From Stilwell Rebuttal article in Elephant Journal

[www.elephantjournal.com]

Hi Matthew,
I really appreciate your efforts to bring this situation into the public eye, though it is painful to behold. Many of my friends at the Buddhist centers near Santa Cruz became followers and many still are. It is frightening to see the degree to which they cannot perceive things that worry the rest of us, but reply in unthinking, pre-programmed-sounding ways. If the discussion becomes personalized, though, its potential strength is undermined, as it sounds as if it is coming from a place or hurt/revenge/ego, rather than factual analysis, and that is the very place the MR comes from, ironically.

I have worked nearly 30 years as a psychotherapist, and have seen so much, but in this situation unfortunately
it is hard to find anything that does not look worrisome and sad, from a simple human perspective as well as that of
a student of the Dharma. I don't honor orthodoxy for its own sake, but I do honor preserving a lineage with integrity.
And I do believe the Buddha's teachings can be conveyed in many ways, but when tweaked for personal aggrandisement, no matter who is doing it, they are contaminated, like liquid served in a container leaching lead.
How sad and how worrisome. Report Reply
+3 Vote up Vote down
matthew 73p · 15 hours ago
Tenmo: so glad to hear from a seasoned therapist, and I hope your identity, sentiments, and skills are visible enough to your SC community that you will be sought for counsel regarding this circumstance.

I still agree with the drawbacks you point out with regard to my personalizing the discussion. It would be very hard for me to do it otherwise, not only because of my past, but also because for me writing carries aesthetics, and aesthetics approach the truth of the body in a particular way. My impassioned and personal tone was the first out of the gate on this issue, and I accept responsibility for this, but I do hope that other voices and tones follow. Report Reply +4 Vote up Vote down curiousone · 1 day ago
Thank you Matthew for the time and effort you put into writing this. I've been following the events since I heard of Ian's passing.

I was very surprised that it was being kept so quiet. I was hoping and waiting for someone like yourself to shine some light on this organization and their practices. As an outsider, this looks like another example of the dangers of the teacher/student relationship gone wrong! Especially when lines are crossed. And since GMR was the first to cross these lines in his justification of a 3 yr 3 month 3 day silent retreat with his then assistant Christie -later to be crowned Lama Christe - I do hold him partially responsible for this terrible tragedy. Report Reply
0 replies · active 1 day ago +2 Vote up Vote down agape · 1 day ago
Now I know why the "Diamond Mountain Cinco de Mayo Great Retreat Teaching"
was so suddenly cancelled. What I cannot understand is why such an event would even be planned under the circumstances detailed in GM's open letter. [www.youtube.com]... Report Reply
0 replies · active 1 day ago +2 Vote up Vote down dismayed · 1 day ago
I viewed the youtube above-dismaying-false gayety-quite frightening

Stillwell Rebuttal article on Elephant Journal

[www.elephantjournal.com]

Bear · 20 hours ago
This was actually a response to Brook Cosby's comment above but I decided to post it as a new comment.

The DM teachings such as Christie's Matrix note are in no way representative of a Gelugpa presentation of emptiness or karma for that matter. I would be surprised if some of those defending the DM presentation such as John, Eric, Ted et al. would even make such a claim.

I think if DM students had more exposure to standard Gelug teachings then they would appreciate the difference between the two distinct sets of teachings.

For example, if they were to attend a standard Gelug presentation on the three types of dependent arising, (the three types being causes and conditions (including karma), parts, and merely labeled by mind). Then they might stop conflating the first and the third.

They also might see the irony of using an Abhidharmakoúa quote that presents an essentialist position as their go to scriptural reference for their claim that "everything is a karmic projection."

I think it is important that people know that the DM/ACI teachings are often very divergent from standard Gelug presentation. Then people can make informed decisions. Report Reply


Phurba · 18 hours ago
I think this is widely known among anyone who has made an effort to study Mahayana philosophy outside of the DM/ACI context. What is curious is how Roach, who spent significant time studying with authentic teachers, developed this divergent version. Was it a genuine misunderstanding? Or a spin, to establish a way that his followers could look at him without any critical gaze at all?

In general, the practice of Guru yoga according to the Vajrayana tradition is a type of practice, not a philosophy. It is a method to work with one's mind, and ideas of purity. To engage in this practice with an unfit or unqualified guru is a huge mistake, and very risky. I think in this instance, we are seeing some immediate repercussions. Hopefully, many people will learn from this, and not bury their heads deeper in the sand of a faulty presentation of Mahayana doctrine.

Ben · 17 hours ago
I am not sold on the idea the GMR is a bad man with evil intent.

Another possibility for the reason that he developed this divergent version is to reach out to a greater audience. In his last teaching at GRT2 he says that 95% of the world wants either financial security, good health or nice partner. So to get them started, what you teach should be related to meeting their immediate desires. If you want to have an empty dharma center where only 4 people come every week, talk about the higher concepts of Buddhism (I am paraphrasing). What he teaches is that you can have financial security, good health or a nice partner by planting the right "karmic seeds". I also believe that he has attempted to reach out to a greater audience by mixing Buddhism with Christianity, Hinduism, and I believe also Islam.

I'm not a Christian but I can see the value of some Christian beliefs (even if they aren't true). They can make the believer kinder and more forgiving, but there are dangers. I'm sure a lot of readers of this forum are aware of the dangers of dogmatic Christian beliefs. In the same way, the "Karmic management" taught at DM can make people kinder, more giving and more forgiving. It can also open them up to higher, more accurate Buddhist teachings. The danger is that people get stuck with these beliefs and that is as far as they go because that is all they need. Because the teachings don't accurately describe the nature of reality, people become deluded and believe that "everything comes from you" or "any label is equally valid". It is how an abusive spouse can be labelled a divine being engaged in divine play.

This is all just speculation on my part. But I have a hard time believing that a person who authentically attains the degree of Geshe can get the teachings so wrong.

A lot of people at DM have told me they tried to study Buddhism elsewhere and couldn't grasp it. It was only when they got to DM that it started to make sense. They don't attribute this to GMR simplifying the teachings but rather to his proficiency as a teacher. Like it or not, DM students believe that what GMR has taught them has made them kinder, happier people. Report Reply +3 Vote up Vote down Phurba · 17 hours ago
"Because the teachings don't accurately describe the nature of reality, people become deluded and believe that "everything comes from you" or "any label is equally valid". It is how an abusive spouse can be labelled a divine being engaged in divine play."

Let's not overlook that the person who got this so wrong "Lama" Christie, was someone GMR made a Lama and qualified to be a Tantric teacher and retreat master. So he obviously felt her grasp of the proper view was profound.

"This is all just speculation on my part. But I have a hard time believing that a person who authentically attains the degree of Geshe can get the teachings so wrong. "

It is hard to imagine, but he clearly teaching this to people, and then empowering them to be Lamas and Tantric Gurus under sway of that false presentation. So he either doesn't understand that he is wrong himself, or he is intentionally misguiding people.

" Like it or not, DM students believe that what GMR has taught them has made them kinder, happier people."

I am sure many scientologists say the same thing.

In reality, Buddhism is not about getting financially secure, healthy, or a great sexual partner. I am sure you can manipulate a lot of donkeys with those carrots though. Report Reply +4 Vote up Vote down Phurba · 16 hours ago
And let's not forget that after the shared retreat with Christie, when Roach "came out" about being in a romantic relationship in retreat for three years when he had misled people into believing he was in solitary retreat-- he said that he recognized and perceived Christie as an emanation of Vajrayogini. So this is the same logic that It is perceives and abusive spouse as a divine being engaged in divine play.

Now, to be fair, the tradition does believe in the possibility of Bodhisattvas emanating in our midst, trying to benefit us in various ways. And it's not a terrible thing to, as a method, imagine that some of those around us, even difficult ones, may be such in disguise. It's another thing altogether to turn a method, an exercise, into a philosophy. It's another thing to start believing that if we pretend or imagine everyone in our life to be a divine being, that this will automatically turn them into one. This is completely disregarding relative reality. This is not the Buddhist method. Report Reply +4 Vote up Vote down Bear · 16 hours ago
Ben, just a couple of thoughts in response …

It is simply not true that a successful dharma center and authentic teachings are mutually exclusive. There are many examples to the contrary.

There is also not much point in incorrectly grasping a concept no matter how easily it comes. Worse is thinking you can then teach it to others.

I don't think Michael Roach has evil intent. I just think it is important to clarify that contrary to many people's belief, the ACI/DM teachings often diverge from standard Gelug explanations. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down aguse · 11 hours ago
they dont teach just Gelug at ACI/DM, they teach all the schools. quite rarely is Gelug emptiness mentioned.
dont assume that DM students dont have exposure to other teachings/teachers. DM is, after all, not a cult.

GMR studied and translated an abhidharmakosha commentary with Khen Rinpoche, in person, for over 10 years. so, theres no need for the hint about the 3 types of dependent arising.

lastly, being merely labeled by the mind essentially means everything is a karmic projection, because mental labeling is produced by the function of karmic seeds. Report Reply +3 Vote up Vote down Bear · 8 hours ago
Aguse,

It is not the case …

They don't teach all schools at ACI/DM. They teach a simplified and distorted presentation of the four Indian philosophical schools. Which is based on a standard Gelug Tenets teaching.

Even if you studying the Abhidharmakoúa for 10 years you won't find the three types of dependent arisings in it. By the way I am well aware of Michael's huge translation efforts and have benefited greatly from the input work of ACIP.

The explanation of "karmic projection" simply misses the intention of Nâgârjuna. By the way I am unsure what the Tibetan or Sanskrit for karmic projection would be. I would love to know. Even reading classic Yogâcara (mind only) texts in Sanskrit and Tibetan such as Trisvabhâvanirdeúa and the Madhyântavibhâga, I have not come across a such a term. Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down Lies cannot hold · 4 hours ago
Agree with Bear. DM does not teach all school at ACI/DM. These new lamas barely know anything about other lineages. Many of their followers don't even know the names of other lineages. Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down Bear · 8 hours ago
Aguse,

It is not the case …

They don't teach all schools at ACI/DM. They teach a simplified and distorted presentation of the four Indian philosophical schools. Which is based on a standard Gelug Tenets teaching.

Even if you studying the Abhidharmakoúa for 10 years you won't find the three types of dependent arisings in it. By the way I am well aware of Michael's huge translation efforts and have benefited greatly from the input work of ACIP.

The explanation of "karmic projection" simply misses the intention of Nâgârjuna. By the way I am unsure what the Tibetan or Sanskrit for karmic projection would be. I would love to know. Even reading classic Yogâcara (mind only) texts in Sanskrit and Tibetan such as Trisvabhâvanirdeúa and the Madhyântavibhâga, I have not come across a such a term. Report Reply
1 reply · active 8 hours ago

Bear · 8 hours ago
Aguse,

It is not the case …

They don't teach all schools at ACI/DM. They teach a simplified and distorted presentation of the four Indian philosophical schools. Which is based on a standard Gelug Tenets teaching.

Even if you studying the Abhidharmakoúa for 10 years you won't find the three types of dependent arisings in it. By the way I am well aware of Michael's huge translation efforts and have benefited greatly from the input work of ACIP.

The explanation of "karmic projection" simply misses the intention of Nâgârjuna. By the way I am unsure what the Tibetan or Sanskrit for karmic projection would be. I would love to know. Even reading classic Yogâcara (mind only) texts in Sanskrit and Tibetan such as Trisvabhâvanirdeúa and the Madhyântavibhâga, I have not come across a such a term

Discussions about local conditions and terrain

[www.elephantjournal.com]

jerry · 19 hours ago

A few notes:
Read "Darkness at Noon" sometime of get thrown in the hole for a while.You will fear for these ordinary people infected with "magic thinking" too

Temps in Bowie April 2012...it just wasn't that hot (until the day Ian Died) note the cave is 1000 plus feet above where these readings were taken he died because "the experiment" made them make bad choices that weakened them...who is next?

DS should have been "bothered' he would have gotten you guys to the cave with the evened out dirt floor (only one) and now will come out of this a new man but knowing he wasn't given the choice to help save ian yet he was brought out to fix frozen pipes!!!! wtf,

Hey i admit we like most of the people up there but really do wish "the Crummy Carnival That Never Leaves" would just pack up and go. it is an eysore from out place....If a western facade of a Fort was built on the road to a Temple in Tibet monks would hate it.We feel the same about a temple on the road to the Fort Bowie.The site of a meeting of some of the greatest warriors (on both sides) of the 19th century.All this spiritual stuff about the Apaches is great but remember they had a whole separate language for the art of war.They are the ultimate badasses.

The retreat is called The Three Year Retreat For Peace" Fail!!!! End it

The drug Smuggling danger is not over Krentz was shot 20 miles to the east for finding some bales.There was a car chase between two group last month by our ranch,Locks have been shot off at night with AK47s...it is not safe Warren...you just don't get out enough Report Reply
13 replies · active 1 hour ago +5 Vote up Vote down Phurba · 18 hours ago
Wow, so really the list of bad judgement by the leaders is getting longer:

Starting with choosing retreat land in the middle of a well known drug-smuggling route, in a desert with extreme temperatures and other conditions

Empowering a young unqualified girl to be a Tantric Lama and retreat master

Allowing many retreatants to shack up together as couples

Allowing someone with well known psychological issues including outbursts of violence and spousal abuse into retreat with his spouse

Allowing still-recovering drug addicts into retreat

Allowing martial arts instruction including weapons-play into retreat

Not to mention the many that Matthew addressed in his article such as not insisting on psychological evaluation of the couple after the stabbing incident was brought to light, instead of just kicking them off the property without any oversight.

I agree that considering this long list of bad judgements, the continuation of the retreat is worrisome. There does not seem to be much resembling a traditional Tibetan Drupta about this situation in the desert. Contrast this with the various well-run and traditional druptas in other parts of the US and it is like night and day.

As for the aesthetics of Tibetan structures in the context of war memorials, I don't think you'll find many sympathetic readers here, in the context of real human tragedy. I'd stick to the important issues! Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down Arly · 10 hours ago
"Shack up"? 7 out of the 8 couples are married. . Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down Warren Clarke · 9 hours ago
Phurba, I've called you a fool before and I'm going to do it again.

Retreat in extreme desert conditions? Uh, Tibet comes to mind.

Known psychological issues, outbursts of violence? Have you not read the life stories of Nagarjuna or Milarepa? Whoa, you are a slow pup. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down jerry · 8 hours ago
Phurba..i was just revealing my axe to grind in this matter.....we like western History and this is a bit of an eye sore....my main point isn't something even you want to hear. Long bouts of isolation make one go crazy.... Report Reply +2 Vote up Vote down PAX · 18 hours ago
Hi Jerry,

In one of your earlier posts you mentioned that Ian only weighed 90 lbs when they found him. Where did you hear this? Was it confirmed? How tall was he? If they were regularly receiving food why was he so malnourished?

Thanks for your posts. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down Warren Clarke · 9 hours ago
aw, Jer, ya did it. You've hit my sore spot. I've hiked straight over the hills to Apache Pass Road, hitchhiked into Bowie a hundred times, walked every inch of the way, cut across the desert land north of your place seven miles, no roads at all just to take a look, hiked half way to the marble quarry up behind the head ranger's house way past your place way up above Emigrant Rd., blahblahetc.

Twenty miles away is halfway to Lourdsburg, not exactly DMU property. I'll give you one point. The temple is an eyesore, not exactly Tibetan architecture. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down jerry · 8 hours ago
Warren you know they come through Bear Springs,Apache pass and Little Immigrant Canyon just from seeing the foot prints.....The Human traffickers have been warned off..it's the dope guys.

As a side you should go to the Marble Quarry it is sort of amazing..and another example of the DM elite not listening to local knowledge. The historic right of way (on maps) goes straight through DM.When the existing quarry starts up again the owner would have a good legal claim to run trucks with crushed Marble through the canyon (they are trying to get the ok to go the other way but this is a possibility)..last summer not a mile from the retreat i came upon 7 guys with packs waiting for a ride out.Just me,my dogs ...hell facing 5 years in prison,might have made me think twice about hitting the lone hiker with a rock. Bill Hoy (Edward Abbey's ranger buddy had his dogs slain by them on Apache Pass Road a few years back .... This area is tricky..Border Patrol guys are moved around and just don't know the hidden washes. 600 yards from my house a group of Miners (12) were burnt alive by the Apaches in 1860..the smugglers use this same area today to surprise outsiders trying to use their routes. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down Warren Clarke · 6 hours ago

yeah, ok, you of course know where the "natural gas pipeline" crosses Old Ft. Bowie Rd. and right from that perspective it looks flat as a pancake to the south forever......Not 25 yards after you (or I) hop the fence on the north side, the west side of the little tiny wash drops off into a vertical, perfectly shaded cliff, a 50 foot drop. That's where they hang out, where I found a torn up day bag and some empty water bottles.....close to the road, effectively invisible. The Border Patrol don't have a clue. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down Warren Clarke · 5 hours ago

Jer: oops (south forever), make that 'north' forever, sorry. David and Kat are the only other ones who know their way around. Everyone else stays close. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down jerry · 3 hours ago
Warren that is why i just went friggin nuts when I heard about this.David and Kat and the people next door like us should have been in the loop on the rescue...If you know how many illegals we've lead down from behind our ranch back in the housing boom you would know we might have come in handy.The problem was the new board members were not introduced to any of us when the retreat started.Kat's pack animals would have nice too....except they were not allowed to stay. Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down Warren Clarke · 3 hours ago

Jerry the Sunday it all came down we all saw the helicopters go back and forth up and down over "Retreat Valley" and knew something was up but didn't know what. I went up to Ft. Bowie with a new volunteer lady for pure Sunday tourism and ran into all the activity in spades. Ven. Chandra was there, came quickly over to me , told me to turn around immediately and leave, and using the f-word repeatedly, threatened me and pushed me. I told him he was violating his vows. With him was a member of the Board, who said, "I'm on the Board of Directors and I am ordering you to leave!" to which I responded, "I'm a private citizen on public land and I'll do what I want." A nice young law officer had to come over, separate us and chill them out, saying "We've got an emergency here and don't need the drama!" to which I heartily agreed. Turns out Chandra was part of Christie and Ian's supply line, so I guess I understand his apprehension, but his conduct was abysmal. The Board was trying for damage control, just as Geshe Michael was back in February. So look what happens.

Christie, in her letter, mentioned people with flash lights hunting them. No, people from DMU don't go climbing around up behind Ft. Bowie at night, they need flash lights to get across the parking lot. Nor was it Border Patrol. They don't use headlamps. They use search lights. It was illegals taking the high path to avoid detection themselves. Christie and Ian did well to duck for cover at that point. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down jerry · 2 hours ago

Warren ...that is all examples of why the retreat should have been put off at the very least...they just rushed it to start it on a certain calendar day. i also think volunteers like yourself,Matt or the lady who's van was destroyed by the cow meets car action last month should be paid.What do the workers get out of this..no speaking gigs...no titles...just the chance of injury, illness etc.

The building crews should have been funded to keep on building cool little places on nearby private land.....it was a no brainier....why is it wrong for the worker bees not to get some of the honey? Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down Warren Clarke · 1 hour ago

Jer...the start date was to keep everyone on it...the pace of construction was very uneven....every one of the separate cabins was paid for by the occupants...it was David who had the task of keeping it all moving forward and getting all the building permits together..all the details...he was awesome..........we, some of us, did get paid a little bit here and there, but out of private pockets, negotiated independently, nothing from the GMU general fund...a couple cabins were built by outside contractors.....as for me, no complaints; I knew the ropes and rules, it was not my first time there......oh, hey, the van may still run again, it's almost fixed, but John Klump is out another cow

Local terrain-contd

[www.elephantjournal.com]

jerry · 6 hours ago
Nancy, Ben,Kedran,Sarah and Judy Brewer were up their during your time.Ben finished Winston's house and did much of the permitting.They left because they believed the first retreat was a fraud....he can go on and on about it but many of the newer members might want to talk with him.

To Arly.

For someone who requested Matthew to use less anger in his post, you certainly use the word "f-ing" a lot, which if I'm not mistaken, stands for "fucking", a pretty angry word, in general. Let's let all of us pots and kettles call all of the other pots and kettles black, and then get on with asking ourselves if the drama whirlwind that surrounds DM makes sense, when everyone's final goal is supposedly enlightenment. Report Reply
1 reply · active 19 minutes ago
+4 Vote up Vote down



tenpel 35p · 1 hour ago
BTW, a real Geshe from Sera, who studied with Roach in Sera, and who is teaching in Monastery Nalanda / France said, that Roach studied all together not more than 4 years at Sera monastery. His title was given as an honorific title for his financial sponsorship.


matthew 73p · 1 hour ago
This would be extremely important if found to be true, tenpel. How might one go about verifying it? Report Reply
+3 Vote up Vote down

tenpel 35p · 41 minutes ago
I am a fully ordained Buddhist monk and was in Nalanda monastery, France, in Dec. 2006. During the Vinaya teachings the question about Roach came up and Geshe Jamphal replied that he knows him from Sera, that they shared classes but that Roach were often absent and that he all in all might have studied only for four years there.

I asked (either him or another Geshe) why he has a Geshe title, and the reply was, that also cooks who didn't study can receive a Geshe title as an honour to their work. Roach is known of having financed Sera very much. For verification write a letter to Sera Monastery or call in Nalanda France. Report Reply
+1 Vote up Vote down
matthew 73p · 34 minutes ago
thank you, tenpel.

Jared · 8 hours ago
I've read through the entire article, both letters, all the comments so far, the rebuttal by John, and all of those comments. Fantastic discussion. In full disclosure, I am a semi-student of GMR, attending some shorter retreats, doing a few ACI courses, etc. - but I do not have a lama, financial investment, or any kind of other interest in this topic besides deciding whether or not to continue to study under GMR's system. Unfortunately there is little objectivity, so I've been trying to balance the attacks and counter-attacks.

While I find the presentation and tone of this article objectionable, the larger discussion has brought up some important points that I hope some of GMR's students might address.

Integrity: Lama Christie appears to have lost her bearings and her letter appears, to me, indefensible for a high practitioner. GMR has repeatedly said, and echoes in his letter, that students should not receive higher teachings without getting the foundations down first. He has also said, that on occasion there are 'special students' to whom you can introduce tantra, so long as you make sure to go back to the foundations - which he made special reference to Lama Christie. GMR said that in these cases, you must be very careful, and that you are taking responsibility for that student's welfare. Therefore, by GMR's own standards, he has failed in the proper care of Lama Christie.

This point is particularly troubling when I consider that GMR deceived the public into believing he was in solitude, while actually living with LC. Now I don't expect GMR to be perfect, and I can understand if things moved quickly and some relationship developed. I can even understand him hiding this fact until after the retreat ended. But where rubber meets to road for me is the speed at which LC became a 'lama', how GMR made extremely strong claims without evidence in order to maintain lineage status, and how I see tantric studies being encouraged rather quickly in the school. It feels as if something occurred between GMR and LC on that first retreat that was in defiance of orthodoxy - but in order to maintain some status, LC was bestowed title too quickly and a new system had to be developed that justified the relationship. Something just doesn't fit. Either provide evidence that you've had the realizations you claim (though by listening to some of his speeches, it appears he admits to having a way to go on his own path) or have the guts to come out and stand by what you believe in. But don't try to wiggle around the system to maintain lineage authority. I want a lama that is willing to stand up, be honest, and fight for what he/she believes is right. There is another Lama famous for sexual deviance, but he was not afraid to admit it. That's what I mean by integrity.

To me, this account makes most sense. LC is perhaps unqualified and loose with the teachings because GMR's reputation depended upon him granting her a status of 'lama' prematurely. This may have affected her own ego and made further teachings difficult - in particular the fundamentals.

This loose attitude seems rather pervasive in the school now. They say 'there aren't enough doctors in the field'. Yoga knowledge is sufficient for Tantra. Teachers often speaking that they notice corruptions taking form. Perhaps there is a consequence to fast-food Dharma...

I could be mistaken. If so, I would welcome any students of GMR to correct my errors or to help shed light on some of these mysteries. If not, I would hope that GMR come clean with the entire story - thereby regaining my respect.

I do not however, feel there is any kind of cultish, power obsession going on. I see no reason to suspect ill-intent on the part of GMR, nor DM. There is value in his teachings, courses, and system. But integrity is Wedge that separates good teachers from great leaders.

[www.elephantjournal.com]

Elephant Journal Stillwell Rebuttal

lydiajaneyoga 2p · 4 days ago


I knew nothing of this situation coming into it.

After reading this post, i went back and read the original post, as well as the open letters posted by Michael Roach and Lama Christie. I also read some background info on Michael Roach and his past relationship with Lama Christie and the controversy it created within the Tibetan buddhist hierarchy. After all this amateur research I can say that there are some SERIOUS ISSUES going on out there at Diamond Mountain.

I was very concerned with the way Michael wrote about the incidents, and his actions and reactions. Lama Christie's letter is really beyond comment. Just obviously delusional. Any spiritual teacher should know better than to talk about their lover as their "world".

My conclusion?

Obviously both bloggers have personal involvement in the issue, but I would not trust MR as a teacher (one who slept with his student and promoted her to teacher and then when she left him for another student he continued to teach alongside her).

Here in arkansas we had a similar occurrence. Some of you may have heard of Bobby Petrino, our beloved Razorback coach, sleeping with a much younger woman. He then hired her as on as a close staff member and gave her substantial financial gifts. He was fired. I see a lot of parallels here.

P.S. If you think that 2 people, who have been on retreat for a year, need so much care as 1) you buying prepaid cell phones and loading it with their personal numbers

2) you putting thousands of dollars of your own personal/professional money into their personal bank accounts 3) buying them plane tickets and hotel rooms

4) arranging personal assistants and friends to be there with them as they leave the retreat....

.why would you think its okay to completely stop communicating with them for months after they leave? why would you respect their rights to privacy?

people who need so much supervision and care just to leave a place....are still going to need that supervision and care once they're gone.

i agree with the first blogger that they should've been evaluated by outside professionals, and given the same amount of supervision, support and care once they left the retreat site.

Report Reply
0 replies · active 4 days ago

But the reasoning of Kyle and others does not resolve the question for me, which is not a matter of definition so much as one of aesthetics, or, as Kyle would say: rhetoric. “Cult” is jarring and confrontational, and I think it has a balancing potential for the “it’s-all-good” tone of Diamond Mountain defenders.

[www.elephantjournal.com]

---
The Elephant Journal Discourse on Diamond Mountain

In the two weeks since posting, my original piece has been “viewed” over 23K times. “Read”, I’m not so sure, given the accusations embedded in some of the comments. Of the more than 600 comments, approximately 170 are my own, as I’ve tried my best to remain present to the discourse and dialogue with the many valid points raised by the respondents. Unless people are posting under several pseudonyms, there would seem to be about 99 unique respondents. (These numbers are from an accounting I made on 5/11.) Of the 99, 24 are outright hostile to my implications and my tone: many of these engage in ad hominem attack. (It might be 25, if we count “Darth Vader”, who calls me a “self-righteous dick”, and challenges me to a fistfight. But I think Darth is joking.) The remaining 75 respondents are either strong supporters of the spirit of critical and independent inquiry that I propose, or they express various similar concerns to my own, along with appeals for greater objectivity and neutrality amongst all who dialogue, including me.

The level of upset from Roach’s students and devotees has been painfully sharp. I was fully expecting this, and this expectation plagued my ethical consideration in publishing as I did. I knew my opinions on the matter would hurt past friends and acquaintances quite deeply, and I didn’t take this lightly: these are relationships I’ll likely never enjoy again.

However. Diamond Mountain is a public institution with 501(c)(3) status, which makes regular public appeals for funding and continuous public claims about the necessity and beneficence of its mission, along with the qualifications of its leadership. Diamond Mountain is led by a man who claims that he is approaching full enlightenment, which in his metaphysics implies omniscience and the capacity to live simultaneously in an infinite number of bodies. (I’m not making this up.) As a public institution with public tax benefits, Diamond Mountain must be subject to public scrutiny, especially for possible religious excesses. Their charitable status comes with public responsibility. The same is true for Roach, who has no doubt become a public person (or perhaps an infinite number of public persons, which might complicate liability). My stance is not some petty matter of disapproving “of how [my] former teacher lived his life”, as John Stillwell accuses me in his rebuttal. Roach’s life is not a private bubble: he has influenced too many other lives to be shielded from scrutiny.

There was also considerable debate over the genre of the piece I published. Although I tried to be clear that I was reporting from the widely available documents and adding my personal opinions based upon my tenure with the group, many critics, including Stillwell, complained about my lack of objectivity or journalistic neutrality. I claimed neither. I was well aware of my emotional investment in the story throughout its writing. Thankfully, because we can use all of the perspectives available, more inquiry is on its way that will express varying degress of objectivity: I’ve been informed that there will soon be major newspaper coverage of the story.



My Relationship to John Stillwell, and His Rebuttal

I knew John middling-well from 1998 to 2000. He was the closest personal student to Roach with whom I was conversational. He has been an administrative leader for Roach’s teaching work from the mid-90s, although I don’t know how much work he does for Roach now. Back in the day, Roach constantly referred to John as his “right arm.” As I watched Roach unravel before my eyes, I remember asking John frankly over curries in the Lower East Side in 1999 whether he was concerned that his teacher was actually taking a harem of female student/lovers (including McNally) into his upcoming 3-year retreat. John refused to answer directly, but rather turned the question into a quasi-Buddhist teaching on subjectivity. It’s too long ago for me to attribute an exact quote, but I remember him saying something like: We have no idea what’s true. He may well be having sex with all of them. You have to make up your mind as to how best to see it. How you see it says more about you than about him. And so on. It was a deft display of metaphysical damage-control. But I don’ t think he realized that he was confirming my suspicions, patronizing my intelligence, and modeling a shrewdly rationalized secrecy, all at the same time. We split the bill, and never spoke of it again.

True to form, John’s rebuttal focuses more on my ungenerous perceptions of the group dynamics than on any of the action items I suggest, namely: the 15 requests to the Board. Most disappointingly, he actually misquotes me in his catalogue of my errors, which I’ve pointed out in the first comment you’ll see in the thread. I reached out to Waylon Lewis, EJ publisher, to ask him to correct the misquotes. Waylon didn’t get around to it soon enough for my liking, so I contacted John directly by email to ask him to revise. He gave leave for Waylon to revise, and then demanded by email that I change some of the language of my opening paragraph, which he felt made the Board look uncaring in general. I took his complaints to heart, and wrote back with a revised paragraph that addressed some of his concerns. My hope was that a behind-the-scenes dialogue would begin to enrich the discourse towards a more mutually acceptable narrative of events, so that the stark questions that shimmer beyond opinions (How could McNally have ascended to Retreat Leader status? etc.) might be addressed. But John refused to communicate about it. It feels like once again we’re splitting the bill, rising from the table, and surely on the verge of never speaking again.

John’s central complaint seems to be with my harshness with the Board. Many Board members are perhaps his friends, and I’m sure he has first-hand knowledge of their industry and care. My allegations of Board incompetence and negligence do not accord with what he feels, because they imply lack of concern. This is really sticky, because I have no doubt that the Board loved Thorson and McNally and deeply cared for their well-being. But as anyone who has been a member of a family knows, love and care do not always add up to clarity in action, especially when the love and care is obfuscated by power, shame, and emotional indebtedness.

The question of intentionality is the murkiest of all. Did John intend to railroad my probing curry-questions back in 1999, or did he intend to help me develop my own critical faculties? Probably a little of both. Does Roach intend to help people improve their lives, or does he intend to build a self-isolating kingdom of solipsistic bliss? Probably a little of both. Did he intend to help me overcome my clinical depression those many years ago, or to enlist me in his own grandiose dream? Probably a little of both. Does the Board want to justify its authority and competence, or reach for outside help? Probably a little of both.

As a student of literary theory, I’ve understood for a long time that we cannot definitively assess the intentionality of any author of a work. Likewise, I would never definitively attribute intentionality to Roach’s megalomania: the intentions of someone who really believes their own grandiosity are impossible to parse. If any group is going to hold and and help and heal the Diamond Mountain story, or any other story like it, it won’t be through amputating a bad-intentioned limb or extracting a tumour. It will come through an analysis (Greek for “unknotting”) of the vast web of relationships that weave it together: relationships in which intentions change and influence each other, and suffer from gaping blind spots. As much as Roach and his followers would probably like to think it’s all about him, it’s not. It’s about how our traumas, despairs, and wishes all coalesce into a psycho-social Ponzi scheme of tragic distraction.

But if really pressed, I would venture Roach’s intentionality to be more clean than dirty, if “clean” also implies “naïve”. Because while he does show many performative and Machiavellian talents (I’ll list a few select details below), he definitely lacks the shrewdness of a real crook. His Open Letter is certainly well-intentioned. But as the public relations disaster it has become clearly shows, it contains zero realpolitik. He could well have maintained complete silence on the matter, a move that would have likely strengthened his core support from those who crave a show of power more than transparency. If he had, I and tens of thousands of others wouldn’t have heard of Thorson’s death for months, if ever. His letter intended to clarify events for his students, but it plainly exposed his insular worldview to those who do not adulate him. I imagine that if he has retained lawyers since publishing the letter they are certainly wishing he had kept mum. You don’t admit to knowing of Ian’s psychiatric vulnerabilities for years before describing how you evicted him from a desert retreat without professional medical help, unless you truly believe you were doing the right thing. Naive self-disclosure is not a tendency of the malicious.



Addressing the Criticisms of My Post:



Finding the Facts amongst the Trees and Forest

My piece was a mixture of reporting on openly available sources (to which I linked for all to compare), and my interpretation of those sources, based upon my knowledge of the group. It’s important to remember that all sources so far are uncorroborated (including my own memories!), and that Roach’s Open Letter is a group effort made by a corporation under public and possibly legal pressure. I was aware from the outset that given these sources my reporting could not capture the absolute factual truth of the situation, and so I invited refinement via crowdsourcing. I appended corrections within 24 hours.

Most corrections were minor. I got a few dates wrong, and I misrepresented the housing situation for retreatants at Diamond Mountain. The retreatants are actually all living in houses built to county code. I confess here to being in thrall to my memory of Roach describing with great pride the camping austerities of the early days.

The main correction of substance involved including Roach’s statement that he and the Board alerted the police to the contents of McNally’s talk on 2/4/12. Roach doesn’t describe this in detail in his open letter, which led me to presume that the disclosure was not clear enough to provoke further law enforcement interest. In any case, this omission created the impression that the Board did less than they did, and this was a mistake. My contention had been that the strongest disclosure would have evolved from professional, on-site investigation at that point.

However, this recent story in the Phoenix New Times suggests that that may have actually happened. It reports that Board member Robert Ruisinger disclosed the talk to the Sheriff’s department on 2/13/12 — nine days after McNally’s talk. The article goes on to describe that deputies actually did come to Diamond Mountain property, and even questioned the retreatant-doctor who had sutured Ian’s stab wounds. This is not explicit in Roach’s simplified version:

The Board of course felt a moral and legal obligation to report the contents of the talk to the local county police department, who made a record of the report but decided not to follow up further.

Nor does it seem to accord with Roach’s later assertion that “At no time did police enter the campus property or the retreat valley”, although this assertion might only refer to the sequence of events surrounding the couple’s eviction, and might have been made for the benefit of sponsors wanting reassurance that the retreat boundaries had not been violated.

In any case, between the Open Letter, various news reports, and McNally’s letter (which wildly contradicts everything else), the nature of the trees remains unclear, and will remain so until there is a full investigative report with complete corroboration, which might take many months. The forest, however, is filled with many shadows.



Culture, or Cult?

By far the most heated complaint of my critics was my usage of the word “cult” to describe the group devoted to Roach and McNally. Many felt that it tainted the discourse unfairly from the outset. Commenter Jacob Kyle very astutely relates:

From a young age, I can recall many instances when some community was referred to as a “cult”. I remember there being a community somewhere in the woods near where I grew up in the Northwest, a group of houses surrounded by a tall green wall. I drove by it one day with my family and my mother or some adult pointed out that this was a cult. I had been sufficiently indoctrinated to know that “cult” meant “bad”, meant “insane” and probably had something to do with demons and suicide. My point is that Matthew falls into the habit of so many political ideologues by appealing to a term of generalization so loaded with emotion that its use cannot be analytical, but rhetorical. It is a rhetorical device that does more to foster fear and divisiveness than it does the kind of novel understanding required to be true to the specific contextual conditions of a unique community. It tosses Roach’s community into the irrational bin of “mad cultists”, thereby subverting a more sophisticated understanding of the reasoning behind certain practices.

In a personal e-mail I received from an acquaintance and fellow EJ writer, I was advised:

I do not find it useful to use loaded terms like “cult” in reference to such incidents. It stifles open communication and puts the other side on the defensive. Groups and individuals are complex and it is best to allow the “real story” to reflect that complexity.

I’m really grateful for this feedback. I’m aware of the consequences of the word-usage and the potential for over-simplification. But the reasoning of Kyle and others does not resolve the question for me, which is not a matter of definition so much as one of aesthetics, or, as Kyle would say: rhetoric. “Cult” is jarring and confrontational, and I think it has a balancing potential for the “it’s-all-good” tone of Diamond Mountain defenders. In a way, I use words in the same way I use herbs or food or daily routine changes with my Ayurveda clients: to directly and sensually address a given imbalance. Roach has been presenting his airbrushed and saccharine view of his organization with impunity from his soapbox for years, and has now issued a corporate apologia for Thorson’s death from within the logic of his circular metaphysics. I believe a completely different labeling of the situation can push all of us closer to clarity. My stridency might have therapeutic, if not definitional, value.

What I know for sure is that my own story of self-extraction from cultic environments and fascinations was speedily advanced on the day an outside friend who’d known me for years looked me in the eye and said: “You are in a cult. You know that, don’t you?” I protested, of course. But my friend didn’t back down. He repeated the word several times, spitting out the c and the t, and gripping his tongue around the l. The word broke through a particularly stubborn and neurotic defense, and made me look carefully at my dependency and fear of leaving.

For some scholars of religion and sociology, “cult” has a specific definitional threshold, but the jury is far from settled. Sociologists who argue for value-neutrality and advocate the analysis of groups according to their own terms wish we’d all replace the term with “New Religious Movement”. But others feel they can’t, because “New Religious Movement” is vanishingly vague when we started using it to designate both Heaven’s Gate and Anusara Yoga.

One of the more commonly quoted definitions of “cult” was articulated at an ICSA/UCLA Wingspread Conference on Cultism in 1985:

Cult (totalist type): A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986, pp. 119-120)

How does this all apply to Diamond Mountain? Let’s take a look:

Great/excessive devotion to a person or idea? Obviously.
Manipulative techniques? Cf: Roach’s constant exaggerations and PR. And, for a future article: his gaze and bullying speech patterns.
Isolation from former friends and family? Not overt, although obsessive meditation retreats in the Arizona desert might certainly isolate members from non-members. Then there are the countless awkward conversations over Christmas dinner between believers and non-believers.
Debilitation? Not that I’m aware of, but I would be interested to know how many of Roach’s core students are B12 deficient after 15+ years of dietary restriction, and how many, regardless of constitution, might have been encouraged to regularly fast.
Special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience? How about the virtual absence of open-ended inquiry meditation from Roach’s curriculum? As JOsh reports in the comments:
…from talking to students, the practice of the higher teachings involved literally hours of ‘canned’ reflections that came from his [Roach’s] textbooks. meditation as i have learned and practiced in other settings was entirely absent… the teachings were extended ‘reflections’ that involved tracing a line of argument or doctrine in detail. this isn’t without precedent in buddhism or necessarily a problem, but does give him a tremendous amount of power over his students’ inner lives.

Powerful group pressures? I certainly felt from 1998 to 2000 a powerful and anxiety-ridden pressure to attend all of Roach’s teaching events, wherever they were in the world and regardless of how much they cost to attend, lest I should “miss” something. Roach had a very business-savvy way of leaving almost every topic “unfinished”, to up the ante for future attendance. A manufactured scarcity of knowledge is central to the charismatic economy. The leader’s power rises in conjunction with his inaccessibility, which I believe is one of the hidden purposes and effects of globe-trotting guru-ism.
Information management? Insofar as DMU philosophy is self-isolating from other branches of Buddhism, I would say: yes. JOsh comments: “DM’s tibetan language and buddhist philosophy are so idiosyncratic as to be unintelligible to outsiders.”
Suspension of individuality or critical judgment? Someday I’ll present a video-diorama of Roach-trained teachers, who down to the last one eerily mimic his jolly-bullying presentation style and even his speech patterns, while presenting what they have learned from him verbatim with zero critical overview.
Promotion of total dependency? Obviously, radical forms of guru yoga are both taught and felt.
There are other measures of cultishness. According to the “Group Psychological Abuse Scale”, the current metric sociologists are using to assess cultic dynamics, we are instructed to look for, among other things:

Members postponing personal, vocational, and educational goals in order to work for the group.
Members being discouraged from displaying negative emotions.
Members who feel like they are part of a special elite.
Members who learn special exercises (e.g., meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues) to push doubts or negative thoughts out of consciousness.
Raising money being the major goal of the group.
Members who are incapable of independent critical thinking.
Members who believe their leader is divine.
Members who proselytize.
Every single one of these descriptions is arguably applicable to the devotees of Roach.

Still, the word is sticky, and I’m sure the argument will continue. I’ll leave the last word here to Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., and Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. and their essay On Using the Term “Cult”:

Even though the term “cult” has limited utility, it is so embedded in popular culture that those of us concerned about helping people harmed by group involvements or preventing people from being so harmed cannot avoid using it. Whatever the term’s limitations, it points us in a meaningful direction. And no other term relevant to group psychological manipulation (e.g., sociopsychological influence, coercive persuasion, undue influence, exploitive manipulation) has ever been able to capture and sustain public interest, which is the sine qua non of public education. If, however, we cannot realistically avoid the term, let us at least strive to use it judiciously.



Was My Post Malicious?

I have a clear personal grievance against Roach, for which I feel no need to apologize, and for which I take responsibility. I met him when I was profoundly depressed and wayward, and I surrendered to his charisma and messianic exuberance. In my desperation and loneliness I bought his Pollyanna philosophy with my last intellectual penny, along with his continual assertions that every other therapeutic tool available to us through the hard work of our general culture was bankrupt. “Psychotherapy can’t help you, but Buddhism can”, he would say. And I nodded and wept, not understanding that my pain was interpersonal, not metaphysical. I needed to find authenticity, relationship and intersubjectivity. Roach, through a toxic combination of zeal and narcissism, threw me and many others off the hard trail towards integration. I spun my wheels in his dharma-mud, digging myself deeper, disrupting my home and family life, wasting years I’ll never get back. And not one person in his sangha ever looked me in the eye during all those years and asked: How are you feeling about all of this? Because being part of the group wasn’t about relationship. Being there was about Roach and his fantastical ideas, and, I suppose, eventually gaining enough moxy to mimic his grandiosity.

As many of my critics point out, I am definitely angry. Then they go on to patronizingly suggest that I haven’t done my healing work, or that anger is a sign of immaturity, something to be ashamed of, something unethical. I think they’re angry that I’m angry. But perhaps beneath the indignation they are unconsciously threatened by my freedom to be angry, my freedom to think and express exactly what they may be so painfully repressing.

I am angry about my lost years and Roach’s megalomania. But most of all I am angry at how what duped a younger and more vulnerable me so long ago has now spun itself into a corporate web of solipsism and power and self-justification, resulting in the appointment of an unqualified student/ex-lover as Retreat Director, and the untreated madness of her husband. I hope that being transparent about my anger models for Roach’s students who now teeter on the fence the fact that anger is usually necessary to bring about the rupture of any dysfunctional relationship.

I write with wrath, but not malice. It is my fervent hope that through this discourse Roach’s devotees may be exposed to the various tools of integration: skepticism, shadow work, the recognition of magical thinking. And most of all, I hope they heal their failure to develop ambivalence. As Melanie Klein showed: if we cannot see or accept the simultaneous light and dark within ourselves and others, we will divide our world into perfect Roaches who hold the keys to our salvation, and satanic Remskis out to destroy the good and the true. Neither really exist.



tools.

Part two

-----------

Dirty Jewels on the Comment Thread

In the more than 600 comments on the original post so far, several issues of note have arisen – some old, some new – that I think warrant further attention. Of course, online sources can’t easily be verified, but I’d like to give these commenters the benefit of the doubt, and collate their input here, along with the further questions that emerge.




Ian Thorson, d. 4/22/2012
Ian’s malnutrition:

Neighbouring rancher Jerry Kelly writes that one of the Emergency Rescue Team workers who found Thorson’s body said that he weighed less than 100 pounds. The Cochise County deputy I spoke to also said that malnourishment was probably a factor in his death. We hear from commenter Warren Clarke (and can presume from the letter of Venerables Chandra and Akasha) that Ven. Chandra was likely a key food supplier for Thorson and McNally as they were hiding in the cave. If he was their source, why was Ven. Chandra unable to procure enough food for the couple? Was there no-one to help him? Was he so bound by secrecy to the couple that he could not ask for help, even as he might have become aware that they were ailing? Was this the assistant assigned to the couple by the Board? Was the assignment of a devotee really the best choice in a situation fraught with dangerous devotion and secrecy? Was he so blinded by devotional perspective and emptiness theory that he may have interpreted the couple’s sickness and malnutrition as the continuation of a retreat with “great success and joy”, as he described it in his joint letter?



A Bomb from Sid Johnson, former Diamond Mountain Board of Directors Member:

I’ll just quote directly from commenter Sid Johnson:

I was involved with this group from 1999 to 2005, and sat on the original board of directors at the beginning of the first 3-year retreat. I could write a book (and maybe someday I will) about the dysfunction and general madness that permeated every aspect of this bizarre organization. It is embarrassing now to admit that I willfully participated, and I sense it is this same embarrassment that keeps other former members from coming forward. At some point I will disclose more, like the details of the “initiation” I witnessed, including the infamous incident in which Mr. Roach stabbed himself in the hand in front of a room full of students, setting the precedent for magical interpretations of violence. I share Matthew’s concern that others may be in danger…

Roach, stabbing himself in public?



Roach Apparently Broke DMU’s Weapon’s Prohibition Himself

Several respondents confirmed Johnson’s report of the self-stabbing, including one to me directly by personal e-mail.

In the comment thread, Greg reports:

I was there, but my memory is vague now. Christie and Roach were lecturing together at DM, and Christie said something about devotion to partners (Lamas?). Then, in a half joking sort of way, she said something about how she wouldn’t be surprised if Roach might hurt himself if she asked him to. Roach immediately picked up the knife with one hand and, despite faint protests from Christie, seemed to stab his other hand, which was placed flat on the ground (they were both seated on the floor). It was hard to see. Christie appeared distressed, and his hand was quickly wrapped in a kata, which then showed drops of blood. The lecture continued. I remember wondering at the time if it was a planned stunt.

Phurba comments:

I also thought of this and believe it is a solid reference point for this situation, especially considering Roach’s condemnation of possessing or using a weapon at DM in his public letter.



Scrutiny of Roach’s Metaphysics: Gelukpa or New-Age?

Many respondents to my piece focused on the philosophical teachings of Roach, fuelling the long-running controversy around whether or not what he presents can be held as coherent with Gelukpa orthodoxy. But at many points the discourse also explored whether his radical (I use the word “solipsistic”) interpretation of emptiness theory might play a role in the ungrounded self-referentiality that allows dangerous situations to be interpreted as spiritual opportunities, like Thorson’s violent outbursts as signs of “sensitivity” or McNally’s near-mortal swashbuckling as “divine play”.

Of particular dispute is Roach’s oft-claimed mantra of “everything comes from karma”, his simplified (or simplistic) interpretation of Madhyamika Prasangika theory, which he has claimed for 25 years is the “highest” view of Buddhist philosophy – meaning that the flaws of other views disqualify them as paths to authenticity and full evolution. Frank Jude Boccio, an ordained Zen priest, points out in the comment thread that not only is this rhetoric divisive “sectarian bullshit”, but that the Buddha also seems to have taught against such a narrow view. Referencing the Pali Canon, Boccio describes the five causal orders that comprise experiential reality: the inorganic, the organic, the karmic, the natural, and the psychic. Boccio is a good resource for the discussion of worldview at Diamond Mountain because he has experience of the sangha there as a visiting teacher, and can describe how its knowledge base has significant blinders. He writes:

When I first moved to Tucson, I was amazed at how when I started teaching, it seemed everyone I’d meet with any interest or curiosity in buddhism thought Michael Roach and his group WERE buddhism. As my wife once said, “It seems he has a monopoly on the dharma here in Tucson.” I sat in on a course given on The Diamond Sutra and was quite surprised to find that we’d not be reading the Sutra at all: the text was nothing but “commentary” from Roach! The others were equally surprised when I shared that in my zen training, reading/reciting the Diamond Sutra for myself everyday for almost a year PRECEDED any lectures from my teacher! As I told them, I was encouraged to think for myself and question what I studied.

Sometime last year, I was invited to give monthly talks at Three Jewels, because some of the students, aware that all they knew of buddhism was what they have learned from Roach, and curious to hear of other perspectives thought my non-sectarian style would provide some balance. These talks draw very few people, however. But those who do attend often express surprise at the divergence from what they have been taught. One profound point, I think relevant here, is the notion that EVERYTHING that happens is a result of “karma.” When I shared that the Buddha seems to have taught AGAINST this view, and offered five different forms of causality, only one of which is “karma” (based upon volition) I could see some major cognitive dissonance arising!

Another Diamond Mountain epithet (“Roachism”, as they are coming to be called) that deeply rankles more nuanced interpreters of Buddhist philosophy is first stated in the comment thread by Eric Brinkman, who says that he has been Roach’s student for twelve years and flies around the world to film Roach’s events. He writes: “What we teach is that if you are kind to others you can reach your wildest dreams.” I remember this claim from fourteen years ago, when Roach gave entire courses on the power of virtuous actions in “Creating Your Own Buddha Paradise”, which you could furnish with dancing girls and Crazy Horse jamming in your living room, if that was your thing. In further comments, Brinkman’s critics were clearly disgusted at the jingoism. (Integralhack suggested it sounds like “Buddhism meets The Secret”.) I personally think it’s a profoundly despairing position in the Kierkegaardian sense: a magical-thinking trauma-response lacking existential depth, which punishes good and decent people for “perceiving” the inevitable sorrow life brings.



Scrutiny of Roach’s Vows: Should He Have Disrobed When He and McNally Became Lovers? And What About Us Regular People Who Like Buddhism but Still Enjoy Sex and Want to Have Authentic Relationships?

After Roach and McNally came out of the yurt in 2003 and declared their partnership, their supporters (cued by their public statements) began to claim that spiritual partnership is common within Gelukpa tantric practice, and acceptable for qualified monks, although it normally remains hidden. Some supporters still claim that the Dalai Lama has spoken publicly about his own spiritual consorts, but none provide references to this point. Roach’s liberal interpretation of celibacy has been roundly criticized by the more orthodox, who reference Roach’s censure by the Public Office of the Dalai Lama in 2006 over this precise issue.

What Roach’s followers do with this dispute is a classic study in the resolution of cognitive dissonance: if a pillar of your leader’s credibility (his claimed celibacy) is found to be shaky, it is easier to re-invent the entire culture to accord with his behaviour than to admit that he is an opportunist or a liar. Because if he is a liar, your emotional and financial investments in him are a sunk-cost, and this is intolerable. Thus: Roach must have taken a consort because the Dalai Lama does, although the Dalai Lama of course would keep his own behaviour under wraps. I’ve even heard Roach’s students imply that the Dalai Lama may publicly disapprove of Roach’s consort practice because he is bound by tradition, but that secretly (always secretly!) he has given Roach his assent, and secretly (always secretly!) hopes that Roach’s liberality begins to change the stuffy and misogynistic Gelukpa culture from within. The investment of devotion can compel people to rationalize anything.

But honestly: the sexual intrigue aspect is ridiculous to me, and terribly sad. I for one would have hoped that Roach and McNally had had wildly fulfilling shrieking-out-loud yurt-bouncing sex, but I’m afraid that their own views, along with the spiritual culture they were appropriating, were too sex-conflicted for them to have any real orgiastic release. Whether he should have disrobed is a doctrinal issue of little importance to me as a non-believer, until I see that his refusal to disrobe begins to fit the general pattern of Roach always seeming to want it both ways. Monk but not a monk. Businessman and renunciate. Toe-the-line conservative and crazy wisdom provocateur. Good boy and bad boy. Even this is forgivable to me as one who appreciates a good public chameleon, except that with Roach, one persona is always lying to the other, probably so that the cash can continue to pour in. The most famous example of this outright lying is in Roach’s account, during the Retreat Teachings of 2000 (To the Inner Kingdom, October 2000), of his yurt-bound “aloneness”:

…We were alone, each person. The nights are very dark, and there are many, many strange sounds…

…Every kind of creepy, crawly, desert thing has crawled in people’s yards and yurts, and sometimes very frightening things, but I think, the hardest think is the loneliness, to be alone for month after month.

We see each other for the holidays, like Sojong, confession ceremony, twice a month. When we’re in deep retreat we don’t see each other at all, so for a month or maybe two months. Each person has been very strong, become strong, and they showed a lot of courage, and respected the retreat boundaries. They’ve worked very, very hard. They worked for, some of them years, to learn the meditations and visualizations that they have to do. We don’t allow ourselves any other kind of stimulation, there’s only meditation and some study of what to meditate about, and each person has done it very, very well.

Outsiders should understand that if in 2000 Roach were to have revealed that his solitude actually included a shared bed with McNally, his ambitious fundraising for various projects would have ground to a halt amidst general confusion and dismay. I don’t mind a guy who likes to play both sides of his identity when the purpose is aesthetic. But when the play is political-economic and seeks to colonize people’s enthusiasm and cash with a narcissistic philosophy that provides cold consolation for their despair, I get angry.

And what happens to a community comprised mostly of householders whose primary teachers are engaged in what they describe as non-sexual intimacy, the nature of which is shrouded in a radiant hush? Roach and McNally are intimate, but they don’t have sex. They are too elevated to be “sexual”. They have renounced desire so much that they can stoop to engage in the “dirtiness” of esoteric intercourse, but only to inflate their meditative grandiosity, so that they can end war in the Middle East and stop global warming. What I witnessed back in my day was a lot of couples devoting themselves to Roach, idealizing the celebrity relationship to the diminishment of their own, being confronted by this model of sexless sex, and becoming very confused in the bedroom. Should we or shouldn’t we? Is kissing and cuddling a faster way to enlightenment than woman-on-top? If I’m aroused, can I still be focused on the Tibetan alphabet?

After my tenure with the group, Roach and McNally began traveling the world teaching the spiritual practices they claimed would transform every relationship into a “spiritual partnership”. Forget the Gestalt prayer or intersubjectivity, or even simple presence: spouses now had to be angels to each other, heroes, gods – and the bedroom became a mandala-spaceship of super-sexy no-touchy transcendence.

To give an idea of how knotted up this all was and went on to be, I’ll quote from an old interview given by Roach and McNally back in 2003. Roach confesses:

…it’s completely wrong for an ordained person to have any form of sexual activity. It’s completely forbidden. It’s the first of all monks’ vows. And a monk can never engage in sexual activity at all. And I never have. I mean, I’ve masturbated, and things that are wrong, and I’ve gone to my lama and confessed them, and I think any ordained person who is honest will say it’s a struggle, and then over years of practice you become self- celibate. And if you’re honest, I heard that many great lamas have said that the only disciples they believe are the ones who come and confess things to them. Like, “I looked at a woman.” I never broke any of those vows in a major way. I never had any kind of sexual contact with a woman since I was 21 or 22. And then in very extraordinary rare cases, it’s important, it’s useful, to do special kind of physical yoga with a divine being. And in the vinaya texts, I think even in the Tsotik, which is the basic huge vinaya text for the monasteries, you don’t break your vows if you engage in high yoga with a divine being. It isn’t anything normal at all.

That’s the first part of the answer. The second part of the answer is in the actual practice of higher physical forms of tantric yoga, these are extremely difficult, physically, extremely – they are unpleasant, quite unpleasant for the physical body, and quite … [Christie: exhausting] difficult for the physical body. They are like doing yoga for four hours a day or five hours a day, and it’s not fun. And it’s not a joke, and it’s a life-or-death attempt to become a being who can serve all living creatures before you die, and I don’t perceive it in any other way. And it’s no fun. And people who truly want to learn those practices, unless they are extremely disciplined and dedicated, they would quit within a week.

So kiddies: be together, but don’t have sex. Or: have something like sex, but certainly don’t enjoy it. Because if you do enjoy it, you know it’s not working towards its ultimate purpose of saving the whole wide world. This sex-not-sex business is not fun. Okay? It’s really hard. It’s not fun! Most of you are wimps who would totally give up on this great holy sex-not-sex path on like the first night. Okay? So don’t get any sexy ideas. It’s not fun! Got it?

I can’t think of a more destructive message to share with people who genuinely struggle in their relationships to come towards deeper authenticity and embodied intimacy. It presents an impossible ideal based upon a metaphysics that takes the most common and tender of human interactions as a sign of debauchery. As if we all didn’t already have enough self-doubt and bodily self-hatred to deal with already.

Interestingly, statement #1 on the “Group Psychological Abuse Scale” (the current working metric sociologists are using to assess cultic dynamics) is “The group does not tell members how to conduct their sex lives.” Respondents are requested to gauge whether this statement matches their group experience on a scale of 1 (not at all characteristic of the group) to 5 (very characteristic of the group).

The sexuality-contortionism is one thing. But as a therapist, I see a deeper relational issue here at work: that of endless romantic projection and magical thinking displacing the will towards presence and communication within the love relationship. In Roach’s economy, the dyad does not relate to each other to mutually embody empathy and growth. Rather: each partner uses the other to improve their karmic bank balance.

Ben reports from the comment thread:

Another aspect of the teachings at DM is that if you see something undesirable in your partner, instead of dealing with it with them through discussion or counseling, you plant the karmic seeds to see a perfect partner and they will change. I’ve pointed out that this totally negates the thoughts, motivations and will of the other person and have been told that, no, the other person still has thoughts, motivations and will but they are all coming from you.

What is tragic about this self-focused approach is that counseling and conscious communication can be such a profound path to walk in our discovery of the other.

There are aspects of Roach’s relationship teaching that seem borderline autistic, insofar as autism-spectrum challenges often involve a failure to develop a “theory of other minds”. Roach and McNally missed the entire gift of relationship, it would seem. Instead of experiencing relationship as a way of truly encountering the insoluble mystery of the other and negotiating difference, they seem to have used it to mirror for each other the iteration of fantastical and desperate wishes.

I’m not surprised they didn’t last together. They were legally divorced December 1st, 2010 in Yavapai County, Arizona. Their legal marriage, of course, had also been a secret. Which is why, perhaps, no eyebrows were raised at McNally’s very public wedding to Thorson in Montauk, New York, on October 4th of that same year. (Two months before the divorce.)



Scrutiny of Roach’s Spiritual Claims

It is an insult to ones fellow humans to claim revelatory knowledge. No matter how it is dressed up, it is the ultimate nyah-nyah. It is particularly insulting within Roach’s appropriated Tibetan tradition. And yet he has done exactly this, continually by implication since at least the mid-90s, and then directly via public announcement in 2003. In recent years he is said to have upped the ante amongst his close personal students by claiming that his revelations have brought him to a state of “No-More-Learning”, an achievement in tantric metaphysics akin to saying: “I am on the verge of full enlightenment.” For those of you out of the loop, Tibetan Buddhist tantric enlightenment is not some chilled-out state of mind. It is divinity itself: omniscience, omnilocality, and immortality. Plus: not needing to eat or defecate, being able to fly anywhere in the universe instantly, and having bones made of diamonds.

Roach has built his brand on the fumes of a mystical experience he had in his early twenties. When I started with him, he would tell his story in the subjunctive mood at almost every gathering. Everyone knew the story wasn’t hypothetical: it was a thinly-veiled autobiographical tale, which the tradition couldn’t allow him to declare openly. He spoke of his meditative epiphany in the second person: “you’ve studied with your lama for many years, and you’re meditating for hours every day, and suddenly you become aware of how you are constructing and naming your world…”. The second person address preserved a veneer of anonymity, but also functioned to possess many of us with the captivating suggestion: this could happen to me.

His spiritual claims were a very sharp hook for his early-adopters. I myself longed for something similar, and was shaken to the core by Roach’s tears when he spoke of his memory so wistfully. It took me years to realize that I and almost everyone around me has had consistently similar epoches while entranced by art or nature or a lover. The difference is that it never occurred to me to mythologize and commodify my most private ecstasies.

But his coming-out with McNally in 2003 was a challenge to the Tibetan cultural orthodoxy that necessitated the dropping of his 90’s subterfuge and required a full-monty declaration of his spiritual powers. In his January 16th 2003 “Letter to My Lamas” he versifies:

I was born in America,
And from the age of sixteen
Up to the present day
Have always been under the care
Of the Diamond Angel, Vajra Yogini.

At the age of twenty,
I travelled to India,
Land of the Aryas, realized beings,
And first met the sages of Tibet.

And then at the age of 22,
Despite the fact that I myself
Had no good qualities at all,
A seed inside of me
Suddenly awakened, a seed
Which was planted by the many efforts
Of the me of my past lives,
And by the infinite blessings
Of my Lama.

And so I saw ultimate reality directly,
And I achieved bodhichitta,
The Wish for Enlightenment:
I entered the gate
To the first level
Of the bodhisattvas.

Well, the Buddhist world had conniptions over this one. And they’re still upset, if the comment-thread to my post provides a good sample. Not only because it is illegal to announce such realizations (because they are unprovable and therefore pedagogically useless, not to mention culturally embarassing), but because he goes on to directly utilize this claim to justify his heterodox behaviour:

I completed, as well as I could,
Many retreats in the tradition
Of the Diamond Queen;
And now for three years
In isolation, in the desert
Here in America,
In a small Mongolian yurt,
With a Lady, who is an emanation
Of the Angel of Diamond, a Messenger;
And I’ve undertaken the hardships needed
To try to complete the two stages
Of the secret teachings.

The takeaway here is that Roach claims continuous mystical insight that puts him on the verge of omniscience and allows him to publicly crown McNally not as his lover but as an actual deity. What is the cost of believing all of this? For many, it costs years of devotional service and millions of dollars in tax-deductible donations. For McNally, it initiates a spiral of seeming self-delusion. (Imagine your powerful lover, 20 years your senior, declaring you to be a goddess!) For some, it entails eventually following McNally into retreat. For Thorson, it entailed following even further, to the very end of his life-blood.



Scrutiny of Roach’s Geshe Degree and Relationship to Sera Mey Monastery

Roach has continually stated orally and in published bio notes since I met him in 1998 that his Geshe degree was granted at the culmination of 20 years of study at Sera Mey Monastery, which is currently located, in exile, in Bylakuppe, Karnataka province, South India. The details of these 20 years are interrogated by the writers of a now-defunct site (but handily web-archived) that was critical of Roach. When pressed for more detail, Roach refines the narrative to say that much of this education occurred in the New Jersey home of his root-teacher, Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tharchin. Roach himself provides an extensive narrative of his education in this interview, in which he describes successfully fulfilling the six rigorous examination requirements, including publicly debating philosophy before the full assembly of doctoral candidates. But some dispute the authenticity of his account, and the degree itself. In the comment thread to my article, Tenpel writes:

BTW, a real Geshe from Sera, who studied with Roach in Sera, and who is teaching in Monastery Nalanda / France said, that Roach studied all together not more than 4 years at Sera monastery. His title was given as an honorific title for his financial sponsorship.

I am a fully ordained Buddhist monk and was in Nalanda monastery, France, in Dec. 2006. During the Vinaya teachings the question about Roach came up and Geshe Jamphal replied that he knows him from Sera, that they shared classes but that Roach were [sic] often absent and that he all in all might have studied only for four years there.

I asked (either him or another Geshe) why he has a Geshe title, and the reply was, that also cooks who didn’t study can receive a Geshe title as an honour to their work. Roach is known of having financed Sera very much…

If one understands the rigorous studies and the study content in the Gelug monasteries to attain a Geshe title for such a person it is clear that this cannot be accomplished under a single teacher in New Jersey.

I remember studying Gelukpa epistemology at Sera Mey for a month in the fall of 1999 with the scholar Geshe Thubten Rinchen, while Roach simultaneously translated. The monastery was like any bustling Indian city. I remember rising at 4am and walking amongst the barrack-like houses of chanting young men, and coming across the cookhouse where a score of burly monks would be stirring a great vat of bubbling dal with 10-foot-long wooden paddles. There were a thousand feral dogs, and courier-monks speeding by on farting auto-rickshaws, their robes flying. I remember the ragged and unwashed boys, the butter statues, the prayer wheels, the temples, and the clouds of dust rolling on the hot wind. I got deliriously sick there after dropping my room key into an open sewage toilet and having to fish it out with my bare hands – a Jungian moment if there ever was one. I remember vividly feeling that there were countless things I would never understand about this culture, its politics, its language, and its sentiments. It was one of those times in which the impenetrability of otherness provided a perfect mirror for the mystery of my own personhood. In the dust of Karnataka, I felt the exhaustion of my own journey.

Indeed, the inner workings of Sera Mey monastery are exceedingly complex. Financial sponsorship is necessary and pursued from multiple sources, especially as the monastery attempts to provide for its exile community a basic level of literacy and nutrition. The organizational structure is decentralized and nodal, with numerous administrators responsible for securing funding sources from familial and governmental patrons, as well as sympathetic benefactors from abroad. The economy seems to be a patchwork of bursting-at-the-seams and just-getting-by. Roach’s philanthropy did not likely involve handing poster-board-sized checks over to the monastery CEO in public ceremonies, or endowing a publicly-accountable trust or foundation. What is much more likely is that pockets of funding made their way to individual administrators, who through time became Roach supporters and validators.

In January of 2003, when Roach made his public declaration of mystical achievement, he sent his claims directly to his Sera Mey contacts, asking them for spiritual endorsements, which would, of course, attract more funding:

Gyalrong Khensur Rinpoche Geshe Ngawang Thekchok
Kongpo Khensur Rinpoche Geshe Jampa Donyo
Gyume Khensur Rinpoche Geshe Trinley Tobgye
Sermey Geshe Thupten Rinchen
Sermey Geshe Lobsang Thardo
Sermey Geshe Thupten Tenzin
All of these teachers and administrators, except for Sermey Geshe Lobsang Thardo, allegedly wrote back to Roach within a month with their endorsements. (I say “allegedly” because it should be noted that the originals of these letters have never been posted, and that Roach himself has translated them from Tibetan.) Roach also wrote to his root-teacher Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tharchin in New Jersey, and to the Dalai Lama. He received no publicized response from either. He also sent his claims to Lama Zopa Rinpoche, the head of FPMT, from which Roach has been banned. Lama Zopa coyly rebuked Roach’s mystical claims with the ironic suggestion that Roach should prove his magic powers with some old-timey miracles, like showing his ability to urinate in reverse, for example. I’ve heard no reports of Roach reverse-urinating, although he does claim other miracles, like the mystical bilocation of a rosary in this interview.

A woman named Karen Visser wrote to me by e-mail last week. Though not an official spokesperson for Sera Mey, she says she is familiar with the monastery through her long-term relationships with two former abbots. In dialogue with her I’ve come to suspect that these florid endorsements (if they are authentic) did not likely emerge from Sera Mey officially, but from individual administrators acting from within the context of their own complex relationships with Roach, and may be obfuscated by layers of etiquette, cross-cultural misunderstanding, and acute financial need.

Visser tells a rich story of recent Tibetan history, hope, and hardship:

Much of what is happening now is simply a result of this unique moment in history. Having English speaking teachers of Tibetan Buddhism and having texts translated into English is a very new thing. Remember, we’re only 53 years into post 1959 Tibetan history. Compared to any other religion in the West that’s no time at all.

I have close ties to Sera Mey monastery and I’d like you to know that there was a lot of hope and good intentions at the beginning. Michael Roach is a renegade now and the despair of his teachers at Sera Mey. They parted ways a long time ago but it didn’t start out that way.

It’s important to remember that after walking out of Tibet in 1959 all the monks (the Rinpoches and Geshes too) were physically building monasteries throughout the 60′s and 70′s. They were hauling rocks and bags of cement, they weren’t teaching Westerners. My old lamas tell stories of working so long and hard to rebuild their monastery that they didn’t “untie their belts for 2 months” which means they fell asleep in their robes, under the stars, never having the luxury of relaxing.

Work, pray, sleep. They had almost no food and learned Hindi and Karnataka dialect depending on where their monastery was being rebuilt, not English. They only resumed their studies in the late 80′s and early 90′s. Even then virtually no Tibetans in the monasteries spoke English, only the monks who dealt with the money, donors and suppliers.

That’s why there simply aren’t enough qualified teachers who speak languages other than Tibetan at the moment, because this is all still new. It’s very frustrating for students looking for a teacher but it can’t be rushed – learning English takes some time, and learning Tibetan isn’t easy either.

And so – into this gap rush eager, well intentioned, but unqualified, teachers.

I don’t believe Michael Roach, Christie Mcnally or Ian Thorson ever thought of themselves as unqualified. But they are, they were. A monk friend at Sera Mey told me that the qualifications that Christie and Ian referred to as being “from Tibetan monasteries” consisted of a month-long teaching in 1999 on mind and mental factors or mental cognition.

A month as a guest in a monastery isn’t training, it’s a mini workshop. Without speaking Tibetan, or the more difficult ‘dharma language’ in which teachings are given (which is to Tibetan what Latin is to English) without years of training, without being able to ask questions of the lamas – they are well-intentioned amateur dharma tourists.

I’m sure they love their students. But a surgeon who has only watched surgery for a month is a danger to everyone he or she practices on, whether she loves them or not. There may have been a few more workshops but not enough to make them qualified teachers.

As to their own teacher, Michael Roach, the Tibetans were very naive when he was at Sera. At the time Michael was getting his Geshe degree the monks remembered Robert Thurman, who did so well after studying Tibetan and dharma. It was harder for the Tibetans to read Westerners then: they had no idea initially that anything was wrong.

Michael Roach did try to be a good student in the short time he was there. He couldn’t participate fully in the debates that are an essential and crucial part of Geshe training in the way a Tibetan Geshe student is expected to, but he worked on his translation skills. Everyone in the monastery understood that his language skills wouldn’t allow for him to come up to the tough standards of a Tibetan Geshe but they appreciated that he was doing so much. It was understood that his degree would be an honorary one, given with great joy to a Western student. The monks felt the world was changing. Westerners would come to study at the monasteries, and learn Tibetan. The monks would learn English: dharma would spread throughout the world.

The bitter, heart-wrenching disappointment the Tibetan monastic community felt when Michael Roach was found to be living in a yurt, in his monk’s robes, with a girl who thought she was Vajrayogini, while teaching Tibetan dharma is impossible to describe. His Holiness was said to have dropped his tea cup when he heard the news, it smashed on the floor. Unusual for someone who rarely loses his composure. The abbot of Sera Mey was devastated, absolutely gutted.

To put this into perspective – my very close friend, who walked out of Tibet in the 80′s, is a Lharampa Geshe. He was first in his year at the debates, hand picked by his abbot to come to the West to teach. He had to wait 10 years after graduating to be considered qualified to teach. The Sera Mey Geshes were horrified that Michael Roach went out and taught right away, he didn’t truly understand the stuff he was teaching. He hadn’t asked enough questions, hadn’t done the right retreats. In my own opinion he wasn’t a true Geshe, in the traditional sense, any more that a celebrity is a true Ph.D when they’re given the degree for helping a university.

At present there is absolutely no bond between Michael Roach and Sera Mey. If Michael Roach says there is a connection of any kind he’s drawing on stuff that happened more than a decade ago. He’s caused nothing but pain at Sera, they so regret having ordained him that it is virtually impossible for a Westerner to be given ordination at the Gelug monasteries in South India now.

Sera knows what’s going on, the office of HH knows, but he has defied them all. Short of finding him, holding him down and tickling him until he agrees to take off his monastic robes, it looks like there’s nothing anyone can do. There’s no legal basis nor cultural precedent to track down a Westerner and take the robes back forcibly. Or to ask him to stop teaching. And, frankly, HH and the abbots of Sera Mey have had so many knives in the air that they’ve had to let go of the idea of changing Michael Roach. The Chinese Communists for awhile were sending young men to Sera to take robes, then run wild in town in order to shame the monastery. There are always money problems: just feeding that many monks becomes the first priority.

Michael Roach has been instructed very firmly: “Take off your monk’s robes.” by his abbot and by HHDL, the lineage holder. He sees himself as beyond all that, I suppose. I don’t know what’s in his head. He really did set up a cult, to the despair of everyone who taught him. His former students must feel so disappointed and betrayed, sad probably.

None of this contaminates any of Michael Roach’s or Christie’s students. Those students went with a good heart and good intentions. No one saw this coming. The students are as innocent as the abbot who ordained Michael Roach. It needed everyone’s approval. Everyone made errors in judgment, right up the line.

If there is indeed a complex quid-pro-quo going on underneath Roach’s educational and cultural-validation narrative, it might signify deeper financial entanglements between a few opportunistic members of his order and his quest for legitimacy. The prolific commenter Phurba and others bring up an incident from Roach’s ill-fated Indian pilgrimage of 2006, during which he was barred from teaching in Dharamsala by the Public Office of the Dalai Lama, not only for appearing to flaunt his celibacy vows, but also for committing the dire cultural faux-pas of scheduling a presentation during the Dalai Lama’s own public teachings without permission. He relocated his teaching an hour away, but then allegedly arranged that a monk appear bearing certain ritual presents to him, which he pretended came from the Dalai Lama. The alleged show was an effort to paper over the rebuke and re-legitimize his status within the Gelukpa hierarchy. This revelation drove many students away.



Input from Other Buddhist Community Experiences

NathanGThompson writes of the necessity for a Board of Directors that is independent from the spiritual director of any sangha, to prevent the coalescence and abuse of power:

I am the current president of our zen center’s board of directors, and have spent the last 5 years on our board, following the debacle I alluded to above [an abuse of power by the spiritual director of his sangha] . One thing to note about the board under our former teacher is that the entire group was handpicked by him, and they basically rubber stamped his ideas. Those who challenged him were ostracized, and more than a few prominent members and assistant teachers were forced out or left in the years prior to his downfall. I was part of a team that revised our governing structure a few years after our former teacher’s ousting, and it was quite clear that he had stacked the by laws and other governing documents completely in his favor as well. We also had a grievance committee that was handpicked by the teacher. At every turn, the leadership was under his thumb. So, it’s really not enough to say things like the board is dealing with these issues. Because they probably are, and yet, if the board’s structure is anything like ours was, then the work they are doing is compromised.

In a similar vein, Michael Stone told me over the phone: “None of this can happen – the secrecy, the power inequities, and the spiritual obfuscation – if the Board is strong and independent of the teacher.”



The View of the Locals

Reading commenters Jerry Kelly (neighbouring rancher) and Warren Clarke (a recent Great Retreat assistant) banter back and forth about the local geography, characters, illegal migrations, drug gangs and Border Patrol guys is like reading a Zane Grey novel or eavesdropping on an outback CB. For men who know the area, they make it clear that most of the Diamond Mountain administration is “greenhorn”: unfamiliar with the topography, ignorant of the old-timer neighbours and their resources, and overly romantic about the land itself. These are the folks who know the Rescue Unit guys as neighbours, who hike the back-country regularly, and who, had they been enlisted into a search party for Thorson and McNallly, would have had a wealth of information and experience to draw on. One theme that Jerry and Warren consistently bring up is the disparity in power between the staff of assistants (overworked, underpaid) and the Board (aloof and unrealistic).



Lies, Self-Aggrandizement, and Solipsism. Thankfully, Not Oprah’s Cup of Tea

I’ve been grateful for the comment thread, but at the same time a little torn up by it. It has uncovered whole new layers of strangeness.

Like this bit: in 2010, Roach recorded a video audition for the Oprah Network to propose a new show that he would host called “The Karma Show”. Oprah didn’t go for it, despite 11,861 votes. I think this 3-minute clip pretty much sums up Roach’s entire pitch and method. He confabulates his educational story, brags about the commercial bravado of his students, oversells his matchmaking and medical powers, all while bastardizing the crown jewel of Gelukpa metaphysics. You can watch the video yourself, or skip it and just read the copy he wrote for it, which I reprint below.

Hi my name is Geshe Michael. When I was young, my mom got breast cancer and just before she died she put me into a Tibetan monastery. I stayed there for 20 years and became the first American geshe, or Buddhist Master. Nowadays a lot of people come to me with their problems and dreams and i help them figure out what karma they need to get things they want; I helped 2 women in New York start a billion dollar ad company, I help friends find partners, and how to fix their health problems and stay young and strong. I have an idea to have a Karma Show where people come and say what they’re looking for in life, and we figure out the karma or good thing they need to do for others, to make their dreams come true!

I myself have a dream that I’d really like to come true. I dream that one day Ian Thorson’s corpse rises up from the grave and says to his former guru: It’s time to wake up. What good karma do I need to do to make this happen, Michael? Am I doing it already?



Where the Story is Leading Us Now

I now feel that the Board’s failure to protect Thorson’s life are actually aftershocks at the end of a long row of tumbling dominoes that reach back into the community’s reification of the love relationship between Roach and McNally. Shortcomings in managing the last few months of Thorson’s and McNally’s safety pale in comparison to the slowly-unfolding scandal of nepotistic power dynamics that allowed her to ascend to a position of spiritual and administrative authority. At the deepest level, the Board must now face how it was possible for intelligent and kind people such as themselves to give their power away so completely to someone so tragically unqualified. The Board must face, in essence, the consequences of Roach’s charismatic leadership, and their support of it.

On a theological note, I would like to know why McNally references Kali and not Vajrayogini in her letter. It sounds like she is practicing Kali sadhana. Was she leading a retreat in one lineage while practicing another? Does the Kali mythos of apocalypticism influence the general anxiety the group holds about the attainment of mystical experience?

On the broadest socio-political note, I’ll end by quoting the commenter oz__, who quite succinctly sums up our shared global stakes in the Diamond Mountain incident:

Deeply disturbing, and tragic, but unfortunately, hardly surprising. We participate in and support a set of sociopolitical and economic systems that depend upon atomization and disconnection – from the natural world, other people, even ourselves – and in such a destabilizing environment, the false connection to community that charismatic leaders offer can be sufficiently appealing to override common sense, not to mention mostly non-existent critical thinking skills. This is modern thaumaturgy. Far from failing to teach our fellows how not to fall prey to it, we insist that they in fact do so – because this is what modern systems, from advertising to politics, depend upon to accomplish their objectives of achieving profit and control. I mean, in a world that is dominated by the incessant drumbeat of propaganda issued from hierarchical and authoritarian structures, why should we expect independent thinking to be widespread?

Why indeed. 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.

From an unofficial blog

Quote

Quote

This is Google's cache of [diamondmountain.blogspot.com]. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on May 8, 2012 15:40:06 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Full versionThese search terms are highlighted: michael roach years chronology
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Diamond Mountain Blog

This is an unofficial blog of news and info from Diamond Mountain University and Retreat Center which was founded by Geshe Michael Roach and Lama Christie McNally in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition of the Dalai Lamas.

From 2006

Diamond Mountain Photos on Flickr

www.flickr.com

This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from diamondmountain. Make your own badge here.
Recent Posts
First AsanAthon a Big Success
DM on Dutch TV!
Service Day 06-01
Memorizing the Heart Sutra
A Taste of Sera Mey
Things Change: India 2006
SP4: Relation Riddles Audio
Upcoming in Tucson
Spring Term Regristraion - Now Open
DM Takes Manhattan


Links
Diamond Mountain

Asian Classics Institute

DMU Class Audio

DM Message Board

Asian Classics Input Project


Worldview
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Consider Summer...

...it is a functioning thing.

The second academic year of Diamond Mountain University has ended and things are much quieter. But fear not, there are many exciting things happening this summer at Diamond Mountain and other places (almost too many things). Venerable Elly has put together a list of where DM students will be teaching this summer. The list includes over a dozen events in at least four countries.

Teachers' Schedule

As many of you know already, Geshe Michael and Christie-la will be teaching the third installment of Je Tsongkapa's The Essence of Eloquence on the Art of Interpretation. The teachings will take place in Dharamsala, India (monsoon season, bring a boat) during the evenings. During the day His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be teaching A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life. A one-two

India Teachings Info

And of course, there will be lots of happening at DM including a children's summer camp and lots of down 'n' dirty building. We could always use a hand on the many summer building projects. If interested in volunteering, please visit the volunteer section of the Diamond Mountain website and sign up today.

posted by Evan Osherow | Tuesday, May 30, 2006

28 Comments:

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Questions re Dharamsala teachings.

1) Has anyone been polite enough to bother about notifying His Holiness the Dalai Lama's office that Roach and McNally plan to bring 200-250 students here in June? And advertise their evening teachings around town? (Maybe ya'll should phone).

2) How can the diamondmtn web site claim that they're blocking off 250 seats for students at these teachings? There's never any reserved seating -- except for the sponsor-group.

In this case, the sponsor is a very large Taiwanese group. Squeezing 200-250 folks on the concrete floors in addition to the normal number of non-sponsor attendees at these annual teachings will not be comfortable.

Just curious.

June 01, 2006 2:37 AM
Blogger Evan Osherow said...

Quote

Hi, thanks for posting a comment. I think I can answer your questions.

1) Yes, His Holiness' Office does seem to be aware of Geshe Michael and Christie-la teaching and there are advertisements going up in Dharamsala/McLeod Ganj.

2) It is my understanding (and personal experience) that you are correct about reserved seating in the main temple. However, it seems that His Holiness' Office has agreed to reserve 250 entrances to the teachings, but not a reserved seating area.

The office has been very accommodating for us.

I hope to see you in India.

June 01, 2006 9:18 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote

What are "entrances" -- will His Holiness' office be issuing tickets?

June 01, 2006 10:13 AM
Blogger Evan Osherow said...

Quote

I'm not sure, but it looks like there is a limited amount of passes issued for the teachings, as has been the case is the past. I suppose you could call them tickets. They are ID card with a photo and name of the attendant and the signature and stamp of the Office of His Holiness.

If you'd like further instructions on how to attain this pass let me know, I'm happy to offer my memory.

June 01, 2006 11:02 AM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Actually, what you are describing is the standard pass -- issued by the Security Department, not His Holiness Office -- in order to enter the area near to His Holiness. Requirements: display valid passport/visa, fill out a form, present two small photos and 5 rupees.

There is never any limit to the number of such passes that are issued. It's not a ticketing/seating operation but a security concern. Many people just want to go to one session or even less--just to see His Holiness. In order to enter the teaching area one must display this pass.

So, again, I'm curious what was the basis for your writing "His Holiness' Office has agreed to reserve 250 entrances" as His Office plays no role in issuing the security passes? Unless you've heard of some unique approach to this teaching, then the members of your group will be on an equal footing with the hundreds of other foreigners and many more Tibetans scrambling for a bit of floor space.

Since the area alloted to English speakers for these teachings is quite small, and very crowded in the past, I'm trying--and failing--to visualize how 250 more people are going to fit in. And I'm still wrestling with the wording of the web page re "blocking off 250 seats".

Thank you for your kind responses.

June 02, 2006 3:14 AM
Blogger Evan Osherow said...

Quote

You raise some good points. I don't have any more information for you, however.

It sounds like you will be in Dharamsala for His Holiness' events. Perhaps we can meet up for some momos and sweet tea and we can discuss things further. Just ask a Diamond Mountain person for "Evan." They'll know where to find me.

I look forward to being there and meeting you.

June 02, 2006 1:15 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Evan,

Now the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama has accommodatingly published one of its written communications to Rev. Roach.

Plainly stating, "we advise you not to visit Dharmsala in the greater interest of the purity of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition", the letter can be found on [www.diamond-cutter.org]

So does Rev. Roach still intend to come here at all; and if so will he and Ms. McNally be 'teaching' &/or attending His Holiness' teachings?

If not, when will the changes be posted on diamondmtn.org and here?

Of course, as the letter continues, "as for the other members of your group, those who are interested are welcome to attend the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama."

So will ya'll be coming? In which event, I'll be happy to make your acquaintance. Looking at at 2005 blog, I see your web design talents are responsible for the fine design of diamondmtn.org.

June 08, 2006 10:48 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Evan,

For your convenience, here's a bit of elaboration on my last post.

My first posted inquiry here was not based on information from diamond-cutter.org (a site I only became aware of recently via a google search for the photo of Christie cutting the "novice" hairlock). However, I had good information that His Holiness' Office was not informed of Rev. Roach & Christie's plans to teach in Dharamsala until long after diamondmtn.org was soliciting people to travel to Dharamsala, India.

Is this proper Guru-Disciple behavior? Or is it even conventionally polite behavior?

My first posted inquiry here was on June 1; after which you replied that His Holiness' Office had been "very accommodating for us".

Yet as the accurate chronology on diamond-cutter.org makes clear on
"May 24 2006 ... the Private Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote to Geshe Michael Roach informing of the cancellation of TIPA as a venue, and requesting him to cancel his teachings in Dharamsala."

GMR replied on "May 30, 2006 ... [with] a long letter ... explaining that his 'realisations' qualify him to teach in such a manner and justify his behavior with Christie Mc Nally. The letter was signed Rev. Michael Roach."

[Having trouble in "Preview" with the post -- so will split it up here]

June 09, 2006 2:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote

[continuation of post]

What will it take for His Holiness' Office to be UN-accommodating"?

Perhaps their reply to Rev. Roach of June 5? Wherein they stated,

"Dear Rev. Michael Roach,

This is to thank you for your letter of May 30, addressed to Chhime Rigzin-la both in English as well as Tibetan. Chhime-la is presently away with His Holiness and I am responding to your letter on behalf of our Office here.

We have gone through your long explanation but still do not support your coming to Dharmsala. If you have reached the path of seeing, as you claim in your letter, you should then be able show extraordinary powers and perform miracles like the Siddhas of the past. Only then will the followers of Tibetan Buddhists be able to believe and accept your claims.

Otherwise, as His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the Spiritual and Temporal leader of Tibet having responsibility over the welfare of Tibetan Buddhism many have often complained to Him that He should be strict with those who are not adhering to the general norms of discipline according to our tradition. And your coming to Dharmsala will be seen by many as His Holiness condoning your behavior and practice.

In view of all these we advise you not to visit Dharmsala in the greater interest of the purity of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as clearly indicated in the letter of Chhime Rigzin-la dated May 24, 2006. However, as for the other members of your group those who are interested are welcome to attend the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Tenzin Geyche Tethong
Secretary to H.H. the Dalai Lama"

Now that Rev. Roach has been told not to come to Dharamsala, he still has not seen fit to publicly advise his students. who have spent considerable money and time preparing to follow him to India, that His Holiness does not approve of his conduct nor welcome his visit.

Is this an ethical exercise of his responsibilities as a Teacher?

June 09, 2006 2:36 AM

Quote

Blogger Evan Osherow said...
Hi and thanks for your continued interest in this matter.

There is really nothing more I can tell you about the venue or changing of plans or any such matters. Things seem to be going ahead as planned.

As for the letter, I cannot say whether it is an authentic document or not. I truly have not heard of such letter existing, but the website from which you read it seems to be reputable.

We are all very much looking forward to our time in Dharamsala. I think a good test of a teacher is His or Her students. Try to meet some Diamond Mountain people, spend a few minutes with them and see what you think. I may not be the best representative, but I'd still like to meet you.

June 09, 2006 9:43 AM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Well, Evan, you surely are a very 'nice person'. But in your last post you appear as a bit more incurious than most creative people.

Rest assured, the letter is a truly 'authentic document' from the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

In coming here, you must understand that no one objects to Rev. Roach being a New Age preacher of his own cooked up blend of Christianity and Buddhism.

But people are, for one example, 'shocked' and 'deeply concerned' about a non-monk trashing our 2,500 year old Buddhist tradition by pretending to ordain people in a fictitious fashion. And we are concerned that innocent well-meaning folks are duped by his slanderous fictions about Indian and Tibetan Buddhism: No. 1, that he is a teacher of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's 'lineage.'

During the teachings, you can find me sitting near the English translator with the ordained English-speaking sangha. Please come over, ask for Ani Nordron so we can talk.

Have a good journey -- and start asking questions.

June 09, 2006 5:58 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote

How do you know he is a non-monk ?

June 13, 2006 10:49 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
1) Because he says that he has a sexual (both tantric and 'partnership') relationship with Christie.

If a monk or nun breaks one of their 'root vows' -- whether or not anyone not a party to the breakage knows about it, that ordained person is no longer a monk or nun. Doesn't matter if they keep wearing robes. And it doesn't matter what their 'motivation' was for breaking vows.

Hence, Atisha made it clear that monks and nuns cannot engage in tantric completion stage practices with a human being.

For example if a monk or nun instinctively reacted to save the life of someone else with a physical act that inadvertently caused the criminal attacker to die (when the monk only intended to disable the attacker), the monk or nun has broken their root vow against killing a human being and is no longer a monk or nun.

Doesn't matter what their motivation was.

2) Michael Roach has also claims to have had a direct mental realization of emptiness (and thereby became an arya being) when he was a young man at Sera Mey.

A monk or nun breaks their root vow against lying if they make false claims about their spiritual attainments. Since it is practically impossible to use conceptual terminology to discuss direct mental perception accurately, even His Holiness the Dalai Lama doesn't go around saying "I've attained the path of seeing"!!

So while you and I don't "know" what Michael's realizations are, I can safely say that his claims can't actually be 'true' in all respects.

But my authority on these matters, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, had his office send (and allow to be published) a letter making it clear that Roach's claims are not believed! If His Holiness is correct, then Roach has been lying about his spiritual attainments and thereby 'disrobed' himself by breaking another root vow.

3) Lesser rules (i.e., breaking them does not automatically and immediately "disrobe" an ordained person) that Michael Roach publicly and routinely breaks:

(a) Having hair longer than the width of two fingers.

(b) Wearing ornaments, jewelry and such.

(c) Playing musical instruments, singing and dancing (other than during the offering/invocation sections of pujas)

(d) Spending time alone with the door closed with a female.

(e) Matchmaking.

4) The "ordination" he conducted in January in the name of Tibetan Buddhism was shocking in its multiple violations of the rules and traditions of Buddhist ordination ceremonies. Buddhists believe that ordained sangha are necessary for the preservation of Buddha dharma in this world. We place great stock in proper 'lineage' of ordination. The persons who conduct ordination must be fully ordained and faithfully upholding the vinaya. Since LAY PEOPLE cannot even attend or witness an ordination ceremony, they certainly have no role to play in the ceremony! We trace back the valid lines of ordination to Lord Buddha. The ceremony must follow the rules for ordination that were established 2500 years ago. How could a Arya Buddhist engage in conduct so demeaning to the preservation of Lord Buddha's teachings in this world?

In any event, the Vinaya rules for monks and nuns are one of the main practices of the Liberation Vehicle practitioners. In Tibetan Buddhism, the Vinaya is most rigorously upheld as practice by the New Kadampa heirs to Atisha's Kadampa tradition -- the Gelukpa. Other Tibetan traditions place somewhat less emphasis on ordained sangha, and rinpoches and lamas of those traditions are often married lay people. Even in Gelukpa tradition, the practice of married people is highly valued.

So it's just inexplicable why Michael Roach has stubbornly clung to the fiction that he is a monk.

June 14, 2006 8:32 AM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Where did he say that he has sex with women?

Apart from that, the rest of your post hangs off assumption and outright error (ie. matchmaking, hair, jewellry, the ordination). 'Outright error' here means more that it is of your own opinion that it is so [breaking a lesser rule], not that it didn't actually happened [that GMR has long hair for example].

June 15, 2006 3:00 AM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Anon,

Sorry if I wasn't perfectly clear. Perhaps we should look at what His Holiness the Dalai Lama's spokespersons have publically told the Rev. Roach.

(1) His Holiness does not "believe" "you have reached the path of seeing, as you claim" (see June 5 letter above).

Thus, His Holiness does not believe Michael Roach has told the truth about his spiritual attainments. Thus, His Holiness believes that RMR has broken the root vow not to lie about one's spiritual attainments. As noted before, if a monk or nun lies about their spiritual attainments, they are no longer a monk or nun. Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama does not believe RMR is a Buddhist monk.

Please let me know if I have not explained this point with sufficient clarity.

2) His Holiness the Dalai Lama finds that Michael Roach’s conduct of the January ordination ceremony conflicts with the “rules of Vinaya”. (see May 24 letter above).
This means that the 'ceremony' was an illegitimate charade. The people who participated and witnessed were duped into participating in something a bit analogous to a black mass in that a sacred ancient, and essential Buddhist institution is mocked and denigrated.

(3) His Holiness the Dalai Lama asserts that Michael Roach’s “unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice” (see May 24 letter above).

That is RMR is not a teacher or practitioner of the “Dalai Lama’s lineage” -- another claim by RMR about spiritual accomplishments that is false.

(4) His Holiness is so emphatic in his condemnation that he tells RMR “not to come to Dharamsala” because people might inaccurately conclude that His Holiness condones “your behavior and conduct”; thereby sullying the “purity of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition”! (May 24 letter below)

(5) You ask "Where did he say that he has sex with women?"

You can find this easily yourself in many places. RMR wrote letters which he posted on the web to various lamas including His Holiness the Dalai Lama wherein he stated that he had taken Christie as a "consort" -- this is a word that in this context refers to sexual intercourse including the specific act of penetration, that is specific acts that break a monk's root vow by which act he was immediately and automatically disrobed. You can listen to various mp3's available from RMR site of his 'spiritual partnership' teachings where he makes clear that he sought and found a physical and spiritual partnership with Christie.

Again, please let me know if this is not perfectly clear.

(6) The meaning of your last paragraph is not perfectly clear to me. You write "your post hangs off assumption and outright error ...'Outright error' here means more that it is of your own opinion that it is so [breaking a lesser rule], not that it didn't actually happened [that GMR has long hair for example]."

Are you suggesting that RMR doesn't have long hair or doesn't wear jewelry since his retreat ended? If so, perhaps you should look at easily available photos. Regarding "singing and playing musical instruments", you can download an mp3 of this from his site. Regarding 'matchmaking', read the account of the ordination ceremony and listen to his 'spiritual partnership' mp3s.

If you can't see that RMR is not a Buddhist monk after this, as RMR likes to blend in the Christianity: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

I'll post the May 24 letter in another post below.

June 15, 2006 11:32 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote

May 24, 2006
To: Rev. Michael Roach
Subject: Teachings in June

Dear Rev. Michael Roach,

We have recently learnt that you are planning to come to Dharmsala during the June teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama with a large group of Western Buddhists. We also understand that you plan to give separate teachings on the "Essence of Eloquence" to this group in the evenings following His Holiness's teachings in the afternoons.

On your Diamond Mountain website it is stated "that Geshe Thupten Rinchen is ill. As you may already know, he has tuberculosis in the past, and now he is having a recurrence, which is likely to require surgery. Geshe Thupten Rinchen has strongly encouraged Geshe Michael to conduct these teachings himself. Geshe Michael, knowing how many of you had already made their travel plans, has graciously agreed to do so."

We have made inquiries about what you have said and find that it is not strictly true, because Geshe Thupten Rinchen did not ask you to give the teachings on his behalf. Moreover, we have become aware that there is an unresolved controversy over your current observation of the Vinaya vows and your keeping company with women. We have received inquiries and letters of concern about your status and conduct from many people.

We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly.

This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice.

Under the circumstances, keeping the greater interest of the purity of Buddhist tradition in mind, we advise you not to come to Dharamsala on this occasion.

Chhime R. Chhoekyapa
Joint Secretary

Cc: Department of Religion and Culture, Dharamsala
Cc: Office of Tibet, New York
Cc: Geshe Thupten Rinchen

Office of H.H. the Dalai Lama
Thekchen Choeling
McLeod Ganj - 176 219
Dharamsala, (H.P.)
INDIA

Ph.: +91 (1892) 221343, 221879, 221210
Fax: +91 (1892) 221813
Email: ohhdl@dalailama.com

June 15, 2006 11:41 AM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
So where in there did it say "Geshe Michael Roach has broken his vows," or "Geshe Michael Roach has not seen emptiness directly?"

I also noticed that the website which hosts these letters has removed to official seal of His Holiness which was once on the site. Is this because the documents are not actually official?

Isn't there a part of the bi-monthly Sojong ceremony where a monk or nun confesses to having flattly rejected the claim of someone having seen emptiness directly? Maybe it's not in there, though. Either way, to say that you know a person is not an Arya or even a Buddha is a terrible seed to plant in your own heart.

Please be careful.

- Craig

June 15, 2006 3:51 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Craig,

You write, "So where in there did it say . . . Geshe Michael Roach has not seen emptiness directly?"

The May 30 letter states:

"If you have reached the path of seeing, as you claim" . . .

How does one reach the path of seeing? One must perceive emptiness with direct mental perception in a meditative session that is the union of calm abiding (shamatha, single pointed) meditation and special insight (vipassana).

As the letter makes clear, His Holiness does not 'believe' RMR's claims that he has reached the path of seeing, which is just another way of saying, they don't believe his claims of having perceived emptiness directly. RMR made that claim in letters to his lamas that he posted on the web when the controvery broke out (in 2002 if memory serves).

His Holiness as the master of Vinaya, the supreme Abbot-ordinator of Geluk Buddhism, does not need to remind a person who took gelong vows what the four root vows are! Don't you think His Holiness assumes that RMR knows the four root vows he swore to hold for life?

Now you indicated that you are unfamiliar with them, so I've explained in quite precise detail what they are. For a monk to claim that he has perceived emptiness directly when he has not in fact done so breaks his vow not to tell lies at the root and he is immediately and automatically disrobed just by making that claim.

Speaking to people here, they are unwilling to 'debate' whether or not RMR is a monk or an arya or a follower of the Dalai Lama's lineage of conduct and practice.

Why not debate. Because he simply is not any of those things. It's an established fact in the Gelukpa lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. There's nothing to 'debate.'

As an Ameican, I realize that my countrypeople are ignorant of many of the basis for these facts so I'm presenting this information.

June 15, 2006 9:01 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Craig,

You write, "I also noticed that the website which hosts these letters has removed to official seal of His Holiness which was once on the site. Is this because the documents are not actually official?"

No, the documents are "official" expressions by His Holiness' spokespeople. Others have inquired directly to His Holiness office and received confirmation and their own copies (see /dmesbb.ning.com/?action=message&id=1392785):

From: ohhdl@dalailama.com Subject: June 5, 2006 letter to Rev. Michael Roach Date: June 12, 2006 4:49:23 AM EDT To: loppon@virupa.org Received: from [61.0.0.45] ([61.0.0.45]:36666 "EHLO ndl1mr1-a-fixed.sancharnet.in") by lmg15.affinity.com with ESMTP id S365212AbWFLIvy; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:51:54 -0700 Received: from conversion-daemon.ndl1mr1-a-fixed.sancharnet.in by ndl1mr1-a-fixed.sancharnet.in (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) id <0J0Q00501O9WCF@ndl1mr1-a-fixed.sancharnet.in> (original mail from kuger@sancharnet.in) for loppon@virupa.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:20:56 +0530 (IST) Received: from TGT.dalailama.com ([59.94.245.65]) by ndl1mr1-a-fixed.sancharnet.in (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J0Q00CTDOKWN8@ndl1mr1-a-fixed.sancharnet.in> for loppon@virupa.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:20:56 +0530 (IST) Sender: kuger@sancharnet.in Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20060612141637.00c873c0@dalailama.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Dear Loppon Kunga Namdrol,

Thank you for your email of June 10, 2006. The letter dated June 5, 2006 addressed to Rev. Michael Roach has indeed been sent by me.

With best wishes,

Tenzin Geyche Tethong Secretary to H.H. the Dalai Lama

Office of H. H. the Dalai Lama Thekchen Choeling McLeod Ganj - 176 219 Dharamsala, H.P. INDIA

Tel.: +91 (1892) 221343, 221879, 221210 Fax: +91 (1892) 221813 Email: ohhdl@dalailama.com

Another email from Tenzin Geyche-la says:

Dear Todd Marek,

Thank you for your email of June 10, 2006. The letter dated June 5, 2006 addressed to Rev. Michael Roach has indeed been sent by me. I am also giving below a copy of the letter that was earlier sent to Rev. Michael Roach by my colleague, Mr. Chhime Rigzin Choekuapa.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just wish away the conventional reality that conflicts with our prejudices.

June 15, 2006 9:12 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Craig,

You write, "Isn't there a part of the bi-monthly Sojong ceremony where a monk or nun confesses to having flattly rejected the claim of someone having seen emptiness directly?"

Again, that sentence does not exactly make sense to me. If you are saying that at a sojong monks and nuns 'declare' that they have not broken their root vows -- that's true.

Although as you know, in the General Confession we aver that we have broken all the vows and have committed the most heinous crimes in our countless lifetimes. We have similar language in a general confession regarding our secondary/tertiary vows.

June 15, 2006 9:18 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Craig,

You write, "Either way, to say that you know a person is not an Arya or even a Buddha is a terrible seed to plant in your own heart."

Actually, I'm not saying that I know that. I'm saying that His Holiness the Dalai Lama has made it plain since 2002 that the claims of RMR to be an Arya are not to be believed in our tradition.

Hopefully, RMR is acting in relation to His Holiness like Devadatta to Lord Buddha. For Mahayanists, Devadatta was enacting the deeds of a heretic, enemy of the Dharma, sangha splitter, false teacher to serve as a foil and provide an opportunity for Lord Buddha to give a pointed teaching.

Nonetheless, those who followed Devadatta's false teachings -- unable to distinguish the pure from the impure, the good from the bad -- accumulated negative karma and thereby experienced unnecessary suffering.

June 15, 2006 9:25 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
To clarify, the words:

"Wouldn't it be nice if we could just wish away the conventional reality that conflicts with our prejudices."

following Tenzin Geyche-la's email to Todd are my commentary.

June 15, 2006 9:30 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Craig,

You close with words of advice that are always pertinent and helpful: "Please be careful."

You too; okay.

On Tuesday, I attended the 2d day of a teaching by Demmo Lochoe Rinpoche at Gyuto Monastery. The text, de lam, Path to Bliss.

The whole flap about RMR teaching here and the expected arrival of over 200 diamond mountaineers now is well known by the local geshes and lamas.

In the Lam Rim section enjoining students to carefully investigate their prospective teachers, Rinpoche unusually repeated, with emphatic urgency, several times:

"False Teachers Lead their Students to Hell!"

Please take care,
Tenzin Nordron, getsul-ma

June 15, 2006 9:52 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
"" (1) His Holiness does not "believe" "you have reached the path of seeing, as you claim" (see June 5 letter above). ""

this is a very exaggerated interpretation on your behalf.
this is illustrated by your next point:

"" "His Holiness the Dalai Lama finds that Michael Roach’s conduct of the January ordination ceremony conflicts with the “rules of Vinaya”. ""

when the actual words were "seems to" and were working off a single photograph. everyone should be very careful when trying to read things correctly. your points do not stand under scrutiny, even your reply about GMR having engaged in sexual relations. in the mp3s that you cite, he is talking about (as many people have previously talked about) certain secret practices. that you insist he was talking about a normal sexual relationship is a total perversion of the truth.

June 15, 2006 11:22 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
A more articulate response is here: [www.diamond-cutter.org]

June 16, 2006 10:39 PM

Quote

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Anon 11:22

Regarding the letters of His Holiness' spokespeople you write,
"everyone should be very careful when trying to read things correctly"

What is actually true is that anyone who purports to be a follower of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's tradition of Buddhism should be extremely careful about denegrating and deliberately misinterpreting His clearly stated warnings that RMR is no longer a teacher/practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism.

Of coufrse, if you are not a follower of His Holiness, fine, you can believe anything you want about anything.

But if you hold yourself to be any kind of Buddhist, why don't you stop acting like you can't make sense of plainly written English. Contact His Holiness office directly.

June 17, 2006 8:35 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote

If we see an appearance of conflict between teachers, or anyone, doesn't that simply mean we are seeing results of some past conflict as created in the past? If my loving parents argue with each other, should I create a conflict about the argument with my siblings? Or should I let that wave of appearance exhaust itself and be glad I didn't create a similar appearance in the future? If karma and emptiness work, then I MUST disengage from conflict and remain joyful.

Thank you, Buddhas-in-disguise, for showing me the appearance of something that has no nature of its own, something that comes from me, so that I can love you more, and smash the causes in myself that produce an ill-fitting world.

Ah, I feel this appearance fading, as all temporary things do....

July 09, 2006 9:35 AM
Blogger nordron said...

Quote

Dear Anon 9:36

As the Seventh Dalai Lama noted -- between Samsara and Nirvana no difference exists. Nonetheless, the effects of the karmic law of cause and effect are infallible.

Thus when His Holiness the Dalai Lama warns us to stay away from RMR -- because RMR has been engaging in black karmic deeds (according to Tibetan Buddhism -- trampling on the vows of a fully ordained monk and conducting a schismatic ordination for two) -- we should pay heed to the warning for the sake of this and future lives.

Warnings are not 'conflict'. [We don't want to engender animosity against RMR, CM or their students.]

As sane (and, yes, 'ordinary') beings living in this Jambudiva realm, we preserve our Precious Human Rebirth because we wisely alter our behavior and thinking based on warning advice.

Even though nicotine and cigarette smoke tar do not have a self-nature of being inherently existing carinogens, nonetheless inhaled in sufficient quantities by a body (also lacking inherently existing self-nature) such a body often develops a deadly illness (that also lacks such a self-nature).

Similarly, our mental continuua have "no nature" existing independently from their "own" side. Nonetheless, Buddha dharma teaches that the karmic consequences of the actions of following false teachers often is lower rebirth.

So when the toddler, who lacks an inherently-existent self nature runs towards a street (that cannot be found when searched for by a mind looking for the ultimate mode of existence of that road), and a loving adult (similarly empty of inherent nature) SCREAMS [in loud foreceful voice that is completely empty of self-nature] a message [similarly empty of self-sufficient existence] - STOP!!! COME BACK!" --

That's a loving warning -- not a good-karma-burning temper tantrum.

love,

July 12, 2006 8:29 AM
<< Home

[groups.yahoo.com]

Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:12 pm

(quotes)

Quote

Office of H.H. the Dalai Lama
Thekchen Choeling
McLeod Ganj - 176 219
Dharamsala, (H.P.)
INDIA


June 5, 2006

Dear Rev. Michael Roach,

This is to thank you for your letter of May 30, addressed to Chhime Rigzin-la both in English as well as Tibetan. Chhime-la is presently away with His Holiness and I am responding to your letter on behalf of our Office here.

We have gone through your long explanation but still do not support your coming to Dharmsala. If you have reached the path of seeing, as you claim in your letter, you should then be able show extraordinary powers and perform miracles like the Siddhas of the past. Only then will the followers of Tibetan Buddhists be able to believe and accept your claims.

Otherwise, as His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the Spiritual and Temporal leader of Tibet having responsibility over the welfare of Tibetan Buddhism many have often complained to Him that He should be strict with those who are not adhering to the general norms of discipline according to our tradition. And your coming to Dharmsala will be seen by many as His Holiness condoning your behavior and practice.

In view of all these we advise you not to visit Dharmsala in the greater interest of the purity of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as clearly indicated in the letter of Chhime Rigzin-la dated May 24, 2006. However, as for the other members of your group those who are interested are welcome to attend the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.


Tenzin Geyche Tethong
Secretary to H.H. the Dalai Lama

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

Messages Messages Help

Message #
Search:
Advanced
Dalai Lama's Private Office Denounces Geshe Michael Roach Topic List < Prev Topic | Next Topic >

Reply < Prev Message | Next Message >

Hi friends,

It seems there has been some controversy brewing over Geshe Michael Roach's change in attitude and teaching since he completed his three year retreat: it seems he's taking to making claims about his realizations, 'cult building' and has acquired a young woman as his 'consort' and another four women as 'Dakinis'.

The controversy has escalated to the point of Mr. Roach being officially denounced by the Dalai Lama's office, please see the below posted information.

I don't know if this is a case of him just going against the orthodox 'tradition', and thus being ostracized, or whether he's really gone of the deep end - either seems likely though.

Happiness and Ease to you all,
Nirodha (Bill Gray)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geshe Michael Roach's Claims of Realization
Geshe Michael Roach's Three Year Retreat

Dalai Lama's Private Office Denounces Geshe Michael Roach

Geshe Michael Roach's planned teachings in Dharamsala


In late 2005, Geshe Michael Roach invited one of his teachers, Geshe Thubten Rinchen from Sera Mey, to give teachings to a group of students in Northern India in July 2006. Geshe Michael Roach was to translate the teachings for his students.

Geshe Thubten Rinchen cancelled these teachings in early 2006, citing ill health, and Geshe Michael Roach then decided to give the teachings himself. The venue was changed from the Kulu Valley in Himachal Pradesh, to Dharamsala, the home of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The teachings were planned to coincide with public teachings by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was scheduled to teach during the day. Geshe Michael Roach therefore planned to teach in the evenings. This, in itself, breaches the traditional etiquette of not teaching in the same place and time as one's own Lama, without permission.

Although the change of venue to Dharamsala was advertized on the Diamond Mountain web site, the
Private Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama were not aware of the planned teachings at this stage.


Finding a Venue in Secret

Geshe Michael Roach, as well as students helping to organize the event in Dharamsala, understanding that the teachings might not be welcome, and thus reverted to stealth in order to book a venue. They sent an otherwise unknown Tibetan woman to offer a large deposit to the Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts (TIPA) for use of their premises. She informed TIPA that that the teachings may be a little controversial, but did not inform them that Geshe Michael Roach would be teaching with his "consort". As nobody in the TIPA administration knew of the Geshe Michael Roach controversy, they accepted the deposit.


Dalai Lama's Private Office tells Roach he is not welcome in Dharamsala


News of the planned teachings then reached the Private Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who immediately cancelled the booking at TIPA.

The following correspondence then took place between the Private Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Geshe Michael Roach:

May 24 2006 - Chhime Rigzin from the Private Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote to Geshe Michael Roach informing of the cancellation of TIPA as a venue, and requesting him to cancel his teachings in Dharamsala.

May 30, 2006 - Geshe Michael Roach sends a long letter to the Private Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in both Tibetan and English, explaining that his "realisations" qualify him to teach in such a manner and justify his behavior with Christie Mc Nally. The letter was signed Rev. Michael Roach.

June 5, 2006 - Tenzin Geyche Tethong, Personal Secretary to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, replied to Geshe Michael Roach by email informing him that he was not welcome in Dharamsala, either to teach, or to attend the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Diamond-Cutter.org has been forwarded a copy of this letter, which is presented verbatim below. The letter speaks for itself. It is an unequivocal denouncement of Geshe Michael Roach, signed by the personal secretary of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Office of H.H. the Dalai Lama
Thekchen Choeling
McLeod Ganj - 176 219
Dharamsala, (H.P.)
INDIA


June 5, 2006

Dear Rev. Michael Roach,

This is to thank you for your letter of May 30, addressed to Chhime Rigzin-la both in English as well as Tibetan. Chhime-la is presently away with His Holiness and I am responding to your letter on behalf of our Office here.

We have gone through your long explanation but still do not support your coming to Dharmsala. If you have reached the path of seeing, as you claim in your letter, you should then be able show extraordinary powers and perform miracles like the Siddhas of the past. Only then will the followers of Tibetan Buddhists be able to believe and accept your claims.

Otherwise, as His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the Spiritual and Temporal leader of Tibet having responsibility over the welfare of Tibetan Buddhism many have often complained to Him that He should be strict with those who are not adhering to the general norms of discipline according to our tradition. And your coming to Dharmsala will be seen by many as His Holiness condoning your behavior and practice.

In view of all these we advise you not to visit Dharmsala in the greater interest of the purity of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as clearly indicated in the letter of Chhime Rigzin-la dated May 24, 2006. However, as for the other members of your group those who are interested are welcome to attend the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.


Tenzin Geyche Tethong
Secretary to H.H. the Dalai Lama


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from [www.diamond-cutter.org]

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.