Ekan, her housemate, and several people she described as having been "roughed up" during the initiation add up to more than one, Allison. Add Sid's experience at the Yamantaka initiation to the mix, and there would seem to be a recurring problem, no?

Your correction to #4 makes little difference to me. Now we have other reports of spiritualized violence, as per the Kali initiation. Within this context, a man was stabbed with a ritual knife. It would be irresponsible not to point out this connection.

I'm not sure how the Phoenix New Times checks its facts. But I and hundreds of others know that Roach has demonstrably lied about many things throughout his teaching career. The clearest most unarguable example is his claim of solitude during retreat #1, which I focused on above. The next most potent example is his always-shifting educational story. Everything that Roach writes and says must be filtered through this fact.

I earnestly believe that we both desire fair play. This is hard to actualize when we both carry emotional agendas, and working within the medium of opinion, but I think we're all trying.

It is not fair say I don't acknowledge the controversy over my usage of the word "cult". I wrote about 1000 words in the piece to examine the issue and justify my choice.

I never claimed that everyone experienced sexual abuse or violent scare tactics. In fact, I didn't raise the Kali initiation at all. Ekan Thomason did. Seems like some certainly did experience negative effects, and surely you would agree this is not acceptable.

I never claimed that everyone has had the DM teachings refuted.

As I go through your list, I have to say: you'll need to quote me directly next time for me to take the time to respond. You are putting words in my mouth.

How does your nuancing of #4 expunge the basic problem of the director of DM publicly spiritualizing violence? I understand that you feel McNally's intentions were good. The point is whether the environment was psychically safe. What have you to offer by way of reassurance?

#5 simply points out a contradiction between what Roach says and what the Phoenix New Times reports.

#6: can you find that for me? 200 comments later, I can't remember this.

As for the rest of your complaints: you can take them up with the commenters directly. I state clearly I'm simply quoting from the thread, and that nothing is substantiated. I clearly label the piece "reporting and opinion", and yes, I use what I read to support my thesis: there is dangerous dysfunction at DM, rooted in charisma and solipsism.

Perhaps you might write to EJ yourself and publish a rebuttal, consisting of your own reporting and opinion. Then you too can be in the authorial position for a while, and make your own choices about what to include or ignore. As the author of the piece, you won't strictly be presenting "dialogue". That's what this comment thread is for, and it's working well.

Allison: I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm transparent, not only about my identity, but about both my public concerns and my personal issues. If you look through my comment history you will see that there are several DM-support positions that I acknowledge with thanks: I have attempted civility throughout, and a lot of good discourse has been the result. Perhaps "disingenuous" is inaccurate to describe your snake-metaphor deflection. But I stand by the charge that the metaphor is a personal attack. I am not a snake.

I just read Ghostdancer's reply. I take exception to his/her brushing off concerns from the perspective of performance art. But I'm sure that different people had different experiences of the initiation. I'm also sure you don't want to suggest Ekan and Sid are lying. So somehow the fact that this event was psychologically disturbing to some has to be engaged, especially in light of the tragedy and its thematic overlap. I didn't mean to "suppress" a comment I hadn't read.

I'm sure you don't personally know how McNally rose to prominence. But as as defender of the group I think it would be a top priority of yours to find out. It is a key element with deep roots, and now, harsh consequences.

If the federal government grants an organization tax-exampt status for performing its public service, that public service is subject to public scrutiny, which is what is happening right here. Have you considered that the conduct of DM might in the future have an impact on the tax-exempt status of other Buddhist organizations? Have you considered the fact that non-DM US citizens are subsidizing DM?

Your last point has been supported by a few commenters but has been overwhelmingly refuted by about a dozen others, many of whom claim to be ordained in orthodox Gelukpa streams, and to be fluent in Tibetan culture and politics. They might be lying, of course. Which is why part of my drumbeat has been: we need more scrutiny, more study, more voices. Truth will emerge through the crowd, I believe.

Eric, thanks for your post here. The Board does indeed need to restore its credibility if as a publicly-recognized non-profit it has made non-democratic decisions that serve its founder more than its membership. Warren Clarke suggests that Board decisions are Roach-driven, and no-one has challenged this. It does need to restore credibility if it is being unduly influenced by someone who publicly dissembles and lies, for whatever reason. It does need to restore credibility if it acquiesced to the appointment of Ven Chandra alone as escort to the endangered couple. It does need to restore credibility if it was convinced that McNally was "an amazing meditator". Aren't you yourself simultaneously warning in other threads about the danger of assuming one knows the truth of someone else's internal states (motivations, adherence to vows, etc.)? How can anybody but McNally know what kind of meditator she is? The truth is that they can't, unless they are told as much by someone to whom they have given their authority.

I appreciate your concession that Roach and DM (and YSI and DCI, etc.) are now beyond the Gelukpa pale. How do you feel about the organization continuing to use this affiliation as the cornerstone of its marketing and cultural validation? In business terms, it looks like outright trademark infringement.

I thank you and Allison both for your concern. While angry about my past experience, I am resolved with it. I am very grateful in fact that it led me towards greater self-inquiry. Or really: self-and-other inquiry. It helped me undo both my fear of and fetish for authority. It helped me see the tyranny of the abstract over the phenomenological. It helped me treasure the interpersonal over the hierarchical. It helped me value community over charisma. It helped me face and befriend the despair that my longing for transcendence was concealing. It got my mind off of heaven, and put in on the dinner table. It helped me dissolve the delusional desire that somehow everything in the end should bend towards my benefit or my perfection. It helped me give up the narcissism of my particular brand of neurotic spiritual striving so that I could actually become an activist and engage directly.

I don't regret my anger, either, because I acknowledge it as a crucial part of what makes me whole. I am angry about those years, but I wouldn't trade them for anything.

Allison, thanks for posting.

Sid Johnson (a DM Board member from 1999 to 2005) wondered aloud very specifically why DM students were not responding to the revelations surrounding the Kali initiation, and the alleged spiritualized bullying that took place during that event. That was his challenge, and it still hasn't been answered. Why is his challenge important? Because a man was stabbed with a ritual knife and then died months later, within this spiritualized context. To suggest that those who are concerned about the meaning of this, not only to the remaining DM residents, but also to the broader community of seekers in general, are "snakes", is a disingenuous deflection.

Your ad hominem position (the hallmark of defensiveness) takes no time to address the primary issues: How did McNally rise to authority over not just the retreatants, but thousands of others throughout the world? How will the Board restore the credibility required of a 501(c)(3) organization? How will DM distinguish itself from a Tibetan culture that is clearly disowning it? These are not private complaints, coiled like snakes on your garden path. These are issues of shared concern.

You have no idea how I have spoken over the last decade. I have consistently in my public work spoken out directly and personally against Roach's solipsism and the toxicity of his charisma. You shouldn't blame me that it took a tragedy to drag my long-held and long-expressed view into a more public light.

What new information has been "not added to the dialogue?" Would that consist of information that all should accept without scrutiny?

What a great post, Abc. I have no doubt that the palette of colours is rich. For my part, despite my experience, the strong opinions it generates, and the time constraints of a breaking story, I had hoped to convey the nuanced intersections of personal longing, transcultural intrigue, psychosocial dynamics, and metaphysics. Ian's death is a tragedy easily given to sensationalism, but to me the real story is the context. It sounds like you have much to offer here, and I earnestly hope you do. Your brief paragraphs are not at all in vain. You and those you speak for will not be ignored. If from your point of view there is nothing left to protect it may not be worth the effort. But I would hope that you might in any case see the value of enriching the collective story with your experience. This, I believe, is what leads to lasting and shared intelligence.

One question though: you write about Ian as though he were an isolated and unreachable child. Does the Board bear no responsibility in your view for his eventual position in the hierarchy? This is the kind of claim of helplessness that doesn't seem to locate responsibility for the years of influence and countless decisions that lead to a "child" assuming such symbolic, if not overt, authority.

kelly: I didn't make a corollary, nor an analogy, nor did i say that devotion and myopia are synonyms. i proposed that devotion and myopia are easily colluded. meaning: each can be performed in place of the other.

thank you so much for your insight into the leadership politics. it makes it seem clear that the leadership flaws flowed downward from the top.

Kelly: can you rewrite this comment with a little more clarity? Beyond your irritated claims that I am "playing", I can't fully understand your position here.

Unless it's simply this: McNally's appointment was not unanimous. I don't see how this argues against the collusion of devotion and myopia. Softens it a bit, perhaps, but not substantially. It impugns the majority, even not everyone.

Kelly: what about open criticism of leadership? Doesn't the DM presentation of guru-yoga resist this in a debilitating way?

IH: I don't think it's off-topic at all. Hermeneutics is a strong concern here...