The Michael Roach Bubble.

Via on Jun 29, 2012

elephant journal is an open forum. We believe in offering an uplifted forum to elevate important, sometimes difficult issues from gossip into discourse, and learning. We have also published a “rebuttal,” linked below. Matthew, the author below, has his own experience and views. Those views, and the views in the rebuttal, do not constitute an “official” view of elephant. Our official view is that we hope, again, to offer a forum for understanding, and, hopefully, real peace. ~ ed.

reporting and analysis by matthew remski

Life is not a dream. Careful! Careful! Careful! – Lorca

important background:

– Christy McNally’s letter, April 19th
– Michael Roach’s open letter, April 26th
– my original post, May 4th
– John Stillwell’s rebuttal, May 6th
– my followup, May 19th
– Michael Roach’s essay, June 2nd
– NYT article, June 5th

 

since I last posted: a brief synopsis…

There are reports that Christie McNally was last seen in Kathmandu, trying to secure a private audience with her first teacher, Lama Zopa Rinpoche. She couldn’t. There is a report that Christie’s mother has quoted Christie as saying: “Michael Roach murdered my love.” The Thorson family is starting to talk to the media. The claim that Roach’s sexual partner practices are a legitimate aspect of Gelukpa tradition has been thoroughly savaged by several knowledgeable commentators. A Facebook page has been organized to croudsource letters of concern to the Dalai Lama, and to request that Sera Mey monastery – Roach’s putative alma mater – formally distances itself from Roach. Dozens of followers and ex-followers of Roach are beginning to come forward with their memories.

No one knows where this story is leading. But a close look at how it’s unfolding, and how Roach and others have chosen to respond so far, gives a dizzying view on how deep this rabbit hole goes.

There are now almost 48K views of my original May 4th piece about the circumstances under which Ian Thorson died after being expelled from Diamond Mountain by Michael Roach and the Diamond University Board. There are over 28K views of the follow-up. There are over 3200 comments between them in which over 200 supporters and critics of Michael Roach slug out the issues of his responsibility for McNally’s mental health and Thorson’s death, as well as his qualifications as a monk, his virtues as a philanthropist and cultural translator of Tibetan philosophy, and his credibility as a scholar and “realizer” of Buddhist attainments. The threads read like a collective doctoral study of Tibetan metaphysics and cross-cultural anthropology, as well as the twisting saga of present and ex-students navigating a swamp of devotion and trauma. Huffpo picked up the story on May 22nd.

When the New York Times reported on June 5th, the floodgates of global media opened. Fernanda Santos’ story – an account brief and elliptical enough to provoke many new questions – was broadcast throughout the English-speaking world, reinvigorating the source-threads with a slew of new commentary, and prompting an immediate followup by Nightline, in which Ian Thorson’s grieving mother called out Roach’s group point-blank as a cult. Lama Surya Das warned the world about him in HuffPo. Since June 6th, I’ve fielded calls from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Newsweek, CNN, and People Magazine. The story is getting louder. But on Diamond Mountain there is the silence of continued retreat, and tight lips.

Except for Roach, who has had plenty to say – mainly about himself. He’s published a 26-page self-report of his academic history. In recent public appearances he has compared himself to Jesus and Abraham Lincoln. He has bragged about his well-attended appearances all over the world, and about his book sales doubling on Amazon despite negative publicity. He has joked that “We need more scandals.” He has compared his critics to demons. And at the opening of his first public appearance on the American soil in which Ian Thorson’s flesh is dissolving, he held down the rhythm on double bass as a devotee sang “What a Wonderful World”.

The disjunction between Michael Roach’s bubble of obliviousness and consensus reality is being laid bare before our eyes, in real time. Thousands want to know why a frail young man meditated to death in the arms of his wife, in a cave without food or water. They want to know how his wife came to believe she was a goddess. They want to know what paroxysms of religious delusion and/or domestic violence led her to stab him months before he died. They want to know why her former lover and guru exiled them both from their home and community. Despite Roach’s claims to kindness and empathy and selfless service, it appears as though he is happy to laugh about a tragedy in his wake, and ignore these now-global questions that cut to the very heart of modern spiritual integrity. Perhaps we can chalk it up to his decades-long meditative rehearsal of a neo-Tantric mirage in which every calamity is a divine teaching moment, every criticism is proof of his virtue, and every call for transparency is an invitation to greater secrecy.

On a broader scale, Roach’s snubbing of consensus reality is a powerful display of irreconcilable worldviews: the collision of premodern tribal magicality with postmodern skepticism and inquiry. The public discourse around his intentions is a powerful display of the hostile barrier of mutual misunderstanding and distrust between religious insiders and outsiders. In an age in which progressive religiosity is at least attempting a dialogue between premodern faith and postmodern reason, the Diamond Mountain story shows what happens when this dialogue crashes and burns, or perhaps never gets started.

 

the endless Roach monologue that answers nothing

Roach’s public relations strategy is, as they say in the theatre, to “mark, park and bark”: hit your stage mark, stand your ground head-on, and deliver your lines to the nosebleeds. His first public “response” to the tragedy of Thorson’s death and the embarrassment of McNally’s delusions consists of a 26-page essay in which he self-reports his educational achievements. Of course, it’s not a response at all, but a massive deflection to counter a far less meaningful accusation that recent events have resurrected: that his monastic degree was less-than-honestly procured. Numerous sources both now and dating back to the old diamond-cutter.org website have charged that Roach’s academic credentials are honorary, and that his account contains gross exaggerations that play upon the cultural naiveté of his western students. Karen Visser reports that one of her current Sera Mey contacts, who remembers Roach’s visits in the 80s, describes Michael as a “cushion geshe”, someone who donated money to have his cushion reserved in the debate hall when he wasn’t there. This allegation has been supported by several commentators, but their anonymity cannot provide corroboration. Which is why some critics are seeking clarification from Sera Mey directly in a letter-writing campaign.

That Roach self-reports his achievements also does nothing to address his central credibility issue: he changes his story almost as often as he tells it. Honestly, I find this tragic, because buried somewhere within his look-at-me bluster is a story of amazing adventurousness, persistence, cross-cultural intelligence, devotion, and philanthropy. Even Roach’s harshest critics praise his work on the ACIP project and his considerable charitable contributions to Tibetan monasteries-in-exile. If he could simply restrain himself from exaggerating his educational story (time spent in Tibetan monasteries vs. time spent in Howell NJ) or his tenure with Andin International (implying he was still part of the company when Warren Buffett recently bought it), the uniqueness of his educational achievements (he is not, as he has claimed publicly for many years “the first Western geshe” – Georges Dreyfus was, as of 1985), his medical talent (“I’ve helped people with their health problems”), his singular insight into the historical Buddha (“On the night of his enlightenment he meditated all night with his consort”), his engineering skills (claiming to have “designed” and “built” the first wells and water lines for Sera Mey monastery), his self-portraits might inspire the broader sympathy he seems to desperately need. But such restraint is unlikely: his essay has to be read, after all, in light of his repeated claim to be on the verge of omniscience (self-reporting that he’s on the “Path of Seeing”). Michael Roach is not content to be a good guy. He really wants to be seen as a god as well, even as his fantastically twisted humanity is denuded before the world.

Beyond being utterly tone-deaf to the gravity of the Ian’s death, a number of structural aspects of this autobiogushical performance are worthy of note. Roach begins the essay with the faux-self-deprecating preamble common among the autobiographies of Tibetan saints:

Friends of mine have asked me to write some details about my life, partly to clarify information which appears online or in the press about me as my teachings become more prominent around the world, and partly because one of my Tibetan lamas has asked some of my students to write a biography about myself. These friends have been pestering me for some years—but I felt hesitant to respond, since it seemed a pretty self-centered thing to do. But as it may be helpful to my students and friends, I have decided to relent.

He “relents” with the device of question-and-answer, lending a teacherly “Ask the Expert” rhythm to his description, but ignoring the fact that these aren’t the questions that anyone is asking right now. Finally, the very title of the essay announces it’s written “for my friends”, indicating no intention of directly engaging outsider scrutiny, or anyone who would peal back the mask of his authority. Roach’s primary audience for his defensive screed consists of his own followers: at this dangerous juncture he must retain as many current devotees and sponsors for his expensive projects as possible, and to gain new adherents to replace those who are surely leaving. He seems to forget that as the director of a 501(c)(3) organization, we are all his sponsors.

 

story time for the clean-up crew

On the videos of his June 8 to 17th teachings in his new Phoenix meditation-and-media centre, you can watch Roach start out on the sound-stage in band formation, with double bass or sitar or guitar in hand, and then step aside faux-meekly for a scene change, as devotees build a teaching throne for him, complete with silks, flowers, and icons. Then he mounts the throne to read and give the oral commentary on sections from Pabongka Rinpoche’s Liberation in the Palm of Your Hands, the thick slab of a beginner’s practice manual for the Gelukpa tradition that so many feel he’s dragging through the mud.

The subject matter of these teachings was chosen long ago. But the timing of the subject provided an uncanny opportunity for Roach to kill several birds with one stone: launder his orthodox mantel, rally the faithful in the wake of the tragedy (never to be mentioned directly) with some “back-to-basics” pep, demean critical thinking and healthy skepticism, and reinforce the walls he has built between the 21st century and his pre-modern fiefdom. Pabongka Rinpoche’s book may be philosophically rich, but it is also culturally impenetrable, laced with the kind of monastic ephemera and medieval folklore that Roach constantly weaves into his discourse to romanticize his adopted tradition and amplify his other-worldly authority. In teaching this particular book at this particular time, Roach announces unambiguously: Daddy’s back in town.

The obviously hurt and confused students lap it up. Ani Chukyi (who I remember as Anne Lindsay back in 1998), spoke in her parallel teaching about what a relief it was to hear her lama (Roach) “start at the beginning” again, given the stress and scandal of Ian’s death. It would seem that the most effective rear-guard action a tottering authority figure can perform would be to remind his followers how good it felt to gambol in the age of innocence, before his ex-girlfriend went mad, before his most naïve protégé died in a cave, and to regress everyone to a warm and knowing place, untroubled by independent thought.

On the first night in Phoenix, during a section that describes the process for preparing for the ideal meditation session, Roach related Pabongka’s encouragement to clean your room prior to sitting down through a story that seems quaint enough, but which, given present circumstances, carries an ugly message. I’ll paraphrase:

Once there was very stupid monk. He was so stupid he couldn’t memorize a single sutra. So the Buddha told him to clean the temple with a broom. He said: when you sweep, recite: “Clean the dirt. Sweep the dirt”. Try as he might, the extremely stupid monk couldn’t even remember the two phrases together, or in order. Nonetheless, his faith in Lord Buddha was so great and his sweeping so ardent that he quickly attained levels of meditative equipoise and insight that rivaled those of the greatest scholars.

The moral is: you don’t have to think. You just have to believe. And sweep up the temple dirt. So the idiot monk sweeps himself right into heaven: a story that might give all of us idiots hope, until we realize that it’s also an ideal story for the reassertion of paternal (anal, in psychoanalytical terms) control amidst chaos.

Two suggestions hover beneath this story. Firstly, Roach is reminding students that he was the stupid temple-sweeping monk for his teacher, Khen Rinpoche Lobsang Tharchin (as per the anecdotes at the end of his blovathon). Secondly, he is implying that continued devotion in his students will obviate their cognitive failures. This suggestion is already an easy sell with most western adherents of Tibetan Buddhism, who will commonly say: “The Tibetans have been studying the truths of Lord Buddha for a thousand years: we shouldn’t presume to be able to understand anything”.

It is this tendency towards self-imposed ignorance that keeps Roach’s temple-soiling swept clean by insider brooms. The guru’s history is an incomprehensible hagiography: don’t scrutinize it too closely. Sweep, sweep. If you are troubled by his behaviours, the problem is your perception. Sweep, sweep. Roach and McNally’s relationship was a divine mystery: don’t interrogate its power/gender dynamics. Sweep, sweep. McNally’s delusions of grandeur are a display of karma that only a Buddha can understand. Sweep. We can’t really know why or how Ian Thorson died. Sweep. Given the possible confusion that recent events might provoke, it’s best to scrub McNally from all Roach-related websites. Sweep. “Don’t take it too seriously”, Roach reassures his crowd on the second night in Phoenix. Sweep, sweep.

 

“I’m not comparing myself to Jesus, but…”

The idiot-monk story is perhaps too subtle. Let’s skip right ahead to where Roach compares himself to Jesus. The transcript (6/9/12) is as follows:

In the last week there’s been a lot of crazy publicity about myself and Diamond Mountain. I haven’t actually seen that much of it. But I was in Guadalajara a few weeks ago,  right?– who was there? [receives acknowledgement from students] yeah, and it was weird, because the last time I was in Guadalajara 20 people came, or something, not many people came, and then this last time a thousand people showed up, and it was one of the largest places you could have in Guadalajara to fit people. And that happened several times on this last tour, right? In… where was that? [looks to devotees again] Colombia, and then again in Mexico city, sold out in the museum of the wealthiest man in the world — Carlos Slim. It was strange. the tour was pretty strange. I don’t know about you, if you were in Guadalajara that night, it felt like the Mexican revolution was going to happen again. I actually got nervous. I felt very — especially when our friend got up [a student in the crowd apparently mimics the Mexican friend's fist-pumping actions], I just felt this energy run through the crowd and thought: this could get out of hand, you know.  Where do you go from here? To a soccer stadium or something? What’s going to happen next, you know. And I thought “Very powerful forces were being unleashed.” I felt like that. And it felt a little bit unsettling. I was a little nervous about it. And so then I thought “Something strong is going to happen.” In Buddhism they say when good forces are happening very strong, then there will be opposite forces will come. And you have to expect it. and I think personally, this is just my own opinion, we’ve done… many of you have done 20 years of  work, 25 years of hard work, free classes, 25 years of free classes, the university is free, the classes have been free, and 20K pages of traditional scripture have been unleashed into the modern world in a modern way. And people are starting to respond: even in Moscow before that, 850 people came to the talks. First time I’ve ever been there. Things are happening, things are moving, great forces are being unleashed, I feel. And I just want you not to be nervous or afraid or like that, okay, it makes me a little, it’s overwhelming for me and stressful for me, all the attention, and a lot of the negativity. But I think it’s natural, when good forces get very strong, and it’s happened throughout history. Read the story of — I’m not comparing myself to Jesus — but there’s a story: he healed Lazarus, he brought Lazarus back from the dead, which I cannot do, and I don’t claim to be able to do. But then he got in trouble. Beginning from that day, he got targeted by the authorities. They said that he was wrong to bring back people to life without asking the authorities: something like that, you know. And then they said, “O we have to go to Jerusalem now.” And Peter said “I don’t think you should go, you know, stuff might happen.” and he went anyway you know, oh-wey [slight tearing in voice, touches face]. So just, I feel that powerful good forces are being released, and there will be a reaction. and don’t be disturbed, don’t be sad, and don’t take it too seriously. Bigger things are coming. Much much greater things are coming. And beautiful things, global things, globally-changing things, and naturally there will be some reaction in the world. The more we do, the more reaction there will be. And that’s just natural, in the whole world. So embrace it and ride it, and don’t be nervous, and don’t be, especially don’t be unkind to other people, okay. Be friendly, be kind, be understanding of their needs. Respond to them with kindness and grace, elegance. That’s your training, that’s what you do. So whatever comes, our job is to practice, to be kind to people, be good to people, do our daily meditation, do our daily yoga, study. Show that you are well-trained, by being kind and forgiving, and serve people. That would make me most proud. Okay?

Okay indeed. Let’s analyze the rhetoric a little:

– To Roach, the breaking news is “crazy publicity”. It’s not the report of a death of his long-term spiritual student in his care under conditions of religious delusion.

– In the same breath, Roach veers from the content of the publicity, and diverts to stories about his recent global renown.

– From his throne, he quizzically asks his students to remind him where he has been and where he is going. This pretends to dilute his personal agency, creating the impression of plural group-think. The interchange affects a modest tone of someone “just swept up” in something bigger than him. This is consistent with his general practice of affecting charming foreignness and naiveté, as though he were native neither to English speech nor to the postmodern world of horseless carriages, flying machines, and the interwebs. Repeatedly asking students to find simple words for him is a powerful rhetorical device that keeps the class engaged and gives an artificial sense of solidarity in shared discovery, as the commentator Cyn points out.

– Throughout, Roach uses two rhetorical keys to the obfuscation of responsibility: plural address and the passive voice.

– Roach also often uses the 2nd person address to allude to himself. The collusion of 1st and 2nd person addresses creates a powerful boundary porosity between charismatic leader and devotional follower, such that who is doing what becomes obscured. This makes it very easy for underlings to feel a false sense of equality with him, empowerment from him, and participation in his plan.

– Roach name-drops Carlos Slim (the world’s richest man!!!), as though he were the sponsor/endorser of his Mexico appearance. Really, Roach just rented a venue from the guy.

– Only the Dalai Lama could ever teach in soccer stadiums. An indirect comparison.

– Multiple elliptical references to “powerful forces being released”. Again, the passive voice detaches Roach from responsibility. When credit is due, this rhetorical gesture affects modesty. When blame is near, it affects disengagement.

– “We’ve done, many of you have done”: he colludes his own narrative with that of the group. In fact, nobody in the room has “done” what he has done, but this fits the pattern of Roach handing off his own grandiosity to others. Later, he says, quoting Jesus (in plural): “O we have to go to Jerusalem now.” The suggestion of collective movement is vague and apocalyptic.

– As per usual, Roach uses the word “free” to describe his teaching products. Access through the front door may be free, but it’s certainly not free inside. The organization floats on a pre-modern sponsorship model in which donors are continually pressured for major contributions. “Free” is a way of obfuscating/romanticizing the real costs of a megalomaniac vision.

– “I’m not comparing myself to Jesus” – and then he does, alluding especially to Jesus’ heterodox actions. Then comes a terrible irony that makes me throw up a little in my mouth: Roach reminds us that Jesus’ troubles began over raising Lazarus from the dead, but of course his own troubles have sparked global interest because he is administratively and perhaps spiritually responsible for a man’s death. Roach is colluding Lazarus with Ian. But Ian’s corpse is not rising, except perhaps in the imagination of those who believe that he died in ecstasy. “[Jesus] brought Lazarus back from the dead, which I cannot do…” says Roach. Is this helpless Jesus somehow even more sympathetic?

– Roach tears up as he alludes to Calvary, preprogramming pathos amongst his devotees for whatever storms of persecution may come. I find this particularly dangerous.

– “Greater things are coming” echoes John 14:12, in which Jesus says– “Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, the one who believes in me will also do what I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (International Standard Version) Faith is presented as the prime consolation and route to self-empowerment. Keep calm and carry on.

– Bring it home with an appeal to forgiveness, kindness, and service. Position universally unassailable sentiments at the end of outrageous deflections and narcissistic allusions, to make the “main message” seem sane.

– “Okay?” This transcript reveals a comparatively sparing use of this particular Roachian rhetorical interrogative. He’s given teachings in which almost every sentence is followed by a hasty bark of “Okay?”, which instigates a regular head-nodding rhythm amongst the crowd, making it more and more difficult to any individual to feel, much less express, dissent. It’s a pretense at dialogue that can bully the crowd into group assent. I believe the head-nodding itself is a kinetic cue for physical kriyas. (He might have to alter this rhetorical device as he becomes more popular in Latin America. “Okay?” can become “Olé!”, leaving even less room for doubt. Buenos dias, Geshe Olé.)


the anxious shaman-charismatic-nowhere-man

I’ve spoken with many who knew Roach in the early days of his ministry.  One remembered that Roach quite obviously had an issue with regarding women as equal fellow students. Also: that it was impossible to have an adult conversation with him, because he couldn’t seem to temper his internal mystical reverie for long enough to see and feel another’s humanity, perspective, otherness. I remember this as well: a kind of conviction that impressed the doubtful at first, but slowly revealed itself as a lack of interpersonal skills and general failure of empathy. From a postmodern perspective, his neo-Tibetan world seemed simple to an infantile degree. From a psychoanalytic perspective, he was a narcissist who had failed to develop healthy ambivalence with regard to the complexity of the world.

But from his own markedly pre-modern perspective, he was simply walking the walk. By his lights, Khen Rinpoche was a Buddha, Manhattan was swarming with tantric deities, every good thing that happened to him was a divine blessing, every bad thing that happened to him was a divine teaching, and anyone who doubted any of this was obviously perverted by contemporary delusions or perhaps even demons, and couldn’t call themselves a real Buddhist.

To begin to read Michael Roach, one has to contemplate the extraordinary clash of pre-modern and postmodern cultures that constitutes much of the Tibetan-Buddhism-Comes-West experience. We might call it an “epistemic collision”, in which two descriptions of the world and existence are mutually exclusive, leading both to mutual distortion and/or romanticization. The Tibetans have not generationally waded through the scientific or humanistic revolutions that form the groundwork for postmodern life.  How do we meet them? How do we understand their world of deity yoga and oracular possession? How can they understand our general democracy of thought? What do we create out of our mutual projections onto each other?

In my experience, Tibetan religions can speak powerfully to a wounded place in pomo folk that yearns for pre-modern simplicity, or perhaps even a renewed clarity of childhood power dynamics. This is not to demean the soaring complexity of Tibetan metaphysics, nor the therapeutic jewels in its meditation technology, but to suggest that its hierarchical and faith-soaked method of transmission runs counter to the secular-liberal-humanist neurology that most western acolytes bring to it. To take it on fully, we have to partition off about four centuries of culture in our brains. Like every split, there is price to a pay.

It is not surprising that someone with as much manic devotion to this otherness as Roach will refuse to engage in dialogue with postmodern consensus reality. Perhaps this is the root of his power over the postmodern-wounded. He is quite literally not like the rest of us. Not just because he thinks he is almost omniscient: this should simply land him in the psych ward. He is different because, in addition to his outrageous self-certainty, he lives in a neo-Tantric world in which thinking one is almost omniscient is an utterly rational possibility, and, in fact, the most intelligent thing that anyone can accomplish – perhaps because it is a world that predates dialecticism, phenomenology, psychoanalysis, intersubjectivity, and neuroscience. At the root of Michael Roach’s leadership power is his adamantine refusal to participate in the complex, unresolvable, and evolutionary conversation of contemporary human adulthood. He trail-blazes a path out of the twisting and thorny garden of historical growth. He offers simplicity, and claims it is free of charge. But adherents must pay for it with the only coin of real value today – the very foundation of empathy and positive collective change in the postmodern era – the capacity to hold multiple complex perspectives in an uncertain, passionate, humble, loving heart.

Roach’s persona is haloed with his astounding transformation from someone we might have recognized as one of our own into someone out of a myth. He is not an inscrutable old Tibetan like his teacher Khen Rinpoche, who lived and died in relative obscurity except for those few New Jersey students who served him for decades, trying to catch a glimpse into his arcane world. Roach not only peered into Khen Rinpoche’s world; he seems to have died into whatever he imagined it to be, and then rebirthed himself out of it, back into postmodern life, as a transcultural, ahistorical shaman.

I remember thinking within the first few months of meeting Roach: “Here’s someone who is like me, who came from my culture and people, and then became someone entirely different. He excised every ambiguity I could not tolerate. He got rid of his cynicism: he hears god in Neil Young.” This was a profoundly consoling thought for someone as alienated from his culture, time and people as I was. I thought: “He’s really done it. He went there, and did it.”

But where did he go, really? He crawled back into the pre-modern womb he thought Khen Rinpoche lived in. And what did he do, really? He regressed himself not only backwards into our psychohistory, but energetically into the form of a doubtless child. Sometimes he even looks like a weird baby – a disproportionately large head tufted with thin strands of fine hair, a puffy neonatal face, and those mesmerizing, moist, unfocused eyes. And the constant crying of toddler-like separation anxiety, which always triggered an irrepressible fountain of my own tears. (My mirror neurons were particularly sensitive to his gestures, manner, eyes, and face. I responded to Roach in a way that I never responded to a Tibetan teacher. Are we simply more responsive to the apparently familiar?) My devotion to Roach fell apart when I realized that what I really wanted was to be a baby again, held once more in powerful arms I could trust. But because I saw, thankfully, that he was too wounded to hold me, I had to become my own father.

The shaman: Roach skinwalks many worlds. His terrain is not only flush with mandalas and deities, but with media kits and databases. He floats with ease between laptop and ritual implements. He is neither monk nor businessman, but can play both. Neither man nor woman, but can embody either. We love the shaman, even if we doubt his sanity. He can do anything: be everyone, be no-one, live everywhere, and be of no fixed abode. We allow the shaman to sing, dance, weep, lie, cross-dress, sleep with whomever he chooses or withdraw into self-satisfied celibate meditation, and generally perform all the actions that we ourselves suppress or cannot find strength to do. More importantly, we allow the shaman to do the one thing we know we can never really do ourselves: avoid the absolute confrontation we each face with our limitations, our smallness, the fact of being here, in this mess, now. The shaman carries the existential hall-pass, and we want it, badly. To get it, we leave our language, our homes, our families, our historical moment. Or so we think.

A commenter calling him/herself JOsh had a slightly different take on Roach’s skinwalking, from the perspective of his relationship to “traditional” or “renegade” Buddhism. S/he pointed out that the comment thread to my second piece displayed the political calculus of Roach’s indefinability. As apologists for Gelukpa orthodoxy attack his credentials, Roach claims revolutionary virtue: he is translating and modernizing, he is empowering women, he is healing the Sino-Tibetan cultural rift by teaching in China. As secular humanists attack how he is running a public institution or abusing his power over women, he can claim the impenetrability of his lineage tradition, enshrouding it in a foreign language and episteme. He is, of course, preserving pristine ancient knowledge and rebuilding the secret technologies of transcendence, which our postmodern alienation has thrown into the dustbin of the “archaic”. Roach squirts nimbly between these two attacks, and boards his plane to the next public talk, his suitcase folded with maroon robes and Armani.

Robes and suits are both disguises for the shaman-charismatic: his real power comes from the capacity to change between them and alter the meanings of both. The same holds true for his juggling of ancient and modern texts and cultures in general. The ability of the shaman-charismatic to shape-shift on a dime makes others feel that he is in contact with a greater sense of presence. He holds purchase on the “now”. In a very eerie way, Roach really does perform (if not practice) the instant-karma schtick he teaches: humans can be anything they desire in the present moment. And they should change, right now, for his version of the better. And they must change immediately: time is running out. Roach has insisted for decades that the only purpose we all should have in life is to experience the same meditative reverie that he did in his early 20s. This is a massive projection, worthy of a top-shelf narcissist. Roach is consciously telling his students: “You must be like me: my experience is the only worthwhile experience out there.” Perhaps unconsciously: “I need you to confirm that experience to sooth my anxiety over its meaning.”

Why all the pressure? Isn’t daily life filled with enough tension? Or is the threat of an ultimate anxiety (“I might not become fully enlightened in this lifetime”) the very distraction some of us need? In an early draft of my first article I characterized this pressure as “apocalyptic”, but Diana Alstad persuaded me to withdraw the word, in the absence of technical evidence. But I’ll bring it back here in limited form: Roach’s take on Buddhism promotes an intense personal apocalypticism, in which the follower feels as though his world is limited to a single choice while death stares him down.

“Personal apocalypticism” gives insight into the agonized pursuit of higher and higher meditative states. It gives insight into why Roach will not compromise in the face of public scrutiny: there are much greater things coming – don’t be distracted by Ian’s death. It gives insight into black-and-white and magical thinking, failures of ambivalence and existential immaturity. Personal apocalypticism outwardly projects all-consuming private desires motivated by an intense fear of irrelevance or death. Ironically, all of these tensions are the targets of a certain brilliant Axial age philosopher named Siddhartha Gautama, aka the Buddha, who challenged his fellow humans to face old-age, sickness, and death without flinching, to recognize that everything changes, and to understand that personal identity is a vanishingly small element of our grander shared story, and only has worth to the extent that it works for others.

Who is Michael Roach? Saint, charlatan, scholar, bullshitter, philanthropist, sociopath? Perhaps the most sophisticated answer is actually the one that funnels down through the Diamond Mountain talking points: Roach is the hallowed object of his own dumbed-down version of subjectivist Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, i.e.: an empty screen upon which we project our hopes and fears, and more ominously, the texture of our past behaviours. According to Roach’s own reasoning, his critics can’t help themselves: I myself am forever stuck in the samsaric loop of criticism, clearly. I am being manipulated like a puppet by the numberless cynical puppeteers of my past selves. Meanwhile, his supporters are simply enjoying the results of their past support. We revolve in mutually exclusive karmic bubbles. A part of me wants to endorse this empty-screen line of reasoning, if only to have it remove attention from Roach himself, so that we can look more clearly at the behaviour that surrounds him. Who is Michael Roach? might be exactly the wrong question, because what a narcissist really wants you to do is to puzzle endlessly over who he is, and to spend more time and money in his dream than in your life.

 

charisma as an autism-spectrum affectation

In 1922, sociologist Max Weber defined charisma as a “certain quality of an individual’s personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” What is this quality?

You could feel it rippling through the room. Roach built expectation masterfully, starting almost every public appearance woefully late, especially for those with babysitters. We sat and waited and meditated and prayed and studied. Then a murmur passed over the crowd and we stood in silence, turning to his looming frame, the extra-devout surging closer with flowers. His face was radiant, and he was flanked by floating seraphic women, like a transfigured saint in a Renaissance painting. (Christie, Ora, Elizabeth. Why wouldn’t he float into retreat with these women? They seemed bound to him in a gossamer web.) He stopped to accept every flower, but also randomly chose students to share a tender word, giving everyone the impression that personal and intimate attention from the guru was possible. But he never met anyone’s eyes for more than an instant.

The vata-types visibly trembled as he passed. I myself felt an upward rush of longing and fulfillment along my spine. I remember my face flushing and the swirl of rich and nameless emotions, feelings that I associated with every moment in my own Catholic childhood when absolute otherness was revealed in a ritual that brought me as close to god as it set me apart from people.

What’s strange about the shaman-charismatic is that you think you’re responding to his magical body, but this is only marginally true. To a far greater degree, you are actually responding to other’s responses to him in a snowballing feedback loop of shared expectation and wish-fulfillment.  This became clear to me when I saw that the kundalini jolting through those beside me did far more to rattle my internal space than Roach ever did. I think that often what the charismatic does in a performance setting may be vanishingly small. His inaction in fact might be the source of his power: he might be doing nothing at all except showcasing his withdrawal into smiling internality, a radiant autism that stimulates the wishes of those around him for their own perfectly happy solitude. With all attention flowing towards him, he seems to functionally embody a vampiric lack of empathy. Showing the pretense of giving everything and empowering everyone, he doesn’t actually have to give anything or interact with anyone He merely has to affect the glowing receipt of adulation. He is removed from human concern, sanctified and smug, untouchably serene. He is not there to submit to the difficulty of interacting with people, except in the most abstract sense. He is there to be seen being better than others.

It comes down to this: the crowd sees a blissfully self-absorbed human, and they feel within themselves the intense wish to join him, all alone at the top of his invisible diamond mountain. Psychic and sensory data flow inward for the devotee: the kundalini shiver feels like light flashing through internal mirrors of infinite regress. And the most disconcerting thing of all in this kind of darshan is that while everyone is gazing at the guru, no-one is looking at each other. This explains the strange sight of devotees literally shoving each other out of the way in reception lines. He invites many to gather together to have an intensely private and isolating experience, which mirrors his own.

The charismatic draws his followers into his own absence of intersubjectivity while playing their emotions like a violin. Stimulating intense emotion is essential: without it, he has no power. As many sociologists of religion have pointed out, the charismatic attains his position through an overt challenge to tradition or law, creating a one-man vortex of attention, centered upon his body. Roach becomes Roach by challenging the boundaries, norms, and social structures of both Tibetan monastic culture on one hand, and the postmodern western episteme on the other. This is why he can no sooner give up his robes than his laptop. The double rebellion creates an inherently unstable structure: if Roach tumbles, neither world will have his back. There’s no desk job to fall back to, no farm team to coach.

The lack of institutional or traditional stability in Roach’s corporation demands from his students complete emotional investment in his persona. His position is dependent upon the kind of heart-devotion we see in Roach’s current personal assistant Mercedes Bahleda (among so many others). This emotional allegiance must actually strengthen in the wake of institutional or humanistic attacks upon his authority. Many followers find themselves in a zero-sum game of emotional dependence: the ring around Roach will get stronger, until it breaks. I also believe that the intensity of these conflictual, split, and isolating emotions is in turn a kind of fuel for the internal friction that causes kundalini to seem to rise.


many followers, leading themselves back

The shamanic-charismatic leader can hold power, but if his followers get in too deep, they lose their social place within consensus reality, and eventually have nothing to fall back on except the worn platitudes of libertarian freedom and individual responsibility. They will define their own bondage in terms of choice. This is painfully clear from some of the comments from Roach’s supporters in this forum and elsewhere. In response to criticism leveled at their guru, his worldview, and his administration, we’ve seen supporters argue self-reliance (Ian was an adult who made his own choices in a free country); marginally relevant facticity (The retreatants aren’t living in huts, but real houses, with real appliances!); diminishment (Sure, the Kali initiation of 2010 featured weapons and bloodletting, but it was really just theatrical); compensation (Don’t you recognize how much good this man has done in the world?); and retreat (Why can’t you all just leave us alone?).

But no true supporter can earnestly engage with any of the substantive criticism of Roach, precisely because it comes from the complex world they so much wanted to reject, in which he cannot be all things to all people, but is in fact a social and political leader like any other whose rise to prominence must attract requisite scrutiny. The scrutiny is intolerable because it presents an ambivalent picture that violates the radiance of the teacher-student bond. To acknowledge Roach’s many sides would require an act of integration and accomplishment of ambivalence (cf. Melanie Klein) greater than most true supporters would be able to bear. For many have split out their own capacity for certainty and all-goodness, and projected it onto Roach. The extent to which Roach Knows is the extent to which They Are Ignorant. There are many who don’t just live in his shadow. They are his shadow.

But how many true supporters are there, really? Not a lot, I suspect. One thing about even a pre-modern sangha in a postmodern world: no-one in Roach’s sphere of influence can remain unexposed to criticism for long. I have emails in my inbox forwarded to me from DMU insiders originally sent to DMU board members that link to my 5/4 piece. I’m sure this current post will itself be sent to other insiders from well-meaning outsiders. And through these links, the vast online discussion about Roach’s fitness for service will be turned over and over like steaming compost for the integrity garden.

One difficulty in gauging the level to which consensus reality has penetrated the true-support network is that true-supporter arguments will linger in form and content even as those who make them feel themselves fall away from Roach. They will continue to espouse self-reliance arguments (among others) but they will gradually shift away from defending Roach towards defending themselves. Because at a certain point upon leaving the thrall of a charismatic leader it is less important to defend his honour than it is to justify the time and money and emotional/familial capital you spent on him. What I hear beneath the arguments of many threshold-supporters is the pain of the sunk-cost: how can I have spent so much on a fraud? For some, the sunk-cost feeling becomes the sunk-cost fallacy. Turning back on their devotion would be intolerable. Many may feel their only option is to double-down.

The most tenacious self-justifying argument of the devotee backing his way out through the temple door (sweeping up all traces of his presence as he goes) is the libertarian argument, which unfolds in two stages. The first is hostile towards outside critics, or earlier-exiters who are casting blame: “It was always up to you, you know. Everyone was/is free to make their own choices. Geshe Michael isn’t doing anything from his own side. This is a free country. No-one forced you to be here. Don’t blame Roach for your vulnerability. Nobody made you believe anything you didn’t want to believe.” This stage is a basic abdication of responsibility for the social fabric, and attempts to quell the guilt of having watched fellow devotees being abused in one way or another.

The second stage softens, and turns inward: “Well – I really can’t say how other people experienced the man, but I got some good things out of my time with him, and I’m grateful for that. It might not have been right for everybody, but what can we say? Life is mysterious.” This stage takes what it can from a bad situation, and rationalizes the individual benefit. It gives a wistful air to the general narcissism of new-age spirituality.

This second stage is what I smelled in a personal email from Winston McCullough, the first old-timey Roach-devotee and colleague I reached out to back in late April, before I published anything. I remembered Winston from 1998-2000, not as a personal friend, but as a community leader, disciplined student, and all-round dharma-optimist with whom I’d play-debated our beginner’s understanding of emptiness theory on the debate ground when we were both dharma-tourists at Sera Mey in South India. I’d heard that he’d resigned as the first director of Diamond Mountain in 2004, and had moved with his family to the Northwest. Because his current online bio fails to reference his six (and perhaps more) years of intensive student-and-working relations with Roach (an omission increasingly common among former prominent Roach students, though none have come forward with the kind of public criticism that some standards of integrity might demand), I assumed that his move implied a window of philosophical and perhaps social space between himself and the guru.

I reached out to Winston to see if a prominent former student of Roach such as himself might be interested in providing a public mentoring voice to his former foundering community, perhaps by contributing to or tempering the content of my post. Looking back on this, I don’t exactly know what I imagined he could do, but I suppose I at least expected him to indicate that he wanted to do something. But he declined to involve himself. And in classic second-stage-withdrawal style, he wrote via e-mail that he was “sorry about whatever challenges people may be experiencing”. As in: they may be real challenges, or perhaps not (too hard to say, it seems, with psychosis and stabbing and death – it’s all a matter of perspective, no?), but in either case they were issues that he couldn’t comment on, because he has moved on.

For the first six or seven years after I parted ways with Roach I felt like I too had moved on.  I pretended that I could frame my “lost years” in the most beneficial personal light, and be done with it. Psychologically, it was much easier to focus on “I got what I needed from the experience; if it wasn’t ideal for others, well, that’s unfortunate”. (June Campbell, author of Travellers in Space, describes this very well in this 1996 Tricycle interview, which also has much to offer to the discussion of the role of women in Tibetan tantric culture.) Faced with social trauma, we are, above all else, compelled to make things make sense. We will compromise our empathy to resolve cognitive dissonance. The rationalization of self-benefit often comes through turning a blind eye to those around us. After all, if it was bad for others, how good could it really have been for me? What makes me so special and so lucky that my life has generally come together, while Ian’s has been ripped apart?

What I would like Roach devotees and almost-ex-devotees to know is that withdrawing from charismatic control into renewed personal integrity is a long process with many stages. First you may feel hurt and disillusioned. You may suppress this in order to begin the rationalization process. You may be confused about how it was possible for so many people to have such different experiences. You may begin to doubt your doubt. You may feel some are being hysterical in their criticism – those guys like Remski who were always haters anyway. You may feel humiliated that others aren’t listening to your legitimate complaints. In my experience, all of these feelings will interweave without resolution until you finally allow yourself to be truly angry at the lost time and your vulnerability and not standing up for people you saw bullied and your guru’s incredible presumption and the general shortness of life, and in that anger begin to find yourself by resisting the river of power that has continually swept you downstream, and out to sea.

 

squeezing out of the bubble: dialogue with lama marut

Winston might have made a clean-ish break from Roach’s sphere, but others will find it much more difficult, because their professional lives and public personae are enmeshed in Roach-related endeavours. And some of them are burdened by the additional complication that their personal behaviour has mirrored key aspects of the Roach shadow-play. Consider Lama Marut, also known as Brian K. Smith, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at UC Riverside, and a protégé of Wendy Doniger and Mircea Eliade himself.

I knew Brian in 1999-2000. He’d been a surfer, biker dude, smoker and drinker, a rather footloose and roguish divorced father with a beautiful daughter of eight or nine years old. But by the time we were sitting across from each other in a Bodhgaya hotel restaurant between teachings by the Dalai Lama and commentaries by Roach, he’d seemed to have accepted Je Tsongkhapa as his personal lord and saviour. He went vegetarian and alcohol-free, softened his intellectual bravado and skepticism, and started talking about taking ordination.

I can’t say I knew Smith well at the time, but his desire for ordination puzzled me. There seemed to be something penitential about it. (Smith rejected this presumption in his email response to an earlier draft of this section, preferring to use the word “complex”.) But his path made more sense to me when he told me over rice and dahl that he was the son of a Baptist minister, and that his relationship with both his father and his birth religion was fraught with tension. I have since wondered – and still do – whether the oscillation between sin and redemption, as it is for many bred-in-the-bone Christians such as myself, is a key self-soothing rhythm of Smith’s psyche, as it was in my own.

I’m not sure what Smith did while Roach was in his first retreat from 2000 to 2003 – we fell out of touch – but I remember hearing that he was amongst the first students of the Diamond Mountain neo-Tantra programme beginning in 2004, and that he received novice ordination from Roach (and McNally) in 2005, and then full ordination in 2009 from the pair, who were then in the process of separating. Gelukpa traditionalists discount these ordinations, saying that Roach cannot give the monastic vows he has so clearly broken. And certainly for such vows to be co-administered with McNally, they say, who herself held no ordination office, surely invalidates the entire ritual. In a personal email, Smith defends his ordination as a private matter: “Taking these vows was an extraordinarily powerful and personal experience.  As far as I’m concerned, no one can “invalidate” the vows I took.”

Ordained or not in the eyes of Tibetan tradition and culture, and clearly inspired by his teacher’s heterodox gumption, Smith put on his robes with gusto, and began teaching publicly as a neo Tibetan Buddhist monk. A catalogue of his work is available here. A good example of his recent teaching is this video, which he sent me directly during our correspondence. I’m not sure whether he sent it as an example of recent teaching qua teaching, or as a passive-aggressive suggestion to me: that I am presumably unhappy with Roach et al. because I take a “victim’s perspective”.

In either case, it confirmed for me Roach’s influence over his general message. In Smith’s hyper-subjectivist message of “You are not a victim of anything or anybody, and you are the creator of your own world”, he reifies the “adhyatmika bubble”, as Hart deFouw calls it: a particularly new-age devolution of karmic theory, more in tune with The Secret than the Pali canon or the Bhagavad Gita – a wholesale rejection of adhibautika (the actions of others) and adhidaivika (the general ecology). (Adhyatmika refers to self-generated willful actions, said to account for roughly 1/3 of the total action of which experience is made.) This criticism applies to Roachian metaphysics in general. Perception is far more complex than can be understood by the dichotomy of “coming from other” vs. “coming from self”.

In both Smith’s revised bio-note and his personal emails to me, he asserts he is not Roach’s puppet:

In the academic world, it is assumed that while you learn from your teachers and respect them for what they taught you, you also are to integrate what you’ve learned and then take it in your own new and independent direction.  A good teacher teaches a student to think for themselves.  I have tried to honor all my teachers by doing just this.  In my spiritual teachings over the past several years I have drawn on my own material – mostly from my own original translations of Sanskrit texts – and taught them from my own perspective.  I am not simply parroting GMR or anyone else… (personal email, 6/25)

But for someone so interested in intellectually distancing himself from Roach it is odd that he recycles Roach’s own myopic interpretation of Patanjali 1.2, positing vritti as “turning inside out”, instead of the accepted “fluctuations”. “Turning” can work as a translation if it refers to simple repetitive movement (of the gunas, etc), but not if it begins to imply cognitive reversal at the heart of Roach’s “Think-Method” version of emptiness theory. Patanjali isn’t asking for a reversal of perception, but for an end to it, such that the isolation (kaivalya) of purusha and prakriti can be re-established. Roach’s interpretation simply reifies cognition (pramana). For both Roach and Smith to use this text to suggest a kind of cognitive-behavioural-therapy fix for general human suffering is a gross simplification of Yoga and Buddhism. I’m not a Sanskrit scholar like Smith, but I am widely read enough to know that he is squeezing vritti through a Roach-sized window into a teleological agenda that the text will not support. As an academic, Smith well knows the broader interpretation of the term. Bending it for his purposes is as intellectually dishonest as his teaching beside a picture of the Dalai Lama – after claiming that lineage doesn’t matter.

Simplification can have its value. In general, we come to resolve our birth trauma with an overly-objectivist cognitive stance. To at least consider the absolute opposite — that experience is subjective alone — can have therapeutic value, in the sense of pattern-disruption. But it is a transitional teaching at most, and one which unfortunately steers seekers away from the intersubjective, from which empathy proceeds and to which it returns, in my experience. Experience is an ineffable weave of objective presentations and subjective stances: feeling the rich uncertainty of this condition is a dear treasure of the heart.

Philosophy aside, what gets really interesting about Smith is that he seems to have wrapped himself not only in maroon and in Roachesque “Buddhism-As-The-Secret” talking points, but also in key aspects of Roach’s performance as well. Within a short period of time, “Lama Marut”, as he is now known (the misappropriation of the “Lama” honorific by someone considered to be unqualified is deeply insulting to Tibetan culture, by the way) was attracting his own students and “fast-tracking” them into advanced practices through initiations that he had only recently received himself from Roach. One commenter on my second piece likened this to practicing surgery on the general public following a weekend “healthy lifestyles” seminar.  He also took a spiritual partner, with whom he began teaching a pastiche of Mahayana Buddhism, Hindu devotionalism, and Indo-Tibetan Tantra, all under the philosophical umbrella of Roach. In other words, Smith seems to have mimicked many of his mentor’s choices that have drawn fire from both traditionalist and humanist critics.

Most strange of all, both his rhetoric and his Tiblish (Tibetan-English vocal rhythm, tone, and syntax) began to mirror that of Roach directly. Both affect a neo-oral-tradition teaching style of constant content repetition with minor variations, peppy filler, and pop-culture digression. Even his speaking posture seems to have merged with that of his teacher. Like Roach, Smith is a large man, and key staples of his performance are to loom forward with beneficent menace as he speaks, gesture emphatically with his large hands, and use the full force of his resonant voice almost constantly. It is not the communicational stance of the intersubjectively aware, or the therapeutically sensitive. The stances can make both Roach and Smith come off as self-certain bullies seemingly unconcerned with the intimate dialogue at the heart of evolution. They have the truth, and they’re going to mark it, park it, and bark it.

Smith’s imitation of Roach ends, however, at public relations and crisis management. Since the scandal broke, Smith has radically altered his public teaching persona in ways that sharply distinguish him from his free-falling guru. He announced that he was going to start teaching in civilian clothes. He wasn’t formally giving back his monk’s robes, but would now reserve them for those teaching circumstances in which they wouldn’t set him apart from the householder culture he primarily serves. This gesture was announced with a catchy tagline, which quickly went viral (Smith has a large social media following for his dharma tweets): “The purpose of a spiritual life is not to become better THAN others, but to learn how to be better FOR others.” Soon after, he published a clarification of his views on the issue of lineage purity, taking an essentially postmodern and deconstructive position of how power comes to be formed in spiritual cultures. In it, he foregrounds all of his academic influences, glosses over his Roach-affiliation, and erases what had been a cornerstone of his marketing as a dharma teacher through past years: that he is a “fully-ordained Buddhist monk in the lineage of the Dalai Lamas”. Both shifts happened to coincide with the release of his new book and its dedicated world tour: A Spiritual Renegade’s Guide to the Good Life. These are all very deft self-protective moves, and if his core students have enough gravol on hand to stomach the rolling, Smith may survive his self-extraction from the Roach bubble for long enough to attract new students who have never heard of his disgraced mentor. Brian Smith is like Michael Roach’s postmodern doppelganger, minus the premodern episteme: a mirror of form, content, and behaviour, but savvy enough to know when to take a new tack.

Smith’s ace in the credentials-hole is his academic background, although the disjunction between his professorial career and his Lamahood poses an interesting challenge. His titles are a keystone of his public credibility, but their professional meaning within his current role are strained. Scholarship in Comparative Religion demands either a strict non-sectarian viewpoint, or at the very least a refined sensitivity to the problems of insiders being able to theorize with transparency. Smith made his career in a field in which it is virtually impossible to be taken seriously as a scholar while making overt displays of religious faith. His credentials are in a discipline that specifically demands the opposite of what his allegiance to Roach displays. So: he is making an interesting and messy public epistemic shift, and using the academic paradigm to support the religious, when it does not. More accuracy in his self-representation would require more nuance, as in: “I’ve retired from academic life and culture to pursue the spiritual teachings that are closer to my heart…” followed by a statement about the clear difference between the two, and the value of each. His position here is not dissimilar to Roach’s with regard to being liminal to two traditions, yet claiming the authority of both. I’m sure he wants to do a better job than Roach does of navigating this thicket.

Luckily, Smith isn’t in as tight a corner as Roach is. He has never publicly claimed mystical realizations or powers. His own claims of Buddhist lineage reach back only to Roach, a known eclectic. Unlike Roach, he hasn’t bet the farm on asking people to believe he’s the only person in the world authentically blessed and trained to be somebody special. And an entire career spent in peer-review culture has evidently given him the capacity to respond to criticism, rather than to pretend it doesn’t exist. By displaying the capacity to change, Smith might be performing what he is teaching: liberality and adventurousness in spiritual life. The real test of his ability to avoid the Roach undertow will be to see whether it becomes clear that during those crucial seven years of his teacherly formation he only parroted Roach’s teaching style and content, and not Roach’s willingness to feed off of age and gender power imbalances, certify unqualified teachers, abuse his students’ emotions or trust, socially shun students who don’t defer to him, or put them at psychological risk through bizarre initiation practices.

One thing is clear: in direct statements at least, Smith is standing by his man. Here is our interchange about how he is relating to Roach in the wake of the scandal.

Me: Regarding having taken vows with Roach and McNally: is it not true that there are more than enough insider Gelukpas who assert that MR has broken samaya significantly enough to invalidate the ritual of his ordinations?

Smith: How Many “Insider Gelukpas” have asserted this? How many would be “more than enough”, and who would decide this?

Me: Is claiming ordination from someone who has been excommunicated and then going on to benefit from the authority of the robes conscionable within the broader context of Gelukpa monastic culture?

Smith: I am unaware of any such “excommunication”, or what “excommunication” would mean in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, or even which individual or institutional body within Tibetan Buddhism would have the power and authority to do such a thing.”

Me: Have your robes and lineage-clarification decisions been at all influenced by the tragedy at Diamond Mountain, and the controversy surrounding Roach’s continuing insistence on wearing robes, and his clear overstatement of Gelukpa adherence?

Smith: I have posted video and audio in which my reasons for not wearing robes while teaching are stated, and the purposes for putting up the lineage and influences statement on my website may be found within that very document.

In reading these semantic parsings of simple questions, it must be remembered that Roach is Smith’s Tantric Master, and to publicly or even mentally question him in any way carries an enormous religious penalty — countless lives in hell, for starters. The bonds between Tantric vow-givers and vow-takers will be psychologically overwhelming for some, and I imagine that we will see many similar responses, ranging from the uncomfortable to the downright tortured, from Roach’s students as they revision their identities and allegiances.

In my opinion, I think the smartest, most genuine, and truly “renegade” thing that Smith could do when the time is right would be to make his strange association with Roach an utterly transparent part of his spiritual autobiography. I heard the first part of it years ago, over dinner. Perhaps the fuller version would sound something like this:

I am the son of a Baptist minister. I became a scholar of religion to understand the nameless pressures and ecstasies of my childhood. But after many years I realized that my scholarship had stripped me of faith and wonder. I wandered through my middle years chasing empty consolations. And then I met a man my age, from my culture, who truly believed all of the things I remembered from childhood, but had since merely studied in books. I fell in love with his strange passion: I felt it rejuvenate a buried vitality and hopefulness. But gradually, I saw that like myself he was wounded, perhaps beyond repair, and that mirroring his life was not getting me any closer to the truth of my own. I realized that I had followed someone else’s dream in order to wake myself up. My entanglement with him showed me the necessity of finding my own path.

Now this would be a teacher I would listen to.

 

I don’t know how to love him

I’m asking for a lot transparency from Roach and Smith: far more than their public personae or personal pride – or in Roach’s case, grasp of reality – can likely bear. What transparency do I have to offer in return? A little more every day, I hope.

These past two months have provoked a rich stream of contemplation for me. I’ve had to revisit a strange and often dark time in my life and continue to uncover its meaning. I’ve wrestled with the ethics of outraging old friends and emotionally distressing thousands of people I’ve never met. I’ve been sleepless with the consideration that my reporting and opinions may contribute to profound changes in the paths of people I don’t know. I’ve wondered if these articles might cause damage far beyond my intentions: that not only will Roach’s halo tarnish and teeter, but that his charitable efforts will also be threatened, and that the Tibetan culture he has appropriated will suffer further by spotlighting this tragedy.

And yet I’ve felt compelled to pursue it. Not for fame or money, as some have accused. In this field, the former is of dubious value, and the latter is non-existent, except for a few professional journalists for whom I’ve provided a shitload of legwork. So: why? Not only because it’s my story as much as it’s anyone else’s who has crossed paths with Michael Roach, but also for a much deeper reason that I am just beginning to own. I loved him. In his apparent mystical ecstasy I felt the answer to my own terrible longing. I was obsessed with him, and in some ways I still am. There’s something about Michael Roach that pulls on all of my unintegrated threads at once, something that shows me where I am a scared and petulant child longing for comfort, where I demand certainty where none exists, where I am lost between cultures and millennia, and how easy it was to console myself by withdrawing into masturbatory religious sentiment.

Before Roach went into retreat in 2000, I sealed a strange bond with him in a public performance of a book he had just published and for which I had been an editorial assistant. It was called The Garden, and it consisted of a young seeker’s narration of encounters with Buddhist saints in a meditation garden on successive summer nights, co-ordinated by a suspiciously McNally-like high school girlfriend/angel. It was, like everything Michael did, quasi-autobiographical. He enlisted myself and my ex-wife to create a script of the book, and rehearse it for the launch. We wrote, memorized, blocked, and rehearsed for a month as a duet, with myself playing the young Michael Roach, and my ex playing the parade of teachers, from the saturnine logician Dharmakirti to the young prince Gautama himself. The launch was early in 2000: we had all just returned from the roll-over of the millennium in India, broke and feverish. It felt like the end of something big, both socially and personally: an entire community was about to lose their teacher for years, the book summed up many of his basic messages, the first great Roach diaspora was about to occur, and my ex and I, vagabonds since we met, were about to rebuild yet again our entire social and professional lives.

Even the performance venue was suggestive of an ending world. Harper Collins, Roach’s publisher, rented out an old Barney’s store that had gone bankrupt in the recent recession. We built our makeshift set around empty shelving emblazoned with the brand names of haute couture. Someone brought a few can lights with gels, someone else set up the video, and someone else brought vegan catering to set up beside the artful pyramid of new books. I don’t know how many people came; it felt like two hundred or so. We used the grand marble staircase in the centre of the main floor for the entrances and exits of the saints.

We began: I closed my eyes under the lights and listened for my ex’s step on the stairs. I molded my posture and mental space into what I imagined my teacher’s internality felt like: an upward pulse, a buoyancy, a radiant loneliness. I felt an ecstatic merging into the presence of a man I wanted to be. I felt my name and story vanish under the gaze of those who wanted to see their teacher’s life laid out before them, projected onto an empty screen. I’d been in music and theatre for years, but never had the form and content of performance intertwined so deeply with my own secret longing.

It was over before it began. Michael rushed towards me with tears streaming down his flushed face. He took me in his arms, and embraced me with crushing force. His body trembled with emotion and radiated intense heat. I began to weep as well, overcome by an abject wordlessness. I felt him love me in perhaps the only way he knew how: manically, desperately. I went limp in his arms, surrendering to him, having become him.  It took years for me to shake the feeling of being gripped and held. Years to rekindle my own heat.

 

new rumours, which, if corroborated by the crowdsource, may continue to provoke therapeutic anger

Many ex-devotees of Roach are recovering from a merging similar to my own. They are coming forward, tentatively. Many have been silent and withdrawn for years, trying to make sense of having given their power away to a dream. In addition to the dozens brave enough to post their experiences online (though perhaps still too wounded to use their full names), about a dozen more, who have all expressed a wish to remain anonymous, have sent me heartbreaking e-mails recounting their psychological suffering and marginalization in the shadow of Diamond Mountain. I’ve been told that students have been pressured into sexual consort practice, that Roach-affiliate organizations have failed to pay administrative workers promised wages for over two years, that Roach’s senior students have spiritually terrorized newer initiates, that marriages have ruptured in the wake of bizarrely sexualized initiation rituals, and that other intimate relationships have crumbled under the weight of philosophically-provoked emotional abandonment.

I can’t corroborate these accounts by myself. Presenting them prematurely exposes me to the accusation of fabrication. How can I protect the anonymity of my sources while showing that I’m not rumour-mongering? I can’t. But I’m willing to take a risk. My experience so far with Roach-related stories is that they begin as frayed threads that dangle until pulled upon by the crowdsource, and are drawn out and woven together on a collective loom of resurrecting dignity. Prior to the publication of my second piece, an anonymous e-mail appeared in my inbox: “If people start talking about the Kali initiations of 2010, Diamond Mountain will implode.” I referenced this “rumour” in my post in the form of a leading question, and it led to several hundred comments exposing a nightmare of spiritual chicanery, psychological bullying and sexual harassment. So far in this story, smoke has definitely signaled fire. And the smoke keeps billowing.

The vast majority of Roach’s students have taken a set of vows – as I once did – associated with the Bodhisattva ideal, a rigorous code of compassionate ethics. One of these vows is the vow to “dispel rumours” that threaten the integrity of Buddhist teachings or teachers, or threaten the ardour of the faithful. By not responding to the many questions raised by the Thorson tragedy (and its Diamond Mountain context) that remain unanswered by his open letter, Roach and the entire DM board seem to be breaking this vow on an hourly basis. If the rumours are untrue, perhaps other students will show more courage, and address them directly.

Why do my correspondents wish to remain anonymous? Because uttering the story of trauma can be as painful as experiencing the trauma itself. It is not surprising that ex-members speak in layers of disclosure. They will only speak at first in the silence of their hearts, and then in whispers, from behind a scrim. Finally: encouraged by the voices of others, a more confident sound may emerge.

 

following Christie McNally back to where it all started

The voice we all want to hear most is that of Christy McNally. Not from behind a retreat blindfold, nor from a teaching stage, nor in an hallucinatory letter posted online from the middle of nowhere, trying to console confused devotees. With more than fifteen years at Roach’s side, she will know, more than anyone, how it all happened, how it all works, and exactly what he has done. But her authentic knowledge will be wrapped in the thick shadow of her complex self-perception. I imagine she is far more deeply split than anyone I see in therapy, with an unconscious part feeling she has been a slave to another’s dream, and a more conscious part actively rationalizing that slavery by assuming a false mastership role.

This is why I found it so moving to read of her travelling to Kathmandu and trying to meet Lama Zopa. It’s a classic story of a person returning to the site of her original trauma: the place where she began to change and split, to think she was becoming someone other than an East Coast photography and literature student with a bright and uncertain world before her. Perhaps a regular job, a family.

It was also very moving to read that she had to stand in the reception line like every other beginning student, that she received no special acknowledgement from this strangely luminous little monk she met in this very place in the mid-90s, at the beginning of her journey – before all the grandiosity, the thousand airplanes, the knives, and Ian’s malnourished eyes gleaming in the dark of the cave.

And perhaps most moving of all: to read that she offered a white silk kathak scarf to the old man, now so frail and sick, and that, as per the custom, he gave it back to her. Christie spent close to a decade wearing white silk “angel clothes” as she stood demurely beside her maroon-robed master. It is as though she offered Lama Zopa the rags of an old disguise. And the old Tibetan gave it back to her, placing it tenderly around her neck, as if to say: Own your life. Own your past, your path, your culture. It’s never too late. Start now, from the beginning.

_________

Matthew Remski is an author, yoga teacher, ayurvedic therapist and educator, and co-founder of Yoga Community Toronto. Please check out his site for more writings on Ayurveda and Yoga.

 

About yoga 2.0 lab

Matthew Remski is an Ayurvedic practitioner and Yoga Teacher Trainer in Toronto. His latest book, Threads of Yoga, is gathering international acclaim. He's teaching this online course starting 1/7/14. It's currently full, but there is a reduced-tuition option for auditing. The 12 weekly lessons will be available online for six months following the course. Participants receive a 130-page manual of notes.

48,123 views

2,872 Responses to “The Michael Roach Bubble.”

  1. [...] (pdf) > Trouw – Een monnik met een hobby (16-8-2002) > Michael Roach files > The Michael Roach Bubble > Wikileaks – Ole Nydahl Diamond Way Buddhist [...]

  2. Corvid says:

    The New Rolling Stone story is out.A reporter friend that read it texted me "That Roach is a real POS..feel so sorry for Ian's family….even Roach hates Diamond Mountain"

    • someone says:

      From the article:
      He says that Diamond Mountain's days as a school are numbered anyway. "We should just make it online."
      McNally is sad to hear this but not surprised. Roach, she says, told her he "hated the place" and used to call it "Demon Mountain" in private.

      • Corvid. AKa Jerry says:

        The beatings to the head he gave to the Goddess and her telling people about them at the meeting might have really got things going.Everyone is still only telling parts of the truth.
        . The Navajos mentioned in the story were from a fence crew that strung barbed wire when the HYl sold.2000 acres off.The lead man had been told by his Granmother the land around and including Bear Springs was bad and they refused to stay up there while the job ran.When DM bought the place the rains stopped and the spring dried up…a message?

    • speed bumps says:

      June 6, 2013 issue for the record. Makes total sense that Roach hated 'Demon Mountain' but somehow, I never put it together. What a destructive person.

  3. Zirconia says:

    As best stay low hinted last year:

    "Eventually, I told him, 'Listen, I can't do this anymore,'" she says. "Either be a faithful partner to me, like you are claiming – in body, speech and in mind – or I will start behaving the same way you do.' His response was that this was the situation I had walked into, and he had no intention of changing. Long story short, he started moving away from me and pushing me toward Ian." http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/sex-and-

    The only wealthy Tibetan is Richard Gere. http://michaelroachfiles.wordpress.com/2013/08/28

    • Jane says:

      Thanks for the Rolling Stone link. That is a long story. It's good that at least Lama Christie was willing to speak frankly.

      • Zirconia says:

        It's too bad she didn't release her 44 page document to the public. People don't really know her side of the story from just a few snippets in the RollingStone.

  4. best stay low says:

    why are you censoring my comments?
    ?

  5. best stay low says:

    why are you censoring my comments? yeah, you, dear site. what i wrote was: hi, zirky…yep, first he breaks his monastic vows, then he trashes his marriage vows. Ah, it's all an illusion, right?

    • Zirconia says:

      Hey bestie, it's a curious choice for him to not only go solo (no new dakini?), but to pass McNally off to Thorson.

      • best stay low says:

        "solo" si! pero, 'unofficially' might apply here. What he does in private (and his core ladies' entourage won't be adding any comments here) can be kept private. Maybe he should relocate to Colorado City or Manti. As to 'two',Thorson was a cute 'one', (uh) compatible and very close at hand…

  6. best stay low says:

    "Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly." oh

  7. Kevin says:

    Yesterday I went to my Aunt's funeral which was held at Grace Lutheran Church in Glendale, AZ. How disappointed I was to see that Casa de Jardin, the project of Michael Roach, was literally right across the street. It made me think, where is it that they want to build this larger project. How horrible, the church of my family since 1946 encroached by this roach.

  8. Gadfly says:

    NBC's Dateline is going a one-hour program on DM and Michael Roach. It will not be on the internet and must be watched when broadcast.
    Sunday, March 9th @ 8pm.

    • e... says:

      is there anyway to view that Dateline report on the web now?

    • Jerry says:

      Retreat ends…..the visitor parking lot holds 200 cars and it was occupied by twelve at the peak of the shindig.Good luck to the retreaters in the real world. if the person that borrowed my " FREE TIBET" sign in front of my place is finished with it please return it to it's place.

      • Jerry says:

        I heard they are all busy trashing Ian when his baby mama and daughter are out of ear-sight. They have some China intelligence agent (most likely )dressed like a monk up there…drag a few hundred dollars through a broke hippy campground and you will be surprised how fast the Dali Lama starts getting trashed.The one picture of him in the temple is next to the place they brush the dirt off their shoes. Stay classy Roach.

      • Linda says:

        Did anyone go to the coming out party? How come there is nothing online about it? I thought it would be a big deal and was waiting for the updates.

      • Jerry says:

        To be clear the main lot was pretty full..maybe 150 people

      • Zirconia says:

        China is big business, they wouldn't risk offending wealthy clients.

      • Gadfly says:

        Did the sign go missing on the day the retreat ended? Then it was because such words might offend the Chinese supporter that was picked up at the airport and driven to DM by Jigme. It is said he donated a million dollars to the retreat and is some kind of a guru in Beijing that charges enormous fees. Curiousier and Curiousier.

        • Jerry c says:

          Yep…I thought nothing of putting up a sign to advocated for the freedom of Tibet.It lasted about 20 minutes. I just heard one of the leaders just missed joining Ian in the next life due to a poorly treated lung infection in retreat.Blind luck only one death occurred in this bad horror movie next door.

  9. ckeskeny says:

    I'm still interested in Ms. McNally. As I look on Amazon it appears she and Michael are writing more books together to be published in 2014, is this true? Where did she come from? Where did get money to move on after Ian (Ein)'s death? I'm trying to figure out how she got money and where she is now. Do you have any of these answers? thank you. I'm new this whole debate and I have been trying to sort through this giant mess. Thank you so much for writing such a detailed article about Michael, how starnge!

  10. Wongmo says:

    Lama Zopa Rinpoche is not just 'an old man'..but an exaulted, realized Buddhist master who just completed a 2 week retreat in N. Carolina where he, energetically, taught for hours and hours each day.

    • best stay low says:

      in 1976 FPMT, being Lama Yeshe's British followers, bought a big place in the country and renamed it Manjusri Institute. Lama Yeshe himself selected the protector deity (an emanation of Manjusri), one Dorje Shugden. History then contrived to do what it did. The building is now the home base of NKT (New Kadampa Tradiion) and Lama Zopa Rinpoche, a fully realized being, is carrying on a childish international grudge match against this protector, hiding under H.H. the Dalai Lama's coattails. Now, I personally loathe both the exclusivism of the practice involved and despise the teachings of the promulgator, Phabongka, who is a favorite of Geshe Michael, but I gotta say it, Lama Zopa ain't no better than the rest of 'em.

    • Corvid says:

      Well the cult is now going to rent out the retreat grounds to other groups.We are to rely on their proven excellent judgement to ensure clients are not dangerous or put in danger.The adventure continues……..oh in 2006 this guy called it all "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.

  11. Anon says:

    I studied with a local ACI group for about two years. The main teachers had all been through the 18 regular ACI courses and the 18 tantric courses. Like many others who had seriously studied Tibetan Buddhism before discovering ACI, the curriculum filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge, and the western flavor helped me in my understanding, made it accessible.

    However, there are two very important issues that any ACI student must consider, whether they are current or new students.

    The first has to do with karma and how the organization heavily promotes the idea that you can work your karma to make more money, find a love partner, get a better job, and so forth. There is a major cognitive disconnect with this viewpoint when compared against the teachings of the Buddha in general and in Tibetan Buddhism in particular.

    One of the aims of one’s practice is to reach a transcendent state of existence beyond the self. One works toward this goal by accumulating karmic merit, which gently starts to chip away at one’s self-cherishing and self-centeredness.

    If you’re only going to nursing homes to visit the elderly so you can find a romantic partner, or you’re only donating money to charitable causes in order to increase your material wealth, you’re not practicing Buddhism. Worse, this level of dis-ingenuity in your practice will, karmically speaking, come back to you in the form of insincerity and underhanded situations directed at you, and it certainly won’t help decrease your self-centeredness; rather, it helps only to fortify it.

    Consider: at the end of all practice sessions, one dedicates the merit of their practice to the enlightenment of all sentient beings. Any activity of body, mind, or speech that one undertakes must also have this intention. If you’re out in the world performing positive karmic deeds, you must dedicate the merit from the deeds in the same way in order to move forward on the path. If you are using the karmic merit you accumulate for your own needs and desires, you’re simply not practicing Dharma.

    The second issue has to do with tantric teachings. In my experience, the basic ACI courses are heavily infused with the tantric view, and students are regularly pushed into tantric practices before completing their basic studies. No doubt this was done out of sense of loving-kindness. However, without a solid sutra background, the practices will be meaningless and even harmful.

    Recently I heard the Dalai Lama say that one should be wary of studying with Western Dharma teachers who emphasize using the practice for material gains. He said it was okay to study sutra topics with such teachers, but not tantra. Once you’ve entered the tantric view, the Kool-Aid of Infallibility is a demon you’ll have to wrestle with, and it can be a long and arduous disentanglement process if your realize that your teacher and the teachings have strayed too far from the path and have lost the essence of the teachings.

    I’m all for the incorporation of Tibetan Buddhism into modernity, to extend it beyond the heavy rituals that outsiders associate with the practice. Teachers like Alan Wallace embody this ideal. I believe this incorporation is something like a distinct Turning of the Dharma Wheel for the Western world. But the essence of the teachings and of the highly-developed path of Tibetan Buddhism must be kept in tact, otherwise they will lose their efficacy, and could eventually disappear entirely.

    • Zirconia says:

      Infallibility is a major issue, but GMR has made it known that he's a bhumi-one Boddhisattva, so many students have gladly drunk the Kool-aid. According to Red Pine's translation, Master Asanga said, “Cling not to self-existence, reward or karmic fruit. Guard against not giving or giving for a lesser goal.”

  12. Fleurine says:

    Ehem, Isn't one of the top ten bad deeds in Buddhism Harsh Speech?

    I mean why talk about cosmology when you can't even role model basic civilized speech?
    It is that simple.

    Another one to steer clear of….

  13. Corvid says:

    I love Lindsay Crouse log rolling for this Kelly person.House of Games is a Linsays big movie that ends with her shooting the Con man that took her money,her time and her love.In real life she is a Roach backer and dodging comment on the man that took her money,sold her a bill of goods and marks her as a easy mark for life.

  14. ekanthomason says:

    Jehne – What is?

  15. Karen Visser says:

    Thanks Jehne and Peggy, I hear what you're saying but I'm not talking about Goddess worship here. That's not Buddhism.

    I'm talking about the way in which human beings address a consciousness that is neither male nor female and is greater than themselves.

    We need a concept, initially, to approach something that is beyond words and concepts. Each person has a certain need at a certain time, Buddhism allows for a different concept of address for different needs. Medicine Buddha prayers when you're sick, for example. But there is one source, not many, and a female Buddha is a concept not a Goddess to be worshiped.

    This is only for people who have a spiritual hunger. If you can live a happy, ethical life life with no spiritual needs even when people around you die and when you are in need, all the better.

    If religion is bunk to you, then no need to be religious – but try to be generous, remember everyone is different. And, as to men being at fault, I don't think the fault lies with with men at all. Consciousness is genderless, the consciousness that inhabits your female body in this life may inhabit a male body in your next life. People fail as individuals.

  16. corvid says:

    Diamond Mountain reminds me of those movies where bored slacker kids dress up in super hero costumes and start believing they really do have powers and really can change the world.If Roach didn't turn out to be just a Dick and the retreaters would have pointed their energy outward some cool stuff could have happened.It is not to late if say a now sane Christie admits the students were sold a bill of goods.

  17. Karen Visser says:

    No problem at all, Jehne. It's a bit of an adjustment to post here, even neutral comments can seem quite stark. I think it's the lack of context, people don't know our personalities coming in.

  18. Karen Visser says:

    You should definitely be posting here! That's the great thing about this forum, it's not homogeneous, we all gain from the different points of view. It can be a bit of an uncensored free-for-all at times, but that's part of it's strength too.

  19. Peggy Burgess says:

    So we are saying MR and DM aren't very legit, yet the Tibetan community accepted his money and charity work, so it seems to me he has been very well tolerated. One thing I know about psychopaths is that they are super smart and able to be very successful. As long as the money is rolling in and the cops don't come to the door everything is great.

  20. Karen Visser says:

    There is considerable doubt about that supposed money that was 'rolling in'. Where is it? Didn't seem to make it to the Tibetans. Remember, we're dealing with someone who hasn't shown himself to be entirely truthful. If it makes him look good, he'll say it.

  21. ekanthomason says:

    Hi Peggy,
    It is worth noting that the money collected for His Holiness' birthday in 2006 during the teachings in India was rejected by HHDL's office. MR said that he would give it to Elly (Jigme) because she knew how to donate it anonymously to one of HHDL's projects. Sounds like HHDL even refused it for one of his projects.
    When I think about how much of an insult that is, I wonder why my eyes were not opened years ago.

  22. Karen Visser says:

    By the way, Peggy, if you do know something about this mysterious money, I know a whole bunch of Tibetans who would like some answers.

  23. Karen Visser says:

    I was thinking this too, if Christie would speak…

  24. sp says:

    Perhaps you could be kind enough to let her get over the death of her husband. It might take longer than two months. After a suitable time has passed, then you and Jerry can ask her to assist you with your project.

  25. Karen Visser says:

    I'd like to respectfully request that you give this some thought, when you accuse a refugee population of having money "rolling in" you can do some terrible damage -emotionally and to any future fundraising attempts.

  26. Karen Visser says:

    That is a very good point, she's had a devastating loss.

  27. ming med klu says:

    sp, Ian’s mother managed to talk to the press. Do you think she has suffered less than McNally,who apparently has it together enough to fly to Kathmandu to try to take a meeting with Lama Zopa? At this point, it’s really shameful that she has not made a statement.

  28. PAX says:

    Actually that is not really true. Many of the societies that created Goddess figures have totally subjugated women. Look at India, Tibet and China where women are 2nd class citizens and now with fetus selection millions less girls are being born.

  29. AnnetteVictoria says:

    I think the fact that she seems to be staying out of the US shows that she's scared to come back.

  30. alert says:

    First link appears to have been scrubbed.

  31. Sorry Charlie says:

    But I thought she was Vajrayogini and a Lama with realizations of the ultimate nature of reality? – How does Vajrayogini get scared?

  32. Ben says:

    So you don't buy the idea that she is visiting her spiritual advisors in a time of need?

  33. Jane says:

    I agree with you Karen. My brother's wife suddenly died (murdered), and it took years for him to recover. It was thanks to his supportive friends that he was able to recover. I sincerely hope that Christie has those kinds of friends to help her on the long road to recovery.

  34. Karen Visser says:

    I hope she does too, Jane. I wonder if anyone can ever completely recover from the kind of trauma your brother suffered. Your friends carry you through times like that, I hope your brother will find happiness.

  35. Sorry Charlie says:

    Ben – In her Matrix letter she says Ian had to deal with a partner (Christie) who had much more power than Ian and even boasted about her so called Dharma realizations including claiming to be “A different kind of Being!!!” – I think the realization that she is not at the level Roach programmed her to be is sinking in after the “Shock” of Ian’s death and she is starting (hopefully to sort out reality and her place in it)

  36. Ben says:

    I don't quite understand why you are addressing your comment to me. I agree that Christies WV may be crumbling. It could also be that she still believes everything she believed and greatly blames GMR and the DM board for trying to kick her out of her rightful place. She could also be solely consumed with the loss of Ian.

    My comment was in response to "I think the fact that she seems to be staying out of the US shows that she's scared to come back."

    This is the kind of thinking I used to shake my head at during Christies teachings. It could be however, that Annette knows something which would make this possibility more probable.

  37. Khedrup says:

    This is true. There are a handful of wealthy Tibetans in the refugee diaspora. But I would say more than 80% of the Tibetans living in India are still living in conditions that would be considered at the poverty line by most Western standards.
    Have you spend any time in any of the Tibetan settlements in India or Nepal, Peggy? Apart from some nice temples, the vast majority of monks and laypeople live in cinder-block type houses with cement floors and in many cases tile and even palm- leaf roofs.

  38. AnnetteVictoria says:

    It appears to have been that way since Sept. 26, 2010.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100926062638/http://

  39. AnnetteVictoria says:

    No, I don't know anything. And I was never a student of Christie's, so I don't do "this kind of thinking," whatever that means. Just sharing my impressions. Feel free to reject them, it doesn't bother me.

  40. AnnetteVictoria says:

    According to Google Maps, Rim Rock is south of Camp Verde, even further south than Phoenix. It's a 6-hour drive to Sedona. In what context was Sedona mentioned? It stuck in my mind because I did my yoga teacher training there.

  41. kevin says:

    Ekan's description matches the description he currently gives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp5oXGjXgW0&fe
    This landscape at the end is definitely north of Phoenix (speaking as an Az native)

  42. Ben says:

    I do see a Rim Rock AZ which is east of Phoenix and 6 hours from Sedona. I also see a Rimrock AZ which is about 27 miles south of Sedona. It is closer to Sedona than Phoenix. Perhaps that is what led to Sedona being in your mind. I don't which GMR is in.

  43. Ben says:

    Was someone disputing Ekan's description of where he was living? I was disputing Ekan's description of where I was getting my info. I had "An Open Letter from Geshe Michael Roach October 2009" sitting on my lap when I wrote my comments. The three seconds of that video could of just as easily been west of Tucson or 100 other places.

  44. kevin says:

    I'm just saying that as I heard him describe it in Jan of 2012, his description matches what Ekan says. The three seconds show that it is not in Phoenix. The coloration of the mountainside places it as someplace more north.

  45. Ben says:

    So you weren't disputing me when I said, " "outside of Phoenix" " which I suppose could be Sedona." and "It looks like Rimrock is about 2 hours outside of Phoenix so I suppose that counts.""

    You just needed a place to put your comment and decided to put it as as a comment me.

  46. CVG says:

    Mt. Lemmon in Tucson looks exactly like that, I assumed that's where it was filmed.

  47. dakini girl says:

    So, for heaven's sake, who is this new Lady Lama?

  48. ekanthomason says:

    I posted part of this earlier but felt I did not do the ideas justice, so here it is:

    Ben, do you feel after reading this letter that MR intended to do three-year retreat? I don’t and here are my reasons.

    In the October 2009, letter requesting help to purchase Rainbow House, he presented himself as doing the retreat saying, “I plan to do this retreat at DM.”

    He further said, “I am seeking the Board’s permission to use the Guard House near the spring as my retreat cabin…the area of the Guard House devoted to the Peace Garden and Shrine will be a common area of rest and quiet where all retreatants can come to pray in the chapel, seek advice on their retreat if needed, take a sweat in the sweat lodge being constructed there now, and then jump in a special pool at the spring, which we are designing to have water all year.”
    1. Anyone doing a ‘final push to enlightenment’ retreat would want to have solitude and not be at the center of the retreat playground.
    2. However, if he were intending to come and give advice occasionally, this would be a perfect set up. However the activity around the water sports and Kali Shrine are not conducive to solitary retreat.
    3. It should be noted that the guardhouse does not have running water, toilet, or kitchen facilities. That is fine for short stays, where one could go to the nearby lama house, but very difficult for 3-years.

    The letter says, “I have decided for the first time in my life to have a place of my own, as a commitment to my Lama and my own private spiritual practice in these “golden” years of my life—sort of a final push, I hope, for enlightenment.”
    1. He tells the reader, that he wants to purchase the Rainbow House in order to make a final push for enlightenment. If he planned to do three-year retreat at DM, it seems he would make that final push in the guardhouse.
    2. If he did not plan on three-year retreat, he could do it at his leisure in “a place of my own?”

    Talking about the Rainbow House he said, ““it’s something I need now after the many years of busy teaching, for my own continued training.”
    1. During the first retreat, the retreatants had to divest themselves of everything they owned. Ani Pelma complained about having to even get rid of her photographs. The idea was to let go of attachments. That requirement was much loser for this retreat.
    2. But why would he buy a house and then let it set empty for three and a half years.

    The letter says, “It is my feeling that it would be most honorable and proper if we could each begin thinking about finding possibly a combination of paid instruction (business, yoga) and, if necessary, additional part‐time work in order to pay back whatever debt to friends, family, credit cards, etc that we may have accumulated during our education at DM. Many of us will of course also need to find further funding for food and other expenses during the Great Retreat.”
    1. MR. Filed for divorce in September 2010, less than a year later declaring $30,000 in credit card debt. How could someone expect to go into retreat with that kind of debt?
    2. When he says “Many of us, will of course need to find further funding.” He doesn’t say, “Many of you.” I feel he was talking about himself. Who else could fund raise the amount of money needed to feed 30 people for 3 and a half years or so?

    There was much talk at the time. "I wonder if he will do retreat," was something I heard many times. The next round of talk was that he was going to use the guardhouse to meet with students who wished interviews with him during retreat when he visited. Eventually, we donated money to have a cabin built that he stays in during his visits to DM.

    The last reason is that one of the women on the retreat list, told around that time, that she was not going to do retreat at DM unless Geshe-hla did. She was an insider and she never lifted a finger to start her retreat cabin.

  49. Yohoo says:

    Michael P Roach is our man

  50. Ben says:

    Sounds like a fairly persuasive argument to me. I wasn't up there for all the changes that went on for the 3 year retreat. I had a few people staying at my house who told me a bit about what was going on.

    I was under the impression that Tamara was doing her retreat in the Guard House. When she was told she could stay there would be useful information. Eric has already said on here that he cancelled doing the retreat because GMR dropped out. Did he start building at all? Is it obvious when he made that decision?

    The people who were going into retreat had no idea what they were going to do after the retreat. They really didn't know in what state of mind they were going to be. GMR making all these plans does seem pretty strange.

    I'm not buying GMRs personal financial statements. I am under the impression that a few retreatants had to receive significant amounts of cash from GM to do the retreat. My guess is there are pools of money from which GMR can draw.

  51. ekanthomason says:

    Offshore perhaps?
    I don't think Eric and Mercedes ever started building either.
    Tamara may be in the guardhouse but she is also very young and the very young can put up with a lot. I do hope that she is well. She was my yoga teacher in Sacramento and just came to DM the last year during the break-up and I was rather embarassed about it then.

  52. Ben says:

    I've heard those kissing bugs in the GH are vicious, especially when you are practicing ahimsa.

  53. even more concerned says:

    HI Ekan, a ques. comes to mind after reading what you wrote…. Tamara is very young, came to DM the last year only and is in a Tibetan Buddhist 3 yr, 3 mth , 3 day !!?? I thought it was only those that completed the 7 yr courses at DM that could/would possibly be qualified. This sounds really bad!! A lot of people on the spiritual path that dont have much experience can fall for a lot and jump in way too soon as it is so appealing to imagine that you could reach enlightenment. I know people in india jumping into ashram and taking renunciation very very young (westerners) and they just met the teacher and the idea of it and really dont have any spiritual/emotional/mental maturity. Many times they leave when they realize it wasnt this ideal reality that they had thought it might be.

  54. ekanthomason says:

    Hi even more concerned.
    Correction: It was only a 6 year course. Fall of 2004 to Spring of 2010. Every year was fall, winter and spring terms with summers off. Please don't continue to repeat MR's exaggeration.

    Yes it was supposed to be only graduates of the program. Tamara gave up everything to come to DM. Her job, her fiancé, her dog, and all of her material possessions. She is such a warm, sweet and sincere person. I worry about her and all the retreaters.

    Tamara and Christie hit it off right away and they had a connection. Christie said Tamara could try the first six months and they would see after that. Now Christie is gone.

  55. kevin says:

    yes, I can see now that the placement of my comment was awkward.

  56. AnnetteVictoria says:

    Me, too.

  57. corvid says:

    Kissing bugs can be deadly…your heart can explode from the eggs hatching from some subspieces.I find if I murderer the packrats via fire on a calm winter day it keeps the numbers down..rattlesnakes numbers drop too.A bug as smart as those bloodsuckers sort of proves there is no God.She wouldn't make us scratch all night

  58. Khedrup says:

    "As a commitment to my lama?"
    What does that mean? Khensur Tharchin insisted that he buy a house in his later years?

  59. ekanthomason says:

    I believe he is referring to his high school sweetheart. This is another excerpt from that letter. 2009

    "As most of you are aware to some extent, especially if you are familiar with the book of the Garden, I met my Heart Teacher in Phoenix many years ago, and for many years have sought permission to live close by Her and to continue learning from Her personally. It is a great source of joy to me to say that I have now been granted this permission. Over this last summer I did retreat not far from the home of my Lama and Her family, in a tiny rented house which I chose because of what were for me some special signs."

    The garden in "The Garden" is reported to be the garden at the church that is mentioned somewhere in another post.

  60. ekanthomason says:

    So if this is who he learned from, why isn't she mentioned on the DM lineage page?
    That 'tiny ($195,000) rented house' is the one his students bought for him.

  61. Ben says:

    Many of my DM friends don't believe in killing those bastards. I saw one woman's back after spending a few days in retreat at the Guardhouse and the marks on her back made it look like she had been whipped.

  62. CVG says:

    Holy shit.

  63. dakini girl says:

    Does everyone agree that Michael's "Lama" is his high school girlfriend? How can anyone take that seriously?

  64. ekanthomason says:

    He has stated it and I think people agree that is what he believes.

  65. Anonymous says:

    I agree. If DM ever was a real university, then farts would smell good…
    What about their so called translation seminars, classes ?

    I have posted earlier mentioning that their translation choices, full of angels, and so forth always
    made me suspicious… but in a way translating has to do with understanding and interpretation…

    Ironicallly MR and ACIP published the book on The Art of Interpretation

    ( differentiating between conventional and ultimate meaning) and as far as I remember, it was also another
    controversy, as one geshe for Sera Me taught the first part … but …. according to MR didn't teach because he was sick
    (maybe he was really feeling sick to see the behaviour of MR and how they misused these precious teachings)… anyway since the real geshe couldn't continue the teaching, the so called american geshe would continue the teaching ( implying he had the same level of knowledge…what a lack of respect for The Dharma, the Geshe, and DM students!)

    So to get back to my original point, I feel the distorted vision of reality influenced the distorted translation of the Dharma, distorted the original intent to suit MR's agenda and to build his "new age cult".

    The distorted vision of reality of MR made him think to himself and appear to others as he could really interpret by himself alone the subtleties of tibetan Dharma words (that need various levels of commentary to be really understood, let alone realized). I do feel for those who were fooled by MR skill to pose as a monk, as a tantric teacher.

    In these degenerate times (kali yugga, the age of destruction)… where it will not raise our eyebrows anymore ( because it's common) , to see lay women or men teach weekend "tantra courses" and many using tantra as a synonym of sex, it still hurts many directly and indirectly when someone who is a western educated intelligent person, acts a monk when he clearly is not, pretends to be a geshe when many have doubts about it, teaches it's own blend of neo new age cool desert tantra, all seeming perfectly legit to the outsider. That damages not only DM students but TB as well.

    You can fool few people sometimes, but can't fool everybody all the time..

  66. ekanthomason says:

    I was a small part of a flaming discussion between a Diamond Mountain caretaker and a western monk of many years at Sera Mey Monastery on Facebook last night. The monk said that Roach received an honorary degree for his financial donations. He said, "you should hear some of the things that are said about this situation here in Sera." He was a total stranger half way around the world and recognized my name. "And Ekan I believe you came out and spoke up about the situation at DMU? well done, your brave and have done a good thing." I share that because we are making an impact by coming together and sharing what we know! I think things will work out in a good way.

  67. AnnetteVictoria says:

    So if his lama is some Christian woman, he's clearly no longer Buddhist, right?

  68. Anonymous says:

    Hi Ekan, , I also applaud you, Sid, Anon,and all others who have what it takes to look at themselves and others
    ( MR, DM) in the mirror of clarity, discernment and wisdom.

    I have seen the great retreat pages, and seens to me ftom the profiles and pictures of the people involved, i must say you look like a decent and normal person, many of the retreatants also seem to have very good intentions, and I'm not a psychologist or face reader but I can't help to see that some retreatants seem to share some similarities with Ian and what other posters mentioned as the kriya crowd. I feel also they could face some problems, doing tantric practices wihtout proper guidance. Although MR charisma also attracts people with sanity, he clearly cultivates the "fringes" and easily influencable

    I also feel CM seems to be mainly a good person, but I can see how this brainwashing has really messed up her psyche… I think there is hope for those who have the courage to admit they have made mistakes, which means they are still on time to do sthg abut it.

    It is not that MR followers are fools, I don't buy that. He was and is still very skilful to attract new devotees…

    What was alll this stuff about "Please come…. and please stay " songs? didn't understood that ?

    It also strikes me that in the last interview linked here in the beast something ( Beauty and the Beast is pale compared to this drama …) he dismisses what happened as "one or two people who messed up"…

    If that is how he nows describes and treats VY and his previous attendant the late Ian who became VY's Lama and VY's consort, that seems a fuzzy logic that desn't make any sense to me to say that deities and lamas messed up ( for sure one dead and one with serious issues). But the point is MR words were taken for granted and massively advertised, brainwashed and planted in DM students , and now what are they left to believe ? Will they still accept his statements at face value ?

  69. ekanthomason says:

    Anonymous – you make some very good observations about the fuzzy logic related to two people messing up. Doesn't it make you wonder why people can't see it? But i think they will continue to accept his statements at face value until they have a wake-up call, which will be different for every one.

    Regarding the please stay. In Tibetan Buddhism they teach that the reason the Buddha died is because somebody forgot to tell him to stay the day before. So they often say, please stay to their teachers. I wanted him to come back, so said, please come back, and others joined it. It is not a traditional refrain.

  70. Ben says:

    No. Another thing you will hear at DM (and elsewhere) is that "all religions are basically the same". There is an offshoot program for Christians called "A Star in the East" which ignores about 98% of the Christian bible and then reinterprets the other 2% to mean that "everything comes from you and you can control everything by planting the right Karmic seeds. Sound familiar? "You shall reap what you sow". Clearly that is saying that the only way to get money is to give money away.

    I haven't looked at that material in a while so I may be getting things wrong or confused with other talks, anyone please correct me if you know better, but I believe there is this idea that one of Jesus's disciples, I believe Thomas, was told by Jesus after the cruxifiction to travel to India. Thomas then took the teachings of Jesus (which is the compassion side of compassion and wisdom) and made Buddhism whole again (the compassion part somehow fell away from Buddhism).

    It has been a long time since I read "The Garden" and I don't intend to read it again but you might find some answers in there. It would be interesting to find out the whole true story of how GMR came to see this woman as his lama.

  71. AnnetteVictoria says:

    I have a feeling the Buddhists who gave Michael his robes and title might disagree that he is still a Buddhist if he takes a Christian "lama."

    ""You shall reap what you sow". Clearly that is saying that the only way to get money is to give money away."

    Which makes no sense for people who don't have any money to give away in the first place. How do those people get money, according to this teaching?

    "Thomas then took the teachings of Jesus (which is the compassion side of compassion and wisdom) and made Buddhism whole again (the compassion part somehow fell away from Buddhism)."

    Someone on one of these threads has already pointed out that this is insulting to Buddhism to say that it was incomplete without Jesus' teachings.

    It seems the story thus far is that Michael came to see this woman as his lama after knowing her from high school (ex-girlfriend?), and after his other lama (Christie) left him. That is, at any rate, the order of events.

  72. sky says:

    I don't know anything about this Christian lama GMR has other than what has been discussed here, but, in fairness, trying to find a bridge between Buddhism/Christianity isn't unprecedented. Thich Nhat Hanh has a few books on the subject – "Living Buddha, Living Christ" and "Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers" – and HHDL has discussed it as well.

    Now does that mean that Mahayana Buddhism is the eastern branch of Christianity? No. I'm just saying there are some similarities between the two religions (as well as other religions) and that there's no harm in trying to find those similarities so as to engage in a dialogue with people of other faiths in an informed way.

    Now when it comes to actual practice, I think it's best to stick to one thing, because mixing of traditions can be awfully confusing. DM is evidence of that.

    BTW, generosity isn't just about giving money away. There are countless ways to be generous. The goal shouldn't be about making money or having worldly things for your own benefit (back to that slippery slope).

  73. Ben says:

    I get confused on this but I believe the Christian woman was his lama before, during and after Christie.

    From what I understand of the teachings at DM, anyone or anything can be your lama. Your partner, coworkers, movies, books, the wind in the trees, the beggar on the street. There is a difference between a lama and a heart lama though.

    If you believe the Buddha (or I suppose VY) can manifest in many forms at the same time, seeing many women as VY at the same time is reasonable.

  74. Karen Visser says:

    Hi Jehne, I wish I had time to go into this important point you bring up. I don't know if someone else will be able to pick up for me. I can see why you'd see things this way – and you couldn't possibly know this if you're not a Buddhist – but in Tibetan Buddhism, which is Mahayana, one definitely does not seek Enlightenment for oneself! Definitely not. This has been bothering ma all along. In Hinayana Buddhism (for example Theravada in Thailand) one does seek Enlightenment for oneself.

    It's such a complex part of the introduction to Buddhism, but there's a huge historic and philosophical difference between the two. Tibetan Buddhist's must be motivated by altruism to reach Enlightenment, which is different than Liberation. Sorry about all the jargon, if I had more time I would try to write a post about it, but I'm stuck for time.

    I really understand why it looks as if TB's are Hinayana when you read the what's posted here, something about Michael Roach's teaching strikes me that way way too. But if you're not doing it for all sentient beings you're not Mahayana.

  75. ekanthomason says:

    This is a really important topic. Can we start it on a new thread to make it more accessible.
    Jehne Lunden would you mind reposting it?

  76. Karen Visser says:

    OMG, the best questions. Want to come and visit for a month? There are some great long, espresso filled conversations here. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of organizing a lama visit and I'm overloaded, where's Tenor or Khedrup?

    Karma is not fate – and there's nothing wrong with asking that, it is a common misperception in the West. If I can, I'll write in a few days, using my notes from my lama (a great Buddhist scholar). Karma literally means 'action', the Tibetan word for karma is 'leh' which embodies the whole concept. Enlightened self-interest is not what I was taught, by the way.

  77. Luna says:

    I would love to hear the answers to these questions as they are many of my own!!! Thank you for bringing this up!

  78. johnnycomelately says:

    Is this particular forum the right place for indulging in more sophistry? I'm thinking about it, is all.

  79. Anon15 says:

    I think the monasteries in Buddhism are pretty selfish. People there do not work and live of handouts of other people. All they do is meditate, chant, debate, eat, etc. They do not participate of society and do not contribute with anything. The monks do not get married so they leave women unmarried and without children, and they cut relationships with their family to be devoted to other monks. Of course they are very happy, since they don't have any responsibilities other than hang around in the monastery with the friends. When they are as early as 7 years old they get placed there so that they will be taken care of by others. All that is pretty selfish to me. Of course, the idea is to get enlightened for the sake of all beings, but I never heard of one of them to have ever gotten enlightened other than the legends in the past.

  80. cheshire says:

    "Are Buddhists selfish?
    Is the salient goal of Buddhism i.e. enlightenment selfish–all about the self? "

    I thought the goal of Buddhism was to eliminate self-cherishing.

    By having bodhicitta, true bodhicitta, self-cherishing is eliminated. By eliminating self-cherishing, suffering is eliminated. Non-dual awareness arises. Enlightenment ensues. All beings benefit.

    Of course I'm over-simplifying and could be way off…..

    "What about karma? Isn't that self-interest? Doesn't karma determine your fate? Enlightenment VS rebirth? Isn't each person's karma his or her own–even if it does intercept with others'? "

    And we're back to the non-dual awareness. My understanding of karma isn't like yours……practicing good karma is no more 'self-interest' than me wanting to eat healthy food; it's just good for me (and others). If I work to practice improving my karma, others benefit because I am less angry and irritable, I'm more available to others, I'm healthy enough (spiritually and mentally and physically) to give of myself more. Karma isn't the sole determiner of fate. In fact, I don't believe in (complete) predestination or fate. Trying to practice good karma for me is more about trying to understand the causes and conditions and how everything is interconnected. Yes, each person's karma is 'their own'……but just that statement implies an independent self/ego, something I also don't buy.

    "So if I have no control over my own enlightenment, or don't act to achieve enlightenment, who is responsible for my enlightenment? What are they doing to put me on that path? If I do good to bring enlightenment to you and the world, why not just do it for myself? Or is it tit for tat? Why do the other branches of Buddhism see it differently? Who is right?"

    No one is 'right' for you– what do you believe about all of this? There is your answer. I don't believe in any hard and fast 'rules' for enlightenment. I believe you should seek to find whatever works best for you (as long as you are not harming self or others). And you wouldn't- couldn't- do it 'just for yourself'……it doesn't work like that.
    "No man is an island, entire of itself"

    I'd also say that I think Buddhism gets perverted often by people who are into it for their own self-interests. But, ya know, we're all human down here– it could also be argued that I had a baby because of my own selfishness or that I went into my line of work out of a selfish desire to make myself happy. I think as long as Buddhists- or anyone- are still actively working for the benefit of their friends, family and whomever else (all of the cosmos)……well, what's so selfish about that?

    I could be way off base with all of this, but it's my understanding of things.

  81. Anon15 says:

    ~ Are Buddhists selfish?

    For the most part, yes. Even the practice of Karma is self-serving. The idea is of reaching enlightenment, but that is all smoke and mirrors. The never ending chase. Even for GM.

    ~ Is the salient goal of Buddhism i.e. enlightenment selfish–all about the self?

    They sell the idea that the day that you become enlightened…then…you will be able to generate different bodies that will help other people as they need, you will take care of planets etc. In the future. In the mean time, just sit and meditate (help none and become frustrated and repressed).

    ~ What about karma? Isn't that self-interest? Doesn't karma determine your fate? Enlightenment VS rebirth? Isn't each person's karma his or her own–even if it does intercept with others'?

    You can only control your own Karma, not other people's, so you have to shape your own future by using karma laws. It's all about you because that's the only Karma you can control.

    ~ So if I have no control over my own enlightenment, or don't act to achieve enlightenment, who is responsible for my enlightenment? What are they doing to put me on that path? If I do good to bring enlightenment to you and the world, why not just do it for myself? Or is it tit for tat? Why do the other branches of Buddhism see it differently? Who is right?

    Why don't people enjoy the present moment and live a just life that is of service, and stop with these ideas that are only going to make them stress about some point in the future is what I'd say.

  82. Norbu says:

    Mahayana Buddhist is all about trying to work with one's mind for the benefit of all beings. Many people start practising Buddhism to be free from their own suffering and that is initially a selfish desire. However, if one perseveres one realizes that one can only be truly happy when others are benefitted too.
    Buddhism is sometimes criticized for the emphasis put on retreat and personal practice while so many in the world suffer from hunger, disease and other hardships and there might be some truth in this criticism. We all should be doing more for others. However, until one has truly mastered one's own negative emotions our capacity to help is limited and so spending time in retreat and on the cushion helps develop our potential to be of help. Also, those practising the six perfections and the 5 precepts cause very little harm in the world and that itself is beneficial for all beings.

  83. Karen Visser says:

    Hi Jehne, I didn't answer your question about Buddhists being selfish in my post because I think Buddhists are exactly like everyone else. Just people. There are selfish Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists…

    There are also amazingly tolerant, fair, loving Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists. I personally don't think you can generalize, you have to get to know someone. Once you do know someone, you often no longer see them differently because you understand them.

  84. ann says:

    hello again my friends,

    just a quick note in re selfishness, a very beautiful article in the NY Times today about a tibetan woman of little means who spent her life savings to sponsor a Kangyur reading.

    wanted to be sure all of you saw this beautiful woman and her accomplishment.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/nyregion/unlike

    love and peace to all,
    ann

  85. ekanthomason says:

    I hesitate to say anything because most of what I learned about karma I learned at Diamond Mountain. Even though I once taught ACI course 5 on Karma, I think it is skewed after my recent discussions about karma with people who are closely linked to the Gelugpa tradition. I am also busy preparing for a houseguest in the form of a grandson and don't have much time. I wish I had the time to dig through teachings by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

    I remember taking an advanced class from one of the initiating lamas at Diamond Mountain. She said, "You have to examine this karma thing as it is taught here at DM. Is it true that, if you give money away, you will get money? I have been giving money away for x number of years and I am still poor." I thought she was a heretic at the time. I thought, "Does Geshe Michael know that you are teaching this here!"

    She desperately needed tires for her car, but I know firsthand that she did practice generosity. We went out to dinner one night. Someone gave her a donation and she spent the money anonymously paying for the dinner of a couple near our table.

    What she did, by example, during that class was give me permission to question things. I am forever in her debt!

  86. johnnycomelately says:

    Ok. Have fun. If Matthew doesn't care, why shouldn't you? You will find better answers on other sites though, is all. I will reply to the question. "Are Buddhists selfish?", that Buddhists are people. I hope this helps clarify some. I do think your "tone" is pejorative and unctuous, but it's not my forum.

  87. johnnycomelately says:

    Troll alert!

  88. Hand says:

    Anon15 reads a paragraph of Red Chinese propaganda. Congratulations on your successful re-education, party drone.

  89. Khedrup says:

    How is not getting married and having a children a problem?The world is overpopulated!

  90. Anon15 says:

    Oh, no! Living in a monastery getting up to have breakfast in a big hall and then chant very holy! What a life of service! They like to think of themselves as that, but they are just some other version of parasite.

    From this article:
    http://ibc.ac.th/en/content/monastic-life-close-p

    "Most of the monks and nuns stay at temples and seldom go out except for shopping, going to hospital, visiting someone or going home. The life in the monasteries is quiet and peaceful like that day after day and year after year…Most of the people have little respect for religions, and many regard Buddhist monks and nuns as lazy people who come from very poor families and little education. There are monks and nuns of noble spirits and who are widely knowledgeable, but not many. From Song Dynasty up to now, this period of more than six hundred years, most of the people still dislike Buddhist monks and nuns and may even look down on them."

  91. Anon15 says:

    "Monks and nuns have their breakfast at 6:30 a.m. after morning chanting. Then they will do their personal chores, like cleaning, sweeping, morning exercise or have a short rest."

    [Excellent]

    "During the day, monks and nuns are on duty at various posts in their temples, like the monk in charge of the chanting hall or other religous places. They do these jobs everyday, guarding against fire and thievery, selling tickets, or conversing with visitors and performing some religious service for them."

    [What jobs]

  92. johnnycomelately says:

    Anon15-This site is straight-up Chinese! Good god, but you are a tool.

  93. Anon15 says:

    Whatever makes you happy. After all, it's all seeds and stuff.

  94. Hand says:

    What makes me happy is betting easy-money that says you are a moron.

  95. No one says:

    Karen how much do you actually know about what you call the Hinayana? Your view is based on what you have been told but have you ever actually explored the truth of it on your own? Have you ever met a "Hinayanist"? What does it mean to seek enlightenment for oneself? How is enlightenment defined for them? The so-called Hinayanists I have met (that is, practitioners of the pratimokshayana practices based on the earliest extant teachings of the Buddha found in the Pali Canon), who Mahayanists may dismiss outright thinking they are so far superior in view and conduct, are some of the most truly careful practitioners I have ever met: many of them have universal compassion, actual renunciation, and impeccable ethics that make a mockery of those who claim to be serving all sentient beings out of a true Mahayana motivation. I don't think it's so simple as to say Hinayanists are seeking enlightenment for themselves alone, though that's the traditional TB presentation to be sure. It is true that the bodhicitta ideal is unique to the Mahayana, but we must be careful in our enthusiasm over that ideal not to undermine or dismiss teachings that very much belong to the corpus of what the historical Buddha taught. Also, the way you phrase what you've inherited without careful checking sounds a little like a form of rejecting Dharma, as though the Buddha did not indeed teach the teachings that belong to the so-called lesser vehicle or Hinayana (a term that was agreed to be a pejorative one in a World Religions council back in the 50s). I would like to welcome the scholars on this forum to please answer to the issue of Hinayana and Mahayana with more than the facile dismissal of the Hinayana as unworthy of deeper exploration. Perhaps if we all had some actual training in some of the "Hinayana" practices, such as the four foundations of mindfulness, we would be able to see how very automatic, unreflective, uninformed, and habitual some of our inherited claims are within TB at times. And with excellent four foundations of mindfulness training, this crisis could surely have been averted.

  96. ekanthomason says:

    I have been around many Buddhist traditions, but I am no scholar.

    It is true that in discussions with Theravadans I have met, they find the term hinayana (lesser vehicle) insulting. Nobody likes to be called lesser. I don’t think that Karen means to take anything away from the fact that there are beautiful practitioners out there who are not mahayanists (greater vehicle). I see it as being all about what is in one’s heart. “Am I practicing for personal liberation” or “Am I practicing for the benefit of all sentient beings.” I met a rather famous Theravaden practitioner who took bodhisattva vows at the Zen Center in San Francisco. In my opinion, making a commitment to work for the benefit of all sentient beings regardless of which scriptures one reads, (the Pali cannon (hinayana) or Sanskrit sutras (mahayana) determines the size of the vehicle. I also think it is possible to think one is on the mahayana track and have only personal liberation as a goal and not really be a mahayanist.

    Also,it was centuries ago that the term ‘Greater Vehicle’ was coined. Greater implies there is a lesser. Yes, it was coined by a bunch of mahayanists, but if one word that distinguishes the two sets of motivations (hinayana) is thrown out, then logically, the other term (mahayana) should be thrown out as well. Mahayana has no meaning without hinayana. ‘Greater’ needs ‘lesser’ or it does not make any sense.

  97. Karen Visser says:

    Thank you Ekan, beautifully said, in distinguishing between the two I never meant to say that one was better than the other.

  98. No one says:

    well expressed, Ekan, thanks so much. It's the scope of the vehicle that's important, definitely, but it's also important to recognize each vehicle as a developmental stage that serves as a necessary foundation for "higher" or "subtler" trainings. There is no need to present the Mahayana trainings as though they somehow exist independently of trainings found in the pratimokshayana, or individual liberation vehicle. I can imagine that your Theravadin friend who took bodhisattva vows may well have a very solid practice, thanks to the rigors of very sustained and disciplined awareness of mind/body. It takes time to observe the workings of karma in one's mind/body.

    The way miscommunications occur is through using Buddhist terms without considering how they might be read in particular contexts. Thank you for your sensitivity to language and the assumptions/givens it can inadvertently communicate.

    I apologize Karen if I misconstrued your intent. But I disagree that you never meant to say that one vehicle was better than the other; please reread your statement from above:

    "but in Tibetan Buddhism, which is Mahayana, one definitely does not seek Enlightenment for oneself! Definitely not. This has been bothering ma all along. In Hinayana Buddhism (for example Theravada in Thailand) one does seek Enlightenment for oneself.

    It's such a complex part of the introduction to Buddhism, but there's a huge historic and philosophical difference between the two. Tibetan Buddhist's must be motivated by altruism to reach Enlightenment, which is different than Liberation. Sorry about all the jargon, if I had more time I would try to write a post about it, but I'm stuck for time.

    I really understand why it looks as if TB's are Hinayana when you read the what's posted here, something about Michael Roach's teaching strikes me that way way too. But if you're not doing it for all sentient beings you're not Mahayana."

    In the last paragraph in particular you are really not being fair to properly trained Hinayanists, as though anything at DMU remotely resembles their pratimokshayana training. I assure you, it does not.

  99. ekanthomason says:

    I felt you were sincere too Jehne. I hope some comes forward with answers for you. I am off to the airport.

  100. Anon15 says:

    And this is genius:
    http://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/baj

    This is what they learn since they are very little.

  101. Hand says:

    The Buddha was a beggar. Jesus was homeless. Socrates slept under trees. All dysfunctional, parasitic, snake-oil salesmen. Thanks for finally bringing these truths to my attention, Anon15, you "genius", you.

  102. Anon15 says:

    Matthew 20:28: That's the way it is with the Son of Man. He did not come to be served, but to serve.

  103. Anon15 says:

    "until one has truly mastered one's own negative emotions our capacity to help is limited and so spending time in retreat and on the cushion helps"

    How is sitting in a cushion in retreat going to help you get rid of negative emotions??

  104. Karen Visser says:

    Actually, No One, I owe you an apology. I wasn't at all fair!

    I just did a little asking around and was told that using the word 'Hinayana' is derogatory, I had no idea. Hearer's vehicle or sravakayana is more accurate. My (Thai trained) monk told me that Theravada is one of the 18 Hearer schools. This is why this forum is so helpful, I need to read up on Buddhist history, now I'll definitely educate myself on this.

  105. ming med klu says:

    “How is sitting in a cushion in retreat going to help you get rid of negative emotions??”

    Try it and see.

  106. Anon15 says:

    I've seen plenty of people that have been doing that same exact thing, some for over a decade, snap at the slightest irritation.

    It's easy not to get irritated in a solitary environment with nobody around to bother you, but come to the world and I've seen plenty get mad at the turn of a dime. It's pretty pathetic. As if they've learned nothing. The ego it's still rampant and in control.

  107. Karen Visser says:

    That should read: you often see them differently because you understand them.

  108. ming med klu says:

    I repeat, try it and see. I've seen plenty of people, myself included who have benefited from meditation, and no amount of explanation can really convey the reality of how it works. The word "meditation" is somehwat vague, so I can't really comment on why the people you mention do not appear to have benefited. A certain amount of study and reflection, especially in the beginning, is necessary in order to meditate properly, at least from a buddhist point of view. To get substantial results, ongoing personal guidance from someone who has some real understanding is indispensable. This is my opinion, and I believe it is also a traditional view. Anyway, in all sincerity, I think you should look into it a little bit. You might be surprised!

  109. Anon15 says:

    I'm not interested in spending hours of my precious life doing this: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/01/28/he
    If you meditate for an hour a day, that is equivalent to spending about a month per year sitting like that. No thank you.

  110. cheshire says:

    Your loss, Anon15

    For me, meditation has had a profound effect on my daily interactions. I'm a better person for it. If it doesn't work for you, don't do it……but why are you so ready to knock meditation for whom it does work quite effectively? Who are you to denounce anyone a method that works for someone else?!?!

  111. svan says:

    What do you do instead, Anon15? what is the purpose of your precious life and how do you fulfill it?

  112. Jane says:

    Only available in the States.

  113. Anon15 says:

    I just gave my opinion about it when someone suggested it for me. I'm glad it works for you.

  114. Anon15 says:

    As far as meditation, I prefer to do things throughout my day in a meditative space as it were. I also believe in the teachings of Jesus as far as what to do with your life:

    In Luke 6:46-49 Jesus placed the emphasis on action, on "doing," by saying it was vain to call Him Lord while not following His instruction.

    And:

    Jesus drew attention to that fact when the disciples began to worry about who was going to get the highest position of honor in the Kingdom. He told them that if they really wanted to be great, they should serve others.

    Basically to worship and serve God would be the purpose of life as it is taught in the scriptures, and what I try to do.

  115. Anon15 says:

    Btw, I have met GM in a few occasions.

    My impression is that the guy means well. I do believe that he is realized as well. I think because of his charisma, this attractiveness, his presence, his grace, his intellect, that you are not talking about an average person. It's something beyond that.

    I don't think he is megalomaniac or the things they've said here, but he has a good heart. He's worked hard most of his life and tries to teach the concepts of Buddhism in a way that people can understand.

    But for what I've seen, he's had the effect on many of you similar to the Pied Piper of Hamelin: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2
    Many have followed him on his enchantment and have ended up like the children in the book, lost in the hills.

  116. Ben says:

    I was wondering if you thought that was the result of a poor teacher or poor students.

  117. Johnnycomelately says:

    A troll by any other name! God you are a bore.

  118. ekanthomason says:

    Do I know you? If only I could write.

  119. Anon15 says:

    Nah, I think he is very attractive and people get drawn to him. What he teaches is right as far as Buddhism goes, although in my religion I don't share some of those things.

    Still, I think people can't help it to get lured by this presence. He has the presence of an Arya and that is what gets people I think.

    It would be nice if they could spend time close to him and see his example like some gurus have done in India. But I guess it's too many people and he is too busy with this work for that, so people have followed him around for his classes.

    I think once you meet him you have to learn from him and move on, do your thing.

  120. Karen Visser says:

    Thank you, Jehne, for sparking this with your good questions and open mind.

  121. svan says:

    Jehne, if you have time, you might want to listen to the teachings that Christie gave while in retreat a year ago. I have only listened to Class One, but around 38:00 she says, "But here in the realm of karma, everything is changeable… even the colour of your eyes. Everything. Nothing is fixed. Nothing is fixed when you're working in the realm of pure mind."
    It's not a big leap from here to say that knives don't cut, fire doesn't burn, people don't die.
    http://www.theknowledgebase.com/browse/products.p

    Later in that same clip, she talks about being in the realm of gods and demons with nothing in between. A huge battle being waged between the forces of good and the forces of evil and the sense that every single choice she makes is a victory for one side or the other… It sounds to me like she was pushing the teachings she received from MR as far as she could in order to "change the world", and she believed she could do that because she believed the world was coming from her. She implies that breaking her retreat vow would be worse than all the cabins burning. The stakes were incredibly high for her.

    It sounds like Christie had left conventional reality behind from the get go. My take is they weren't being reckless, they were being faithful to their vows and to their practice when they went to that cave. It sounds like they would have done anything to remain within the retreat boundary to finish what they started. They may have been proud and stubborn, but their actions sprang from the seeds that MR himself planted in their minds through his teachings.

    He offered them the possibility of enlightenment in this very lifetime, the end of pain and a perfect world….

    The Tantric path is said to be an accelerated path and it hasn't taken long for the DM lineage to bear its fruits.

  122. cloverleaf says:

    Jehne Lunden,

    What you state makes sense to me, mostly. Thanks for posting it, and for being an empirical voice in this discussion.

    I would like to mention that it's my belief- backed up by medical knowledge- that after a certain point in dehydrated individual, food and/or water is no longer desired. As in, the body stops craving food and drink and can even be repulsed by them. I believe both Ian and Christie got to this point (through recklessness or illness, I don't know and don't think it matters as the outcome is the same).

    I think Christie didn't call sooner because of a lack of mental clarity and possibly delusional thinking (due to dehydration) and general weakness. She was hospitalized and by all accounts close to death herself. No doubt her belief system also supported these effects, I'm just saying anyone would have had a lack of mental clarity and/or delusion at that stage of dehydration. She couldn't work the buttons and maybe didn't think they needed help. I don't know about the 'spiritual' motives, but the dehydration alone could easily have led her to not call until it was too late– and very likely did.

    That being said…..they did believe they could survive in the desert in a cave. Perfect storm, perhaps.

  123. PAX says:

    To absolve Michael Roach of any blame here seems highly irresponsible Jehne! Is Hitler completely with out blame for how his SS troops behaved? He is the one that created the culture from which they operated. You don't believe in brain washing but many groups create their own culture and group think. The longer people are involved they often surrender their individual concerns for the group. The more close knit the group the more their shared beliefs are emphasized. To see Michael Roach as independent of the culture and group he created is ridiculous! Shame on you! Do you also blame rape victims for their own trauma?

  124. Saints crossing says:

    Christie was raised by a single mother. Christie's mother (according to Christie) does not have much of a spiritual direction-Christian or otherwise. These bald-faced inaccuracies of yours takes the wind out of any conclusions you subsequently draw. To put it politely.

  125. svan says:

    Hi Jehne, the point I was trying to make is that MR shares the responsibility here – not blame, but responsibility. I believe it is the teacher's responsibility to assess the capacity of their students, especially when teaching advanced practices. If the student is misinterpreting the teachings or taking them too literally or going off in the wrong direction, isn't it the teacher's responsibility to correct the student? even more so when that student is teaching others?

    MR was 45, Christie was 25 when they met. She was an undergrad in the photography department, he was a geshe, a monk, and ostensibly an arya, a bodhisattva and a realized being. For whatever reasons, she believed what he told her.

    Yes, Christie freely, actively chose to follow MR's teachings and it looks like she did that with 100% commitment. So, is this what you get when you doggedly follow MR's teachings for 14 years? If she got those teachings wrong, wasn't it up to the teacher to correct her?

    I'm not absolving CM of responsibility at all, but just saying that she wouldn't have been in the desert in the first place, doing what she was trying to do, if it weren't for MR's teachings.

    Similarly, people wouldn't have taken sub-prime mortgages if the banks (the gate keepers) didn't offer them. People who never thought owning a home was possible were given hope. The banks said they qualified. The banks said it was possible. For whatever reasons, many people believed them.

    What bothers me most about these scenarios are what I perceive to be abuses of power and trust and a complete deflecting of responsibility to the least powerful player.

  126. Saints crossing says:

    You are speculating. Christie attended parochial schools in LA as the public ones there are notorious. She is also the progeny of a 'one-night-stand', so your tenacious insistence upon 'middle-class values' is also dubious.

  127. Saints crossing says:

    Jehne-this statement completely contradicts your above-stated position on Christie and Ian's own "responsibilty" and "as Yoga instructors, they were knowledgeable about nutrition and hydration." You seem fuzzy, as you in the same above want to absolve MR of any culpability while in a subsequent post you mention "hate" for him. Many of us here share these same conflicting models.

  128. PAX says:

    Hi Jehne,

    I think you are missing my point. I was not comparing Roach to Hitler! I was using an analogy that you can not find the leader of a group innocent from the behavior he taught his subordinates. The leader is accountable for the culture he creates and how people behave within that culture. Roach is also directly responsible for having them leave the retreat without the foresight that they would try it continue under less than optimal conditions.

  129. \mb says:

    If Roach is promoting group think than so is every pastor and priest in America.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Yes indeed, I agree with that statement. Except in mainstream culture, there's ostensibly less pressure to conform, whereas in a small self-enclosed spiritual community ("cult" or not), the pressure to "tow the line" is that much more intense, even if it's not overt. I was involved in a cult in the mid-1970s and can tell you first-hand that the fruit does not fall from the tree. And that critical thinking really is not encouraged, despite the large number of mostly intelligent and intellectually-minded people who were members of this particular community.

    I can't speak for Mr. Roach here, because I have no experience with him whatsoever but from reading everything in Matthew's 3 articles and all the comments, I resonate with multiple eerie parallels to my own experience. Which means it starts at the top, the sub-culture that manifests around the teacher originates from the top and is promulgated by faithful inner-circle devotees to the rest of the people – that's basically how these situations work. Therefore MR is at the very least "indirectly responsible" for Ian's death, in my mind. If critical thinking is discouraged, it's up to the individual to disentangle themselves before the Kool-Aid works its magic. Otherwise you wind up living in a fantasy world of the teacher's making, and though that may be satisfactory for some, it's still a fantasy world and as such, should be seen for what it is.

  130. svan says:

    Yes, he set her up and knocked her down and a man died in the process.

    MR can claim it was all their karma without acknowledging his own very pivotal role in the whole scenario. He counts on his students accepting full responsibility for their actions, their projections and everything that happens to them. This is the foundation of what he teaches. "Everything comes from you." Christie believed this. You can hear it in her own teaching.

    Others with more expertise than I have can tell you that this is not what the Buddha taught.

  131. Saints crossing says:

    my religion is beside the point, I think. So, Jehne, Christie was taught 'one-nght-stands' as part of the curriculum instilled as "mainstream culture" by these "great role models" who taught "her those western, middle-class values (you) mentioned earlier."? That sounds as equivocal as anything I could imagine a sock-puppet might mouth.
    And if by, "a back-up plan for the installation of values for Christie..", you mean the orthodox catechism of Roman Catholicism, why, if you say so!
    Christie had a number performed upon her mind for years and years. And If I was "pro-Christie", what change of heart would that entail for the 'anti-s' here? Or vice versa? Let's just say I'm more 'pro' the facts of the situation than I am 'pro' any persons involved.

  132. PAX says:

    Hi Jehne,

    My apologies for being so harsh on you before Jehne. I can see you are coming from a different perspective. In Vajrayana Buddhism the Guru is of utmost importance. In order to progress upon the path it is imperative to follow a proper guru. However this is not an easy path and it is recommended that one check out their guru for years before engaging in a student disciple relationship. Also if one really wants to follow a guru one should look at their students. If they are well rounded and fully adjusted that is a good sign the Guru is authentic.

  133. corvid says:

    the Roach cult followers are defending him by taking fake identities to muddy the waters. Solitary confinement is taking some of the remaining retreaters to the breaking point'.I understand they are being pressed(in a nice way) to continue..The solitary stuff is being reduced (kitchen duty and working to repair that stupid trail they built) A full apology should be made to the Fort,to me and to the people of Cochise county for building that trail on the peoples land.. it endanger you and us.

  134. \mb says:

    Sure, I was 19 years old at the time and extremely idealistic – perfect recipe for joining. However, that's not the case for other people, many were older than me when they joined. Some just wanted status – there were lots of "social climbers" within the group. Some people were simply childish and wanted a father-figure to tell them what to do and how to think. Some people were social misfits and couldn't stand "conventional" society. Some people had a "guru jones" and needed a role model to follow in order to later enact their addiction out with other weaker people. So…lots of different reasons.

  135. Saints crossing says:

    I believe MR sold Christie on a program neither one could return from after a certain point. I believe MR went way out on a limb with the letter he wrote to his lamas claiming "realizations", and among those, Christie's status as a "messenger" of the "Lady of Diamond" herself. That was the 'point-of-no-return', and the setting of a psychological tone that animated their subsequent roadshow, and in their role of preceptors for the tantric series of vows. The stakes could not have been higher for some, and many if not all of MR's 'eggs' were placed into a much-hyped 'basket' (No pun intended,) whose colorfully decorated array included such exciting themes as "Tiger Riders", "The 6 Yogas of Naropa", "Tibetan Heart Yoga", "The Goddess Code" and of course, "Spiritual Partner Talks." The thrust of all these teachings was "enlightenment in this one lifetime."
    They main-streamed their own "practices" together for public display, and made tantra into something "sexy", and "glamorous." Their break-up, their ensuing silence regarding their break-up. and their public spats gave lie to it all, but by then it was too-late for Christie, who by this time had now asserted her own identity, exultingly, and (to some) arrogantly free(?) from her guru-husband's control, and that 'genie' was 'out-of-the-bottle' for good.
    Now, the ground is leveled for another mandala at Diamond Mountain. Now, enter 'Kali.' Now, beware of an ego that knew no more bounds…no more limits…no kinds of fixity. Crash and burn, ladies and gentlemen, crash and burn.

  136. corvid says:

    Well I'm sure your knowledge of sociology trumps my time in solitary ,my Irish friends tails of being broken in H block by solitary,George Orwell and Arthur Koestler's writings and Atul Gawande studies on prisoners in supermax…Me,these guys and the prisoners didn't have 7 years of crazy talk jammed in their brains before going into the box…Talk to the people that have left and see how good everyone is doing…Is it worth it ? Are the rest of the people getting anything out of it? If another person dies how will all of you boosters deal with it? You backers need to look at the bigger picture too.15 year old Monks lighting themselves on fire while Roach gives teachings in China to the children of the elite .Can you imagine how desperate and brave these boys are?I have never seen or heard a single DM member question this China boot licking….The reason is you guys are in a cult and are brainwashed.

  137. Zirconia says:

    This tragedy has rekindled my interest in learning more about Buddhism, which I abandoned for many years. I'm now reading up on Tibetan Buddhism, which I was not familiar with. My renewed interest in Buddhism, unfortunately, is of no benefit to Ian or those who knew him. May Christie and Ian's family find peace some day. May Ian rest in peace, or if Buddhism is true, may he meet many good teachers in future lives.

  138. ann says:

    hi zirconia, me too, what you just wrote.
    although i've long been familiar with and drawn to tibetan buddhism. but me too, rekindled. why is that? isnt' it kind of strange? big time/little time strange. maybe.

  139. ann says:

    contd…
    but i am thinking that benefit to me or anyone else let alone all sentinent beings, cannot be or is not a point/the point. for me, at least, for now. but the whole magical thinking matrix movie thing is wigged out, no? it feels like, illustrative of a very dangerous byway. to me.
    i was writing to someone here about this memory i had a few weeks ago. at the risk of, you know, mentioning hitler or 9/11 on the internet, well-known byways. i was in nyc for 9/11 and on the friday after, was in union square at evening fall and in one corner of the park there were some tibetan monks who were chanting a prayer.

  140. ann says:

    and someone standing there said, they are saying bardo prayers for the dead, for the jumpers.
    and i felt for the first time since that tuesday this peace falling over me, deep in my heart and my being, and i stood and then sat near them, listening. for quite a long while. i hadn't remembered that for some years.
    of course, i am not tibetan and i couldnt understand every or even any thing of what i heard.
    but that moment that time of hearing the deep peace in that came back to me and has been echoing.
    maybe in the ten kajillion things that spin off from this one thing, there are good things too. that would be normal. i think?
    peace and love to you and all,
    ann

  141. Zirconia says:

    I haven't seen the Matrix, but from her long description, her interpretation of the movie seems consistent with what Roach teaches.

    "It’s actually a really good movie … That’s what we are trying to do. All the ancient tests that we have been studying for the past six years have been telling us how our world is not what it seems. How everything around us in our reality is not really out there in the way that we think it is. It is coming from somewhere else. It is coming from seeds inside of our own heart. It is like a virtual reality that is being projected out but it is not some über-computer that is projecting it, it is us. We are the ones projecting our reality.

    And there are a lot of amazing implications from that. It means that you could do what Neo did and then anything in the world that you don’t like you could just reach inside your own heart and change a few things and then the world would change." http://retreat4peace.org/sites/default/files/LCta

    If that's crazy talk, blame Roach for the indoctrination.

  142. Rectification says:

    As stated, either she is an incredibly foolish middle aged woman who can't tell whether or not she is legally married to another, or she was deceived by RM into believing their divorce was filalized as to the status of the marriage; or she intentionally attempted to engage in a bigamastic, nullity of a marriage.

    We don't have the 'facts' necessary to determine which of those three options actually pertain.

  143. ekanthomason says:

    How do you win in a situation like that? How do you get Diamond Mountain back according to the man? Give it away with enough rope for her to hang herself. Modern day Arizona Range Wars. Battles over turf.
    Remember DM was a dream of Roach since he was a child.

  144. ekanthomason says:

    Good question. As I am sure you know, there are stages to grief. One of them is anger. My first anger was towards Christie after hearing of the stabbings and reading her Matrix letter. I realized that the teachings I had received do not work. Christie was Roach's best student and put on display as an example for the rest of us. I had seen her as an emanation of love.

    I never thought that Christie had what it took to hold Diamond Mountain together. I thought she could last through the three-year retreat but after that, I expected the whole thing would fizzle out. I see Christie as a victim and I think it is possible she can recover, if she is able to reset her reality.

    To answer your question, I don't think I am under her spell, but I do have a great deal of compassion for her.

  145. Blue says:

    Jehne Lunden – I understand your problem with Christie. But you seem to be an apologist for Roach. Are you still under his spell?

  146. svan says:

    CM made her split from MR public, divorce papers were filed, so intentional "bigamy" seems a bit of a stretch.

    What if the most important thing for Christie was publicly marrying Ian before she went into retreat with him? What if she was trying to make up for the dishonesty and deception surrounding her first marriage and the first retreat? What if MR was delaying the process? This was one way to demonstrate that she was doing things differently from MR, starting off with how she treated and acknowledged her partner – as her husband.

  147. svan says:

    Ekan, I think you are on to something with the power struggle – after all, that is what Tantra is all about, cultivating power. Christie had a lot to prove. A good student always wants to surpass her teacher, and a good teacher would want that too. If only she had had a different teacher…

  148. Saints crossing says:

    I don't imagine myself spell-bound or enthralled by a woman who has lost her mind. I care for Christie in a deep, deep way; and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

  149. Rectification says:

    How could CM "make up for the dishonest and deception surrounding her first marriage" by engaging in a fraudulent ceremony of a sham marriage that never existed and is a legal nullity.

    If she wanted to conduct some sort of partnership commitment ceremony with Ian with friends and family in attendance, great. That does not require (presumably false swearing) on a marriage license application to a Government and the hoax perpetuated upon those in attendance who were not 'in the know' and her followers and public – such as, perhaps, yourself – who cannot understand that she never married Ian and he was not her 'husband'. He was her 'student-lover".

    She had a legal marriage with MR that was only terminated upon the issuance of a Final Decree by the Arizona Superior Court in which MR filed the divorce. Hence she was not free to marry Ian in any of the 50 states of the USA until that decree was entered. Any attempt to do so was bigamy on her part. This is not nitpicking; these are the facts regarding entering into legal marriage.

    Lying in such a public way about such a significant social event as marriage is hardly a method of demonstrating "that she was doing things differently from MR" — unless MR was so duplicitous that he told her the divorce was Final when it wasn't. and she foolishly believed him, or her mental state at the time rendered her not responsible for her actions.

  150. Zirconia says:

    George Carlin: "I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate."

    Like prayers, the effect of karma is not demonstrable/provable. Half of the time, karma/vipaka doesn't work, or at least doesn't manifest itself soon enough, believers would just say it's going to show up sooner or later, perhaps in future rebirths, which regrettably are faith-based, not demonstrable/provable.

    I argued in another thread: Newton's 3rd law–every action has an equal and opposite reaction–is observable/measurable/demonstrable, while karma/vipaka is not. We can not prove that the Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot, who died at 72 without facing trial, is suffering in hell. His comrade, Brother #2, is still alive at 85. Is his long life the "instant karma" for being responsible for the deaths of 1.5M of his countrymen? How can we prove to his survivors that he'll face some sort of karmic justice in future lives? I'd say we can't prove any Buddhist doctrine. Still, Buddhists choose to believe in the supposed truths, and that's the beauty/ugliness of faith.

  151. Zirconia says:

    50% stat seems very generous, I actually never got any tangible result from prayers, but I did get many things from writing to Santa. I even saw Santa one Christmas Eve, Ma said they were wrestling.

  152. Saints crossing says:

    'Origins' are hard to fathom regarding any single object. Personally, I can relate to your qualms Zirconia. And my idea of karma is not tnat different than my idea of 'origins.' Both ideas purport to demonstrate the causes and conditions of a things existence, and both are equally 'lost in the mist' when conventionally approached.

  153. corvid says:

    thinking more about this healing power she believe they all have (her's first among equals)you could argue this thinking killed ian..i have thought it was suicide and she chickened out but maybe she thought she was healing him..I still think they were up there for no more than a week or two.

  154. Zirconia says:

    Are retreat cabins big enough to house 1 or 2 extra persons? I think Ian and Christie would not have intruded other retreatants' space for an extended time, but perhaps they could have dropped in for a quick shower now and then. Do caretakers (non-retreatants) have their own cabin? If so, maybe Ian and Christie could have stayed for a long while. All cabins have AC, right?

  155. Zirconia says:

    don't understand what you meant by "origin story"

  156. Zirconia says:

    I think the last paragraph from your quote refers to her studying ACI courses, probably in 1996.

  157. PAX says:

    Yes, I understand your point but have you ever been to Diamond Mountain? Ghost aside there definitely is an eerie sort of vibe there.

  158. Zirconia says:

    I don't believe in cursed land, ill spirits, etc, but shamanistic beliefs are quite common in many cultures. Before the arrival of Buddhism, Bon was the indigenous spirit religion of Tibet, just as Shinto was for the Japanese. A syncretic mixing of beliefs was perhaps unavoidable. It is no surprise that the oldest school of Tibetan Buddhism, Nyingma has more shamanistic elements.

  159. Karen Visser says:

    Jehne, if you parachute in on any religion, or the life experience of someone else, it's easy to judge and condemn.

    I'm sure there are non-Christians who think it's superstitious to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven, or that Mohamad is God's true profit and wrote divine words, or that the beliefs of the Apaches are superstition. American snake handlers have beliefs you may not agree with, nurses who use touch therapy may seem silly. This is a forum that needs to discuss a lot of strange stuff to because the original thesis is about a very unusual set of circumstances and beliefs.

    To be fair Jehne, in 100 years much of modern Sociology may look like unscientific and like superstition. We haven't been to Diamond Mountain so we can't say whether it has a strange, haunted feel or not.

  160. concerned says:

    Hey Jehne – Why do you have to dismiss astrology? There are people who believe in it and those who have not learned about it yet. At least that's what my astrologer says. She told me ALL about myself – without having known me at all – by reading my birth chart, so, yes, I'm a believer. There's so much between the stars and this Earth that we don't see or can't know for certain, it doesn't mean that they are not credible or should be shunned. That is ignorance as well. Peace.

  161. Zirconia says:

    C: I think I had incredible karma from my past life, which ripened first when I was in Kopan for the first time.
    Q: And when was that?
    C: In like ’95. http://michaelroachfiles.wordpress.com/2003/06/09

    Most likely, it was an introductory course for Westerners from Kopan Monastery. http://kopanmonastery.com/program.html

    "Lama Christie McNally started her formal course of study at Kopan Monastery in Nepal, in a program founded by Lama Thubten Yeshe that is now continued by his heart disciple Lama Zopa Rinpoche. She then went on to continue and deepen her studies, and enrolled in the Asian Classics Institute, where she met her root Lama, Geshe Michael Roach. She studied at the feet of her teacher for 15 years, going through the entire course of study needed to complete a Geshe degree." http://www.aci-capeann.org/images/BiosVisitingLin

  162. Karen Visser says:

    yikes! that should be: God's true prophet

  163. Karen Visser says:

    PAX, I do know you what you mean about an eerie vibe in certain places.

    My main training is in science, but I've been places like a sacred Five Nations site on the North shore of Lake Superior and an ancient native burial island, that have given me a feeling that I have no scientific explanation for.

    If I were the only person who felt these things in these places I could chalk it up to a lack of sleep, but when most of the people who visit a site agree there's a strange feel – why try to dismiss it? We don't yet understand everything in the world, there's room for mystery and things yet to be discovered.

  164. Zirconia says:

    Are Buddhist centers non-prophet organizations?

  165. Karen Visser says:

    Zirconia – you have to take your show on the road. I can't focus when I'm laughing so much.
    I haven't forgotten about the 4 factors, by the way. It might seem like I'm too busy answering other posts but I'm actually temporarily running around a bit – please no jokes about that, it sounds all wrong.

  166. corvid says:

    i have heard they stayed at a few of the cabins,after all she was a goddess.. Scott has it figured out and should put his piece out there soon.It will be a good read as his life experiences gives him a better grasp on this place than me or most people here..Being a young guy that thinks he is the Captain of his own ship and the buck stops with him he seemed to discount the incredible power of isolation and group think. a bit to much for my take but it will be THE piece on Roach INC…my guess is wacky but not evil will be the judgement…I lean toward deluded con man myself

  167. ekanthomason says:

    He said Dec/Jan. We will certainly let you know.

  168. Saints crossing says:

    Zirconia – How can I make it clearer? Both 'origins' and 'karma' seek to explain how or why things come to be. Neither origins nor karma lend themselves to a perfect understanding, if one is relying on conventional (scientific even) analysis, since 'first causes' in both systems are impossible to posit. In other words, analysis bears-out a few reasons and whys for phenomena, but a complete understanding of phenomena is stated in Buddhist scripture to be the sole purview of an awakened one-a buddha. This could explain why many people discount karmic theory: it is too complex and far-reaching a system to lend itself to a complete understanding of it, given the vastness of space-time it operates within, and our finite tools (scientific and epistemological) at hand for cracking an infinite universe. But for an imposter to knowledge such as myself, both 'origins' and 'karma' essentially are trying to answer the perennial conundrum concerning 'the chicken or the egg'. The obvious facts may also be the most inscrutable facts-when one goes scratching into the 'facts' of things. Shakyamuni taught that karma is "deeply hidden"-and it seems it remains to be-2600 years after he first dropped this bombshell onto his sangha.

  169. AnnetteVictoria says:

    Thank you for addressing that, concerned.

    Jehne, do you believe in intuition? What about love? Are those any less real because they can't be measured by science?

  170. Jehne_Lunden says:

    This is a great site for learning to think like a skeptic, if you so choose. It wouldn't hurt to at least be familiar with opposing viewpoints.
    http://skepdic.com/astrology.html

  171. AnnetteVictoria says:

    You can with IntenseDebate.

  172. AnnetteVictoria says:

    Have you never had an experience you knew was meaningful but couldn't explain?

  173. Khedrup says:

    Dear Jehne,
    I do see your point. But you seem very determined to convince people with a sort of hyper-rational interpretation of things. Which is fine if that works for you.
    But I always find it a bit funny when self-professed atheists who decry the fundamentalism of "religion" show the same zeal in trying to convert others to their "right, correct"view, as the very people they are wary of.

  174. ekanthomason says:

    Magazine

  175. Jehne_Lunden says:

    Thank you. :)

  176. Jehne_Lunden says:

    Love is hard to define. But like pornography, I know it when I see it. Kidding.

    Love can be studied and measured by scientific methods. First we can define it. We can agree to a meaning for this abstract concept. Then we can measure behaviors and emotions that support the definition. Also, we can look at MRI scans and evaluate chemical responses in the brain. Happiness is another abstract concept that can be measured scientifically. Even though poets and philosophers seem to describe these concepts much better than scientists, this doesn't mean they can't be studied, described, and measured scientifically. My belief is that one day soon, neuroscience will provide us with many answers to the questions, what is love? and what is happiness? Brain science is where it's at.

  177. mi mthun dpe says:

    That's scientism, not science.

  178. T.S says:

    You might like the book Neuropath by R. Scott Bakker. It explores these conclusions in a really interesting and disturbing way. For those of you around here who are clearly interested in stories involving death, good looking girls, and cults I'd suggest his novel Disciple of the Dog.

  179. AnnetteVictoria says:

    I agree that may very well be true.

  180. AnnetteVictoria says:

    Agreed. When my husband tells me he loves me, I like to believe there is more to that than "brain science," as I think most people would.

    Jehne, what about intuition, deja vu, synchronicities, clairvoyant dreams? Impossible?

  181. Jehne_Lunden says:

    " A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself." ~ Ferris Bueller

    But hey, if you must assign a label, I'll accept it. That is, if you define it as such:

    Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Michael Shermer 2002).

  182. AnnetteVictoria says:

    I stopped reading at, "Correlation does not prove causality, but it is good enough for most astrologers." It's not just good enough, it's the whole point.

    The only philosophical difference between astronomy and astrology, which were the same thing into Kepler's day (yes, he was an astrologer), is that in astrology you believe the events in our solar system have meaning. That is all. No causality. That's a pre-Enlightenment idea in the history and philosophy of astrology. Hence Kepler's comment.

    Interestingly, and to try to bring this topic back to the main point here, I offered Michael Roach a reading. He didn't respond, unfortunately.

  183. Jehne_Lunden says:

    You stopped reading due to confirmation bias. In your mind, correlation means causation. But this is a logical fallacy. Give this a shot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not

  184. AnnetteVictoria says:

    No, Jehne. I stopped reading because it was clear the writer doesn't understand astrology, and therefore can't accurately critique it. I'm happy to read critiques from skeptics, but only if they know what they are talking about. Most take the very unscientific attitude of not actually investigating the discipline.

    And no again, correlation doesn't mean causation in my mind. Causation does not exist in astrology. You're misreading me.

  185. Jehne_Lunden says:

    When he says he loves you. It is just a word. How do you know he loves you? Because he hits you? Because he brings home other women? No. You believe he loves you because he kisses you gently, holds your hand, changes the baby's diapers, brings you roses for no apparent reason, is kind to your mother etc. His actions tell you he loves you. Why do you feel loved? You feel appreciated, respected, nurtured, treasured etc. Love is just a word assigned to a concept. The concept derives meaning by the actions and emotions we associate with it–and these actions and emotions are culturally agreed upon. Some cultures many consider other actions as gestures expressing love. But there are universals as well.

    "Jehne, what about intuition, deja vu, synchronicities, clairvoyant dreams? Impossible?"

    Impossible? I don't know. Improbable, yes. If you claim that there is a pink teapot revolving around the sun, and I say there isn't, and you can't prove there is, who is right? It is not my job to prove you wrong. You are affirming something–the proof lies with you. Thus, if you make claims, you should be able to prove them. There are rational explanations for what we know as intuition and deja vu. Clairvoyant dreams, psychics, channeling, ESP… I don't believe these things exist, and neither do scientists.

  186. Jehne_Lunden says:

    But that article does go into depth, explaining astrology i.e. what it is, its history, what scientists have to say about it, and even current events and trends within the astrological community. And there are some great links provided as well.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Not that you are a horse. :)

  187. Jehne_Lunden says:

    Found this article by Mr Bakker. (http://www.heliotropemag.com/Issue01/pdf/Heliotrope_pg32-38_SkepticalFantasist.pdf ) Very interesting. Though I am not normally a fiction reader, I may just read those two books you mentioned. His appeal to read fantasy fiction is sounds reasonable.

  188. Khedrup says:

    But science has also failed us in many ways, just as it has helped us. Same with religion really.

    We have science to thank for the atomic bomb, coal burning power plants, chemical warfare and, because industry was developed on the basis of science, global warming.

  189. Jehne_Lunden says:

    I wasn't decrying the fundamentalism of religion. "Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)

    Though the Buddhists here who are critiquing Roach's prosperity Buddhism, taking a consort, and growing his hair long, are doing precisely that. And that is OK.

    My initial argument, before it evolved beyond that, was against the belief in ghosts and cursed lands. Then I was asked about love and intuition. I felt a need to answer such inquiries out of politeness. But honesty, I don't go around debating others and arguing for science in my day to day life. I'm not obsessed. But supernatural claims were made on the forum, and I chose to express my opinion regarding such claims.

    I have no desire to convert others to atheism. Live and let live. I just have a problem with paranormal claims that can't be proven. They are comparable to stating that Santa Claus really exists. Just because something is wonderful and we wish it were true, doesn't make it so.

  190. Jehne_Lunden says:

    Science is value-neutral. Ethics, philosophy, and religion are the disciplines that concern themselves with good and bad i.e. is the atomic bomb good or bad? Is abortion wrong? Science makes these technologies possible, but it makes no moral judgements about them.

  191. Jehne_Lunden says:

    Reply was meant to be in response to what Concerned wrote. A troll? Probably. I should have just ignore his post. Sorry.

  192. ekanthomason says:

    So, funny calling this person a troll who suggests we get back on topic. At least what Concerned posted was regarding news! Most of what I am readying these days has nothing to do with the tragedy that these three Remski pieces are drawing attention to. It just seems like noise.

    I think Concerned is reading all of this for the first time and had a genuine response. Concerned, please feel post and there are people who will support you. There are trolls on this forum.

    "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

  193. BoredofJehne says:

    Good point Ekan about the noise. I've been turned off of this forum for that same reason.

  194. Jehne_Lunden says:

    I posted the troll comment about concerned. Note where the arrows fall into position. And the anon post was made later. Concerned had posted almost the same exact message weeks ago.

    "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

    Yes, Ego Patrol and BoredofJehne come to mind.

    No one is halting the discussion of Roach and Diamond Mountain. New information and discussions will continue organically. There are no real barriers here, only artificial ones that you are experiencing in your mind. Why can't you ignore that string thread that Ben and I are posting on? Why is it annoying you so much. I don't get it.

  195. BeyondBoredOfJehne says:

    Where did BoredofJehne's reply go??? It's gone. What is happening to our forum?

  196. ekanthomason says:

    Yes. I know you posted "the troll comment about Concerned".

    It appears that you are correct that Concerned made a comment in response to AnnetteVictoria's post. Concerned's comment occurred five weeks later after reading part way through the volumes of written comments.

    I was here when AnnetteVictoria pulled that comment from another comment to draw attention to it. All of us who were reading at the time remember it clearly.

    There was a 'concerned' posting at the time, but that Concerned was not capitalized. There is no reason to think it is the same person judging by what they have said. I think we are all concerned.

    There is nothing wrong with commenting on an old post and no one should be accused of being a troll because they did.

  197. BeyondBoredOfJehne says:

    Are you going to delete or report every reply that you don't like Jehne?

  198. Jehne_Lunden says:

    OK. If Concerned genuinely was a new poster, fine. But I read it as if they were just trying to reignite a settled issue. Look how many anonymous posts we get here. And mean ones too–aimed at insulting others or trying to provoke a response. I assumed that this was the case when Concerned replied to a post that was five weeks old. And I too recall a post made by concerned in the past. I assumed it was the same person. Also, I was here at the time that the comment about death threats was originally posted. I thought it was resolved then–that the comment did not offer proof and thus could possibly be regarded as hearsay–a rumor. It was also suggested at that time that the person should contact the police. Five weeks have gone by without a peep from that poster. Don't you think that either it was a false claim or that the person had indeed taken steps outside the forum to deal with the death threat?

  199. BeyondBoredOfJehne says:

    Who made you judge and jury of which issues can or can't be re-ignited on this forum? Nothing has been settled. Everything is up for discussion. New people are welcome here. You are not the moderator. Many posters call themselves 'concerned' or Concerned'.

  200. Khedrup says:

    I thought it might also be good to outline the benefits of ordination from Tsonawa's text, so that people can understand the purpose of monastic ordination:

    The function of pure morality (of monastic vows as this is the focus of Tsonawa's text)
    1.attainment of enlightenment
    2.attainment of higher rebirth
    3.if one receives vows, they are generated
    4.one is permitted dharma resources
    5.one is permitted material resources
    6.one can confess (i.e. can partake in Sojong)

  201. Human says:

    I disagree with you singing bowl. Ian and Christie have been slowly being erased across the web by MR and his publicity team. If I was Corvid, who lives so close by and has known and continues to know many of the people at DM, I would be offended, too. Is there a monument at DM for Ian? I don't think so. His monument is to be completely erased from DM's history….Unfortunately for MR, you can erase him so he and Christie won't exist for future students, but you can't erase him or her from the retreatants and his former and current students.

    Meanwhile, Corvid has a monument and it is very obvious that he holds concern for those in the current 3 year retreat. To say that he is a attention seeking idiot seems mean spirited and quite unwarranted.

    It makes me wonder if you are trolling for a reaction perhaps?

  202. Corvid says:

    Thanks Human…..Hey if Dm leaders could be trusted to protect the retreaters I would not of had to rat them out to Blm about the trail.They just figured the Karma seeds would protect Bliss from the narcos…blocking the trail that played a part in Ian's dead by retreaters elbow grease has done the trick….The BP spotters no longer go out our way.Why the board allowed the trail to be built in the first place the took two months to stop lying about who built it is another story. new flowers at Ian's memorial this morning…think it was the girl from Silver City he spoke of.. For singing bowl here is a summary of what our little band of slightly less magical thinkers have done for the retreat. forced the rev. roach to put improving caretaker housing and pay on the table,forced the Board to agree 3 year retreats will not be repeated,forced access by outside shrink,made family members aware of the poor preparation for this mess,pointed out how Ian could have been saved,warned people that might have joined about the student sexual abuse and secret teachings that are dangerous and among many more points put out the fact that as long as Roach wears robes there will be no peace in the valley…He needs to say he's sorry for trashing Ian and sexually abusing Christie too..

  203. singing bowl says:

    …sexually abusing Christie too..

    That is a serious accusation.

  204. Kevin says:

    What do you mean "forced the board to agree 3 year retreats will not be repeated"? Where has this been stated?

  205. Zirconia says:

    It's weird that the old bird comes across as having more integrity and humanity than the good geshe.

  206. ekanthomason says:

    singing bowl, I am reporting this; not the two liner above but the one that followed. I almost reported your previous post that was deleted the admin. It was not necessarily deleted by Jerry, so he should not be blamed.

    This is nothing but a personal attack and adds nothing to the discussion.

    I have copied Zirconia's response to 'singing bowl's' deleted message because I think it will go away too.

    Zirconia65p · 6 minutes ago
    It's weird that the old bird comes across as having more integrity and humanity than the good geshe.

  207. Kevin says:

    Having sex with a student has been a continuing discussion of this forum…. the fact that GM has disregarded (putting it lightly) the gelug requirements for engaging in consort practice has been discussed at length. Yes, it would be great if persons other than LC who have allegedly had sex with GMR would have the courage to come forth.

  208. singing bowl says:

    And he is to get all credit for it too.

  209. corvid says:

    well typing on my phone is an adventure as always…but they are ready to give up on the 3 year retreats.Even Scott on the board has said so and when Scott speaks the Rev. Roach's lips move.
    The only thing I am taking credit for personally is the removal of the trail (note to DMers tick tick tick on the other BLM issue).
    Sexual abuse? lets see if this was in the Catholic Church… 40 year old priest has sex with a novice (and some nuns on the side) and then convinces her she is the Virgin Mary. Mary then (after hearing this for years) believes she has the power to heal her husband,tell a suicidal followers to get new girl friend and all will be fine and engages in blood letting….bad shit then happens… That priest would be out on his ass.

  210. singing bowl says:

    "allegedly"

    And Geshe Michael and Christie were legally married, don't forget.

  211. Kevin says:

    In terms of LC, yes married — while denying it to the world, keeping it secret, presenting it as something else. It would be easier to forget (forgive)if it had been common knowledge in the first place. You use the phrase "don't forget" as though their marriage were something other than a thing that had been uncovered due to this forum earlier this summer — in other words if they hadn't lied about it the entire time. And yes, I used the word allegedly, because allegedly…

  212. Kevin says:

    The marriage as it relates to the vows of a monk are the entire question. Saying they were married is not relevant in terms of GMR's claims of realization (nor I might add in terms of abuse) it is outside of the claims.

  213. Kevin says:

    Your sentence makes no sense

  214. singing bowl says:

    "In terms of LC, yes married — while denying it to the world, keeping it secret, presenting it as something else." How is this sexual abuse? He broke no laws. If he broke his monk's vows, that's one thing. But he did not sexually abuse his wife.

  215. singing bowl says:

    He single-handedly made all those things he stated in his ^ post happen. All great changes at DM are due to his efforts.

  216. Kevin says:

    Thank you for clarifying

  217. corvid says:

    singing bowl the best thing Mathews story has done is pressure DM to basically end this 3 year retreat.The first 3 year retreat was a fraud but this one was fairly real and guess what…it drove people crazy.,,,Now it is way less intense…sort of like silent Band Camp.

  218. singing bowl says:

    Well, you are using the term "abuse" in a non-legal way that is completely without context outside of your subculture.

  219. Kevin says:

    His reputation as a monk is the issue. Broke no laws, actually I agree, he broke his vows. Oh and having a wife while denying that she is your wife, that doesn't qualify as abuse?

  220. singing bowl says:

    "Oh and having a wife while denying that she is your wife, that doesn't qualify as abuse?"

    No, It doesn't.

  221. singing bowl says:

    Remember, my initial statement was that Christie was not "sexually abused." You can quality anything as "abuse" according to your own subjective criteria.

  222. Kevin says:

    We ain't in a court-of-law.

  223. Kevin says:

    My subculture is America

  224. singing bowl says:

    No problem.

  225. Kevin says:

    Actually it is called emotional abuse if we talk about having a relationship with someone while denying the relationship. The question of sexual abuse I suppose can be answered when the questions of penis, vagina, ejaculation are answered. But in terms of my "sub-culture" which I will define as "academia" GMR's actions qualify as sexual abuse.

  226. ekanthomason says:

    Christie pleaded, as my memory serves me, "I don't want to be seen as a consort anymore. Can't you understand that?"

    She was married and could not even tell anyone. Perhaps that is the thing that wedged between them and lead to their breakup. My opinion is that it could qualify as abuse. Stay open to the possibility.

    In addition, in the beginning, there was the one with power (Roach) and there was the student (Christie). I think the argument could be made that that is an abuse in the same way therapists don't date their clients. Certainly unethical.

    Unless, you, singing bowl are Christie, I don't think a 'No. It doesn't.' qualify is the right answer. Are you someone that was that close to Christie's inner thoughts that you could know such a thing? Sometimes it takes years of therapy to understand how one was abused.

  227. Kevin says:

    And I do remember your initial statement. And a teacher having a sexual relationship with a student is sexual abuse — whether they marry them or not. Thanks for the permission and also you can qualify anything you want as "not abuse" according to your own subjective criteria.

  228. singing bowl says:

    I don't deny that emotional abuse occurred due to the imbalance of power in their relationship.

    "But in terms of my "sub-culture" which I will define as "academia" GMR's actions qualify as sexual abuse."

    Maybe the term you're looking for is sexual "misconduct."

  229. Kevin says:

    I'm not looking for a term.

  230. singing bowl says:

    "Christie pleaded, as my memory serves me, 'I don't want to be seen as a consort anymore. Can't you understand that?'"

    I understand that all too well. The term "consort" is degrading. And not just for a wife, but for any woman.

    "In addition, in the beginning, there was the one with power (Roach) and there was the student (Christie). I think the argument could be made that that is an abuse in the same way therapists don't date their clients. Certainly unethical."

    I agree with that. But I don't agree with the term "sexual abuse" in this case.

    "Unless, you, singing bowl are Christie, I don't think a 'No. It doesn't.' qualify is the right answer. Are you someone that was that close to Christie's inner thoughts that you could know such a thing? Sometimes it takes years of therapy to understand how one was abused. "

    I have a problem with Jerry accusing Geshe Michael of sexual abuse. I don't have a problem with Christie claiming that she was sexually abused. This is for her to decide and to report to the proper authorities, if need be.

  231. singing bowl says:

    Thank goodness. I for one would not want to be tried by a jury of peers from this forum.

  232. singing bowl says:

    Do you know the definition of subculture? DM is a subculture. I Heart Yoga is a subculture. America is a nation. It is a society.

  233. ekanthomason says:

    Jerry is filled with 'local color'.

    Do you really think his assertion related to sexual abuse and MR is more outrageous than mi thumb dpe saying Roach became a novice in 1975 but just didn't get to wear robes until 1983?

    Each of us has to sift through all of this and decide what makes sense to us until more proof comes forward. It is fine to question things but let's leave out the personal attacks. Okay?

  234. singing bowl says:

    Two adults + consent + student/teacher dynamic ≠ sexual abuse

  235. singing bowl says:

    What 'are' you looking for?

  236. Kevin says:

    Well, I didn't say I was looking for anything, just that I used the term I meant to use. To use your terms, can we say that GMR has engaged in "sexual misconduct"?

  237. corvid says:

    Thanks Ekan..i have not deleted anything and understand singingbowls anger.I once thought John Edwards was a good man .

  238. Kevin says:

    Your equation would depend upon the situation. I think a more workable equation would be:
    Two adults + consent + student/teacher dynamic (is not necessarily equal to) abuse. But "consent" is the qualifying factor in this equation.

  239. Kevin says:

    The definition of subculture would depend upon the over-arching defined culture.

  240. singing bowl says:

    OK. I 'do' think he conducted himself inappropriately.

  241. Kevin says:

    All right, we can agree on that

  242. Kevin says:

    Thanks Corvid, I just hadn't seen anything about no more 3 year retreats. Has anything been put in writing on this?

  243. singing bowl says:

    "Jerry is filled with 'local color'."

    Well, maybe I have been colorblind. I just don't get his style. For sure, he is not concerned with being politically correct. Maybe he could try to be just a little bit more sensitive?

  244. singing bowl says:

    Agree.

  245. corvid says:

    no Kevin but they see the writing in the wall.When i heard Scott thinks 3.3.3. are a bad idea it seemed like a done deal.The caretakers about had a group nervous breakdown this last year (bad working conditions over long time periods makes it rough going for some good people).The odd thing is Roach leaving the country and risking someone else losing it while he is elsewhere.The last big shindig up there they had a table with him and Christie pictures,flowers and offerings but nothing about Ian..the invisible man.

  246. ekanthomason says:

    Might not turn out so bad. I think they are warming up to you.

  247. singing bowl says:

    Well, when you put it that way, the world would be a subculture of the universe. But isn't "subculture" usually used when referring to a small homogenous group that has a set of shared values, beliefs, rituals, norms etc.? America is a large heterogeneous society with great variation, not really a subculture, as defined by Webster's.

  248. singing bowl says:

    Well, you seem nice and fair.

  249. Kevin says:

    Yes to all of that, subculture meaning "small homogenous group". In colloquial terms though it can also mean to stand against the norm and I saw no way in which my responses to you would be construed as in opposition to or forming a subset of discourse. Hence my ridiculous reply.

  250. Kevin says:

    Well I know that Scott has an excellent organizational mind, lots of experience in running businesses. Did you hear anything about the traditional 49 days of prayer and whether they were conducted for Ian or not?

  251. singing bowl says:

    You're funny, in a good way.

  252. Kevin says:

    Thanks

  253. Karen says:

    You couldn't possibly have known this, best stay low, but Ian's mother sometimes checks this forum.

  254. sky says:

    "Mi, Ben, cloverleaf, and Sky are on some mission… to set up a smoke screen and distract from that very topic?"

    Cool conspiracy theory, but no. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm just a former student who can see that there are MAJOR problems with MR and his teachings. I saw that there was a new article on the Tuscon Weekly, so popped back over here to see if there was anything else new – any other news on the retreatants specifically. And then I saw this thread with the newsletter.

    Am I really so out of line calling for some objectivity and compassion? There are legitimate issues at hand with MR, but that doesn't mean he isn't still a human being deserving of compassion. It's all about how we go at the issue. That's all.

  255. corvid says:

    Should he disrobe? let's start with an easy one…i think he should

  256. Jehne_Lunden says:

    I deleted my above comment because I felt I wrote it too hastily when I was feeling a bit angered by another post elsewhere. So sorry for any confusion.

  257. cloverleaf says:

    Sky, it's good to hear your voice here again. You were missed.

    There is no collusion going on. Some of us simply want fairness and decency.

  258. sky says:

    I think he should too.

    I think he should also be upfront about what exactly it is that he's teaching. It's his own thing that is based on certain Buddhist ideas. But it's not authentic Tibetan Buddhism in the Gelukpa tradition, so it shouldn't be presented as such. One of his closest students, Eric Brinkman, even said on this forum that what is being taught isn't standard Tibetan Buddhism in the Gelukpa tradition.

    There is a mixing of traditions going on, and that needs to be made clear from the getgo. It certainly created a lot of confusion for me personally, and I know it has for others as well.

  259. Kevin says:

    She's just asking MMD to answer the original question. Don't be rude.

  260. best stay low says:

    so he copied words out of one dead girls diary. he did not understand how or why she came to that point. Just above Jerry quotes Carney's 'professional observation': "She believed she was well along the road to transcendence". This 'conclusion' is horse pucky. Go back and reread Stella's posts from a few months ago. Carney is an 'objective observer', a 'journalist'. A full decade in India and he didn't learn shit. Oh, boy, Playboy! Is Christied gonna be the certerfold…..

  261. ekanthomason says:

    Are you addressing me with these comments best stay low?

    I have held the late 'girls' diary in my hands and read it for myself. I have no problem with what Scott has said. He was there. He has a right to his own informed opinion and he has a right to share it. It is impossible for a person to share all of the factors that go into coming to a conclusion. Give him a break.

    The article about the tragedy at Diamond Mountain will also be available on Scott's website for free so that you don't have to worry about disturbing your mind.

  262. best stay low says:

    ekan, peace….yes, to hold the journal….this is just the thing for a 'journalist', but, please, to be 'close to transcendence' is not to contemplate suicide…and then go through with it…..there is much confusion in this account and what I perceive to be ( in my humble opinion) a superficial conclusion. Walking around India barefoot is one thing, (I know people who have done it and come out beaming beautifully, others who have burned out pretty bad; each person and set of circumstances is different, unique); to kill oneself is another matter entirely. Jerry has speculated based upon some good circumstantial evidence that Christie and Ian may have subconciously desired just that. We don't know. Christie has not spoken, except (so I have read in one of these posts) to hold GMR culpable. Carney's approach indicates that he does not have the depth or reach to get much beyond regurgitating, however sympathetically, the incidents. We already know what happened. His 'outsider' perspective will not get to the root of this. I wish it were otherly. I'm not holding my breath.

  263. ekanthomason says:

    Peace
    Still I reserve judgement until I have read his article

  264. Corvid says:

    Scott has more of the details about how long they were in the cave but it sure wasn't for 2 months.I'm interesting in seeing the story too as I think Scott may have trouble getting away from the "hey no one held a gun to teir heads" theme the Roachistas push.If you guys ever have the chance to go up there you will laugh at the idea they had been living in the overhang for 2 months. To honor her husband she really needs to get off this Lama Christe crap and speak about the long journey from Photograpy student to coming face to face with death and choosing to live.A friend of Ian's flat out thinks she waited till he was dead to make the call.I don't share this belief but the thing I do know is if Michael Roach had behaved like a monk Ian would still be alive and she wouldn't be a basket case.

  265. Karen says:

    Thanks Zirconia.

Leave a Reply