge of Buddhism) what was Tibetan, Buddhist, or just silliness. I am in the process of trying to come to terms with the fact that my despair made me susceptible to something I thought I would never fall for... a cult. Report Reply
0 replies · active 1 day ago +6 Vote up Vote down
(name omitted for privacy) · 1 day ago
Once again Matthew has articulated so many concerns that I share. I will reserve further comment until I have processed this a bit. Report Reply
0 replies · active 1 day ago +2 Vote up Vote down
(KP) · 1 day ago
These "power dynamics" you mention. What the hell does this even mean?
Ian's death was the result of two bungling novice-'monk' shit-for-brains who covered for Christie when she decided to try and complete the retreat on adjacent BLM land. Hotel receipts were falsely submitted to throw the board off the scent. Neither of these 'profiles in ineptitude' probably bothered to verify precisely where McNally and Thorson were camped-out; but rather decided to exercise blind faith that the poor woman actually had a grip on the situation and could indeed carry out the completion of the retreat without recourse to sanitation, cooking facilities, laundry, fresh water, etc...If there's a case to be made for any negligence that is directly behind this epic failure, these moral, ethical, and cognitive lapses in judgement falls onto the shoulders of both Christie and the two novices whose complicit support of this back-end run into an isolated cave was concealed from the DM Board of Directors. It's an axiomatic absurdity to suggest the Board members can be held personally responsible for preventing a tragedy that they had no knowledge whatsoever was about to transpire. Any determination of guilt in this matter is going to be problematic if insanity was the primary force at work behind this subterfuge, though.
'nail down' if insanity actually motivated this fatally botched enterprise. Report Reply
9 replies · active 18 hours ago +1 Vote up Vote down
corvid · 1 day ago
Well, from your comment it looks like Lama Christe-co-founder of Diamond Mountain University who was recently relegated to nonperson status or" just plain Christie" status is being put on notice that there is room under the bus with Ian.The fall back story that in the last two months of Ian's life only 2 and no more people knew they were back there will be examined closely.Other retreaters did not know?Caretakers (employees of DM) did not see extra food requests at the time the Leader of The Retreat left? Other people associated with DM that had been all over the back country didn't see them?No one on the board saw the flashlights on the mountains above the retreat the Border Patrol had seen repeatedly this spring from the temple or there houses at night and wonder what was going on up there?.Plenty of people had to know or everyone was just doing a bad job of watching out for the retreaters. Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down kelly rigpa · 23 hours ago
the caretakers did not notice any discrepancies because there were none. The funds to provide for Ian and Christie's ostensible needs were not coming from DMU's purse, but rather from another place-perhaps if the two novices and Christie were to at last speak for themselves, much, much more would be revealed.
As far as the "flashlights on the mountains" are concerned, the retreat-valley cabins themselves glut the previous corridor for the human traffic that has been running back and forth from the present day countries of the U.S. and Mexico for thousands of years. These same mountains are not entirely visible from the campground/temple/established residences on DMU land, as these structures are further down into the foothills, and several bends away in the topography. Another point to consider is that by the time one saw anything that high on the mountain, it would still necessitate probably an hour to arrive in the vicinity-let alone pinpoint actual locations. (Go on out there and see for yourself if you doubt my account.
)These flashlights may be visible from Ft. Bowie, but that is Federal land and you might inquire to the fort for any answers to that question.
I understand the need for recompense among the tribe posting here, and everyone wants answers-and if the toxicology report bears out nothing, can you live with the fact that grown adults making grown decisions and exercising their 1st amendment right to freedom of expression are capable, in a free society, to actually bite it hard? The two went MIA, and until the law suspects something other than natural causes led to Ian's death, it is hard for me to imagine that a criminal act was committed. Bad judgement, undoubtedly, but as far as the letter of the law goes, this is just another sorry example of religious fanaticism by a few people that draws out cries of "CULT!"!...
Insofar as volunteers of the retreat are involved in deadly shenanigans, this does indeed reflect poorly on the organization and of course, its leadership. A dialogue exploring the nature and dynamics of the student-teacher relationship should always be encouraged and subject to rigorous analysis; and this 'necessary' could prove to be the outstanding leitmotif of this trainwreck; should 'legal' culpability remain forever elusive in this case...If it is 'fault-finding' at it's baying worst, then was it Ian's 'fault' if he drank bacterially-infected water? Is there someone else responsible, then? Whether laws are determined to have been broken or not, this ethical dilemma will remain an issue of conscience and self-reflection for the rest of some people's lives. Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down Jim Dey · 1 day ago
Yes, Kelly, you're right
. But how could MR pass-up such a great opportunity to slam someone he felt butt-hurt by a dozen years ago and give other critics a platform to spew from.
The supposed concern about Ian's tragic death, Christie's well-being, the remaining retreatants and students in this lineage is pure smoke-screen for launching hate missiles.
Christie may well have been unbalanced, and the "attendant" monks may have been extremely negligent in shielding her & Ian from the Board's attempts to carefully transition them out of retreat. But to turn around and make this all about Geshe Michael Roach and throngs of robotic followers is crazy and vicious. We're all adults with reasoning ability and can make choices.
If you don't like a restaurant and if the food is making you feel sick, then you should leave and not eat there.** But don't turn around and throw a brick through window when others are dining happily and the health department finds nothing wrong there. Report Reply +7 Vote up Vote down Ben · 1 day ago
(Corboy)* This if you dont like it you should leave ignores years of findings by social psychologists, starting with Stanley Milgrams obeidence experiement and Philip Zimbardos prison simulation experiement that in socially isolated settings with power imblances PEOPLE FORGET THEY ARE FREE TO LEAVE. Humans are influencable.)GMR and the board wasn't negligent when they allowed Ian into the retreat? All added up, I was with Ian maybe a month and a half and I saw that him going into retreat with Christie was a bad idea. How did this nearly enlightened individual with the Geshe degree get it so wrong?
"Christie may have well been unbalanced"? Did you read "A Shift in the Matrix"? How old were you when you realized that a "knife could actually cut someone"?
GMR states that John Brady is "a level-headed senior teacher who is well respected". Is this in contrast to Christie? If so, why was she in charge? GMR couldn't see the issues she was dealing with or were they just a teaching to him also?
I don't expect to get answers to these questions and I don't really know if I am entitled to answers. But I do have the right to ask the questions.
I recommend you watch
Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple. You'll hear the story of many adults with reasoning abilities and the ability to make choices. It didn't turn out too well for them.
If you see a restaurant that is serving bad food and there are people who, for whatever reason, don't realize it, you try and step in. Maybe you can't get the restaurant shut down, but you might convince people who are eating there and people who are considering eating there to stay away for their own good. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down KP · 22 hours ago
Ben, every year a group of people are killed from peanut butter sandwiches by going into anaphylactic shock. That doesn't mean it is 'bad food', though, since many more millions of people enjoy it everyday. The metaphor is unsustainable. Report Reply +8 Vote up Vote down
Ben · 21 hours ago
Yes, and every year people die from heart disease caused by eating fatty, fast food.
I am not attacking the right of people to eat fast food but I am exercising my right to warn them about the danger.
If GMR was near enlightenment as he claims, why the big screw up? I saw the danger and I don't claim special insight into the nature of reality. Did GMR not know the dangers long periods of solitude can present?
After reading Christy's "A shift in the Matrix", do you believe she was a good choice for retreat leader? I wouldn't even consider her a good choice for babysitter. Why was she in charge?
If GMR's methods bring about long lasting happy relationships as he and Christy claimed, why were there so many breakups at DM including GMR and Christy?
GMR has said that he knows how things work and folowing his methods you can get everything you ever wanted. These failures show that what he said isn't true.
People have been hurt by DM. They have wasted time, shelved plans of pursuing careers and broken relationships because they believed GMR had something to offer they couldn't find anywhere else.
I am presenting evidence to the contrary.
The truth has nothing to fear from investigation. Report Reply +7 Vote up Vote down
Stella · 20 hours ago
Kelly. The unfortunate truth is that 30 years ago peanut butter sandwiches were not bad. However, today, that is not the case. I assume you dont have children.. Because if you did you would know that peanuts are now highly toxic to MANY children. Because peanuts today ARE toxic. This is because of they are genetically modified, sprayed with crazy chemicals and covered in deadly molds. The number of children with severe allergies increases every year because of this. Just because some people can handle the poison in this new hybrid peanut does not mean it is not toxic. I would say the same is true for the teachings and teachers coming out of DM. The teachings were modified and sprayed and vaguely resemble the origin teachings of the buddha. These hybrid teachings are dangerous and as we have seen can end in sickness and death. Just like the hybrid peanut Report Reply
+1 Vote up Vote down
matthew 75p · 18 hours ago
Jim: Roach shoulders heavy responsibility for both the existence and ethos of DM, as well as the kind of relationships that keep it running. I have not anywhere impugned "throngs of robotic followers", but have simply brought attention to his influence, and the nature of that influence.
"
Carefully transition them out of retreat" is exactly the issue. I allege that the "care" here was myopic and insular and ultimately self-protective, and it avoided the "health department" altogether.
You suggest my concern is disingenuous and/or selfish. But how are you acting upon your own concern that "Christie may well have been unbalanced?" How would you account for her rise to authority? What will you do to make sure that things run more clearly and accountably at DM? Report Reply
+2 Vote up Vote down
matthew 75p · 20 hours ago
kelly: thanks for your input. I didn't focus on the granular detail of the death in either piece: I don't think anyone will have the lenses to view that closely, although in the "Ian's Malnutrition" section I do bring up many of your same points. What I'm pretty sure of is that micro-incompetence has a context of macro-incompetence rooted in dysfunctional relationships, power inequities and bizarre metaphysics. I have never suggested personal culpability for the DM board, but rather called on them to collectively re-establish credibility by re-democractizing their function beyond the sway of Roach. Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down
Nik · 1 day ago
Blind obedience is not a proof of faith, it shows an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility and unquestioning acceptance breed fanaticism. These people are a classic cautionary tale about the expolitation of the weak and vulnerable and those subject to too much mental rumination and mind games. These scandals are coming regularly now from the eastern philosophy intentional communities. Report Reply
1 reply · active 17 hours ago
+4 Vote up Vote down
integralhack 70p · 17 hours ago
True, but in fairness these kinds of scandals come from all sorts of communities, not just "eastern philosophy." Report Reply
+6 Vote up Vote down
integralhack 70p · 17 hours ago
It is interesting that Roach would claim that
Madhyamika Prasangika is his basis for “everything comes from karma." Prasangika is a logical approach that doesn't posit much--in fact it relies upon non-affirming negations to prove a lack of essence in most cases. From what I can see, it seems as if Roach posits quite a bit!
Prasangika isn't just for mahas. I would argue that some Theravadins have prasangika viewpoints as well. Even a non-Buddhist can take a Prasangika position.
Anyway, I want to take Prasangika away from Mr. Roach as I am quite fond of it and he seems to be abusing it. Report Reply
8 replies · active 2 hours ago +1 Vote up Vote down
Michael · 7 hours ago
[
en.wikipedia.org] Report Reply
+3 Vote up Vote down integralhack 70p · 6 hours ago
Yes, that is a good Wikipedia entry on Prasangika. Do you have a particular point?
This is also interesting: [
www.berzinarchives.com]...
In this paper, Tsenzhab Serkong Rinpoche II purports that
"Even a non-Buddhist can understand the Prasangika view of the absence of self-established existence (rang-bzhin-gyis grub-pa med-pa) both correctly and with certitude" but he goes on to say that this does not necessarily make him/her a "Prasangika person" due to the lack of bodhicitta aim and bodhisattva behavior. He does suggest, however, by taking that viewpoint, one may be inspired to become Buddhist.
My argument is that the "absence of self-established existence" is implicit in the understanding of emptiness and dependent arising, so although Prasanga may have originally started as a Maha distinction (and filled out as a Tibetan definition) it is really a "right understanding" among all sorts of Buddhists (Theravadins, Zen, Tibetan, etc.) and non-Buddhists.
Apologies to Matthew for this thread going a little off topic. Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down Michael · 4 hours ago
Thank you for sharing the link above. To summarize Tsenzhab Serkong Rinpoche II's comments, non-buddhists are inferior. Do you endorse this view? Perhaps it is off topic unless Matthew's criticisms are not limited to Roach and his Students, but could apply to some of the dogmatic aspects of Buddhism in general. Report Reply
+1 Vote up Vote down
integralhack 70p · 4 hours ago
No, you are confused. How can non-Buddhists be inferior if they are capable of reaching the same viewpoint? Also, most good Mahas recognize Theravadins as Buddhists, they just don't necessarily practice or recognize the Bodhisattva ideal.
While I don't personally know this Rinpoche's complete views on non-Buddhists, I don't see any notion of "inferiority" projected via this article. Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down Michael · 2 hours ago
Perhaps you are confused. From the article you posted:
"
By way of contrast, a non-Buddhist’s total absorption with apprehension of voidness does not necessarily even function as an opponent to weaken and temporarily suppress that person’s unawareness of cause and effect (las-‘bras ma-rig-pa), let alone serve as an opponent that obliterates that unawareness. This is because a non-Buddhist with such total absorption could still believe that making an animal sacrifice will result in a rebirth in a heaven. So, non-Buddhists with total absorption having apprehension of voidness could still be reborn in a worse state of rebirth.
Through their total absorption having apprehension of voidness, however, non-Buddhists may build up a samsara-builder network of deep awareness (ye-shes-kyi tshogs, collection of wisdom), but not necessarily even a samsara-builder network of positive force (bsod-nams-kyi tshogs, collection of merit). Non-Buddhists, of course, do not build up either of the liberation-builder or enlightenment-builder forms of the two networks, because they lack renunciation and a bodhichitta aim."
In the last paragraph, he does suggest that non-buddhists can fix their inferiority by becoming a Buddhist. Report Reply
+1 Vote up Vote down
integralhack 70p · 2 hours ago
Oh please: the example given is a particular non-Buddhist who makes animal sacrifices. Yes, there will be some non-Buddhists who have stupid notions (like slaughtering animals unnecessarily), that doesn't mean, however, that all non-Buddhists are inferior.
That said, this Rinpoche's views on certain things like rebirth, samsara-builder networks, etc. are not reflective of mine. I was focusing on the Prasangika viewpoint brought up in the article. Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down
Kevin · 3 hours ago
This underscores a basic fault with the "logic" of DM -- using the tradition of argument in negation for the purpose of being able to state something with absolute conviction. What? Report Reply
+1 Vote up Vote down
integralhack 70p · 2 hours ago
Kevin: yes, exactly! Report Reply +3 Vote up Vote down former cult member · 15 hours ago
You're doing the right thing to talk about this stuff even if the students of Roach don't like it. They judge you for somehow being less spiritual and in a "lower" state of anger or retribution which is therefore evidence that what you are saying is untrue but its really because you've touched their edge that they are afraid to look beyond. They are trapped in a belief system that prevents them from being able to fully view and understand what is happening and why. Your anger and need to speak out comes from a deep compassion, deeper than what they are capable of understanding at this moment. Report Reply
0 replies · active 15 hours ago +2 Vote up Vote down
very worried · 13 hours ago
Thanks for the update Matthew Remski. I really appreciate your approach and clarity. I'm very worried. Report Reply
0 replies · active 13 hours ago +2 Vote up Vote down Nicole Sanderson · 11 hours ago
I agree with KR in the sense that the DMU Board and Michael Roach fired McNally from her position as retreat director and tried to execute a system that would support her in leaving the retreat when her lack of leadership became apparent...just perhaps not quickly enough and with more lenience than was due. I agree that if Thorson was having violence problems he should never have been let into retreat and there should never have been a power-structure where spouses were the ones with authority to promote or allow their spouses into other leadership positions or into retreat. That was a major underlying and persistent problem in Roach's community and updated, more specific ethical guidelines that address this point are due from their leadership at this juncture.
Remski- you bring up valid concerns which I appreciate while you also suggest that Roach's motives are money or power. The primary take-home message of all of his teachings, talks, and published books is service, unity, charity, love. He encourages everyone to be generous, and doesn't charge for MOST of his teachings. When he does make money he frequently directs it right to charity projects (not his own). I have seen this personally many times. Yes, his presentations on karma are reductionist. They confuse people with a carrot on a stick framework, but they encourage people to live altruistic lives.
If you have beef about Roach's presentation on philosophy or metaphysics or his qualifications to teach--that is great and you should speak up about those and I'm glad you have! The tragedy of Thorson's death seems unrelated to me from these though. Perhaps the tragedy prompted you to collect your thoughts about the former topic? If so, I'd prefer you to do so without muddling it up with the controversy about Thorson.
Thorson's death was pointless and could have been easily prevented and should be investigated thoroughly! But I don't feel that's what you're doing here at all. In fact, you seem to be ignoring a lot of the facts with regards to the death---like that Cochise County newspaper stated when they found Ian's body there was food (cereal and dried beans) in the cave. Obviously Ian was choosing not to eat for some unknown reason, no one was keeping food from him or eating his share.
I would like to see you be more careful, clear, and transparent with your motives and conclusions. Report Reply
1 reply · active 9 hours ago
+5 Vote up Vote down
matthew 75p · 9 hours ago
Hi Nicole: thanks for weighing in. It seems like we're in agreement on some key points: Thorson's eligibility for retreat was questionable, and Roach's qualifications and metaphysics should be scrutinized. In my view, when speaking of a centralized spiritual authority structure that allows nepotism and magical thinking and cloaks it in philosophy, a tragedy that occurs within its midst is inextricable from it.
Your argument seems to be:
"There are problems, but on the whole, Roach is doing a good job, and Thorson's death is unrelated." I don't buy this for a minute.
I'm actually quite careful to respect the mystery of Roach's motives, going so far as to give him the benefit of the doubt in the graph that begins "But if really pressed, I would venture Roach’s intentionality to be more clean than dirty, if “clean” also implies “naïve”." Nobody does anything JUST for money and power. I'm sure he wants love and peace like the rest of us. My sadness is that he could have profitably used his considerable intelligence to actually work towards his goals, rather than to dissociate from the crushingly hard work of the world.
The food situation of the couple is still unclear: the phoenix new times says that the food was not in the cave, but down an embankment that they didn't have the strength to navigate: [
blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com]...
Also: that they did not have cooking gear with them. Although McNally refers to a Coleman stove in her letter. You can't blame me that accounts are conflicting. As I stated above, the micro-details are not my focus. If I have something to offer to the story, it involves zooming-out to view the entirety unfolding over time.
As for care, clarity, and transparency: I've now written under my own name and skin about 25K words on the subject, occupying almost a month of my life, giving open disclosure of my own experience, motives, and opinions on the matter. Short of a nude photo shoot, I'm not sure what else you would have me do.The factual issues are far from clear for anyone, but my provisional conclusion is as strong as I can state it:
"
As Ian’s body dissolves, I’m convinced now more than ever that our spirituality must resist the toxic consolations of bypassing, over-certainty, and authoritarianism. It must wake up from the dream of perfection to work diligently, with eyes wide open, in the garden of relationship, drawing upon simple hopes and common tools." Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down
Kevin · 2 hours ago
Plain and simple. A Board of Directors is accountable (not necessarily liable) for the events which happen within their organization and in relation to their oraganization at the time of their tenure. This is why they are the Board of Directors. It is prudent and reasonable to expect a re-considering of a Board of Directors in the aftermath of an incident such as a death which resuls as fall-out from an organizations activities. This applies no matter the purpose of the organization or the type of organization.