Author: Moonfire

Posted on

The Dalai Lama and the Empowerment of Students

His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s recent meeting with some survivors of abuse by Tibetan Buddhist lamas led to some articles emphasising that he had known about abuse in Tibetan Buddhism for decades. This led to a rise in anti-Dalai Lama sentiment, particularly the accusation that he should have done more to stop it. On fact value, that’s a reasonable reaction, but when we understand the reality of HH’s position within the Tibetan cultural and religious system, we see that in actual fact, in terms of Tibetan culture, that he has been very outspoken.
Tseten Samdup Chhoekyapa, a representative of HHDL in Europe, said during his European tour that the Dalai Lama “has consistently denounced such irresponsible and unethical behaviour”.
At the conference with Western Buddhist Teachers in Dharamsala in 1993, HHDL spoke quite clearly about the need to publically expose lamas who acted unethically. It was due to his responses on the matter then that the 8 close students of Sogyal Lakar wrote the letter exposing his abuses. The importance of HH’s words then cannot be overemphasised. Without them, that letter would never have been written. 
If you accuse the Dalai Lama of not doing more to counter the abuse, you need to understand that he bears the weight of cultural and religious expectations, such as supporting the building of temples, and that he actually has no power over the lamas; even in his own school of Tibetan Buddhism, he can only make suggestions. It is up to the lamas whether or not they pay attention to what he says. And that aside, as this post by Joanne Clark explains, there is more compassion and wisdom in the way he has handled the abuse issue than appears on the surface. 
Thanks Joanne for sharing your perspective.

The importance of empowering abuse survivors

The cause of abuse of all kinds, and particularly sexual abuse, is misuse of power. This fact is widely accepted amongst therapists. When I worked as a counselor for survivors of sexual abuse on a university campus in Massachusetts, we used the “Empowerment Method.” In this method of counseling, power that has been violently taken away from a survivor is given back. We don’t advise any survivor on their course of action. We give them options and information and support them in whatever choices of action they want to take. This—and providing safety—are the two essential tools we used as we sat beside survivors in the hospital or police station or received their calls in the middle of the night.
In this context, if one views the actions the Dalai Lama has taken over decades, they are all focused on empowering survivors and empowering students to prevent abuses. Yes, one could criticize him for not stepping in sooner and speaking out over what he had heard about Sogyal Lakhar’s abuses. However, this might simply have resulted in another big power figure taking charge of an already top-heavy situation—and further disempowered students. Instead, he waited for survivors themselves to make the move—and then spoke out in support of their actions.

Challenging power stuctures in Tibetan Buddhism

In fact, it has been now almost four decades since His Holiness first began challenging certain power structures within the institution of Tibetan Buddhist culture—specifically, the very power structures that have allowed abuses to occur. In a publication on Lamrim dated 1982, he stated clearly and categorically that the practice of seeing the guru as a perfect Buddha is a dangerous practice, particularly for beginners, and that it should not be emphasized. The reaction against these statements from within his own lineage was strong, with people claiming that His Holiness “did not understand Lamrim”.
Then in 1993, the Dalai Lama met with Western teachers to discuss problems within Western Tibetan Buddhism and dramatically added a caveat to an instruction that insured lamas of absolute power—the instruction to never criticize one’s Vajrayana lama. At this conference, he stated clearly and unequivocally that in order to stop harm, students may speak out, even if they are tantrically bound to a teacher. Further, he advised students to make abuses by lamas public, saying that this is the only way to stop them.

Support for speaking out

In the context of Tibetan culture, speaking publicly about someone’s harmful actions is an extreme measure. In the West, it is more commonplace—and the media is set up for it. By suggesting this as an approach towards stemming lama abuses, the Dalai Lama is skillfully navigating cultures and acting dramatically to empower Western students. He is handing Western students a powerful tool.
When the eight ex-Rigpa students wrote their letter of disclosure, they used the Dalai Lama’s instructions from 1993 as support for their actions. The response from most in the Tibetan Buddhist establishment has been either silence or to condemn the eight for this letter. Some have claimed that they are doomed to hell. One has claimed that they are possessed by demons. However, the Dalai Lama has spoken out in support of their actions. He is the only Tibetan Buddhist leader to speak out in support of the eight. (Mingyur Rinpoche’s Lions Roar article did not mention Sogyal by name.)
He is the only Tibetan Buddhist leader to even acknowledge that there is a serious problem of abuse within Western Tibetan Buddhist organizations—and he has spoken about this frequently and consistently in teachings and conferences over decades. All of his comments target the institutional power structures that have allowed abuse to occur and all have empowered survivors. He even spoke once in dramatic ways about toppling old Tibetan feudal systems and compared this situation to the French revolution.

Steps in reformation

In fact, much of his life has been devoted towards democratizing Tibetan culture and reforming institutional structures. He voluntarily relinquished his position as “god-king” of the Tibetan people in 2011, after years of initiating democratic reforms within the government. He has helped establish the Mind and Life Institute, which is devoted to seeking better understanding between contemplative practices and science. The result of this has been to challenge aspects of blind faith within Tibetan Buddhism, such as a belief in Mt. Meru as the center of a flat world and many other erroneous facts of cosmology in the Abhidharma. He has brought science into the monastic curriculum and consistently encouraged students to be ‘21st Century Buddhists” by being better educated and more discerning. Practices that promote blind faith over critical discernment are another means of dis-empowering students in ways that can lead to abuses. This is what he has worked to undermine.
In a text published this year, co-authored by Thubten Chodron, His Holiness writes candidly and realistically about the problems with abusive lamas in the West and in Taiwan. Throughout fifty pages devoted to the topic of reliance on a spiritual master, he suggests possible reforms, identifies specific problems and reiterates his call for Western and Taiwanese students themselves to take action and take their power. At one point, he suggests that the West could initiate a certification program for all who teach in the West.
Here is a quote from that text:

“Because students are new to Buddhism, they may have blind devotion and obedience to spiritual mentors. Hearing about the great merit gained from making offerings to spiritual mentors, they may give them many donations and gifts– things that someone living in India would not have. The teacher becomes spoiled by the gifts and esteem of the students and if he is not careful, this could lead to his taking advantage of well-meaning students.
“I have received many letters from people in other countries asking me to do something about this, but it is not in my control. Tibetan Buddhism is not organized like the Catholic Church with a pope and Vatican administration. I cannot make someone return to India or force him to stop wearing robes. When I teach, I give clear instructions about suitable behavior for teachers, both monastic and lay. If people do not listen to me then, it is doubtful that they will heed instructions from my office or the Department of Religious and Cultural Affairs…” (2018, The Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron, The foundation of Buddhist Practice, p. 119)

“Tibetan Buddhism is not organized like the Catholic Church with a pope and Vatican administration …” This is certainly now being demonstrated in the context of Rigpa’s current position. Rigpa leaders are not interested in hearing anything he has to say! After declaring years ago that His Holiness was one of his “principal teachers,” Sogyal Lakhar, with the full support of Rigpa management, is now acting as if His Holiness has no advice to give and is no part of his or the Rigpa landscape. Rigpa has now changed its mission from “Rime” to “ancient Nyingma.” It’s hard to imagine that if His Holiness had refused to attend the Lerab Ling inauguration ten years ago, that this would have changed anything either. It would have been a good political move perhaps—but not an effective one.

A precarious balance

At the same time in the text quoted above, His Holiness upholds traditional teachings on the preciousness of the student-guru relationship. For those who want to move forward out of abusive relations with a lama and remain within the Dharma itself, his perspective is hugely beneficial and empowering. Abuse within a spiritual domain has a twofold impact, one from the abuse itself and the other from the harm to one’s spiritual path. For many, being able to retain that spiritual path is important and empowering and very healing.
It is probably this precarious balance he is maintaining that causes people to criticize him for not doing more. He is deeply invested in the survival of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. That is clear. He sees the extraordinary, precious features of this tradition, established over centuries by brilliant scholars and realized yogis and is working tirelessly to preserve them. However, right now, the silence from leaders of all four lineages is palpable. It is clear that the Dalai Lama does not have the support of many Tibetan lamas in his advice on ending abuse. It appears that only Mingyur Rinpoche and Tsoknyi Rinpoche openly agree with him on whether students can speak out to stop harm. This also must be factored in, when we judge how His Holiness has chosen to act over the years. He is acutely aware that words from him are not going to move the dial very far in terms of changing lama behavior—while knowing that actions from students themselves have greater power in moving the dial in dramatic ways.

An ally

So I think we want to be careful and not forget that His Holiness is our ally. He wants the abuses to end certainly as much as we do and probably more. And he wants to help us heal. And I think that he has a lot to offer as advisor but not as power figure as we move forward towards safety in Western Dharma Centers. Truly, the ball is in our court now, we can take our power.
Thanks Joane. 
And now a post script from Tahlia.

A clarification of recent comments

A transcript I received of the exchange between reporter Nicole le Fever (NOS) and the Dalai Lama during the Meet & Greet in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam today (15 September 2018) says that HH said, “So, these people, they don’t care about Buddha’s teaching. So, now the only thing is: make public, these things. Then people may be concerned about their shame, their embarassment. So, I told, so yesterday also I mentioned, since many years ago I already mentioned that: ‘Now you make things clear, so very good, I don’t care.'”
The “I don’t care” means that if a lama abuses students and it is publicized, he doesn’t care that the information gets out and makes them look bad. He didn’t mean that he didn’t care about the situation. 
A good article on His Holiness’s position from a Tibetan Perspective is this one from the Tibetan Feminist Collective. http://www.tibetanfeministcollective.org/2018/09/18/dalai-lama-statements-refugee-abuse/

The next step

I have since heard that he is definitely placing abuse on the agenda for his meeting in Dharamsala in November with all the important religious leaders of Tibetan traditions. And in that interview with Nicole le Fever he told us what our next steps should be: “So at that time, you see, they should appeal, I suggested. So, I think the religious leaders, I think, should pay more attention, like that.”
So he feels that that is the time, during this meeting in November, for students to petition the lamas, that there they (the lamas) should pay more attention. I sure hope that someone is arranging to go there and speak to the lamas directly. Anyone? Anyone sending a letter to them all?

Current and previous students of Rigpa can participate in private discussion on this and other abuse-related topics on our What Now? Facebook Group. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from any Vajrayana sangha can join the Survivors of Vajrayana Abuse and Allies Facebook group for support. Click the link to request to join.
Anyone who has left a Buddhist sangha that had an abusive teacher can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group. The focus in this group is not on the abuse, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page, which posts links to related articles as they come to hand.

 
 

Posted on

Can You Still Take Sogyal as Your teacher?

It’s okay to leave

Many lamas have said that if you discover, even after making a commitment to them, that a lama is not who you thought they were, or if they are not good for you, or if the relationship has broken down for whatever reason, then one can walk away from one’s vajra master without an issue with samaya, so long as one retains respect for the good one gained from the relationship.

And HH Dalai Lama said in Dharamsala 1993, “If you have already taken tantric initiations from them [a guru], you should not develop disrespect or antipathy. In such cases, the Kalachakra Tantra advises us to maintain a neutral attitude and not pursue the relationship any further.”
Chokyi Ngyima Rinpoche told a friend of mine, “If you can no longer see your tantric guru as a Buddha, then you should leave quietly.”

The usual advice is to leave quietly, but both His Holiness Dalai lama and Mingyur Rinpoche have said that when serious abuse has occured if a teacher does not respond to private requests for the behaviour to stop – as is the case with Sogyal – then it is necessary to make the abuses public in order to protect others and the purity of the dharma.

Motivation is the key: speaking out of hatred or desire for revenge is wrong. However, if we know that by not speaking out, their negative behavior will continue and will harm the Buddhadharma, and we still remain silent, that is wrong.” HH Dalai Lama. Dharamsala 1993.

That’s why people have spoken out publically or have spoken to Karen Baxter as part of the independent investigation into the allegations raised in the Letter to Sogyal Lakar 14-07-2017

A master of serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse

The results of the independant investigation confirmed that the behaviours outlined in that letter are true:

Based on the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities: a. some students of Sogyal Lakar (who were part of the ‘inner circle’, as described later in this report) have been subjected to serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse by him;

Karen Baxter in the Lewis Silkin report  details  widespread evidence that members of Sogyal’s inner circle – who catered to his every need, including providing massages as he fell asleep – were subjected to repeated acts of brutal violence. The lama’s wooden backscratcher was a favoured method for beating people, as was punching them in the stomach. Baxter says she has been provided with evidence of one individual being knocked unconscious, others being left bleeding and concussed.

She also outlines “significant” first-hand evidence of young women being coerced, manipulated and intimidated into providing sexual favours. One witness, a teenager who arrived at a Rigpa retreat seeking respite from depression and self-harm, was asked to strip a week after coming to work in the lama kitchen. When she refused, she alleges, she was beaten and then later forced into sex.
If you are a student of Sogyal Rinpoche and haven’t read the full report, you need to. Until you do, you have not fully investigated your teacher.
And you need to try to understand the depth of the harm that Sogyal caused, that the harm was not only in the event that caused the trauma, but also in the resulting Post Traumatic Stress that plagues survivors for decades (if not their whole life) afterwards.
Rigpa communications pay lip service to compassion, but their actions show no real compassion towards survivors of Sogyal Rinpoche’s abuse and no understanding of the long-term results of the trauma they experienced. Research Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the dynamics and results of domestic abuse, and you might start to understand the depth of the harm, and begin to see just how sick the Rigpa culture is in the inner circle. The trauma is similar to that experienced by children with an abusive family. And what you read in the report is only the tip of the iceburg.

Now that you know the truth, can you still take him as your teacher?

So, with that in mind, how can anyone possibly still take Sogyal as their teacher now? I think we can try to rationalize staying faithful with all sorts of philosophy, but it’s likely to be be the same philosophy that allowed it all to happen in the first place – the Rigpa-speak party line of crazy wisdom, pure perception and devotion all slightly skewed to enable the abuse. That’s what we were fed, after all, and it’s what we’ll still believe unless we’ve examined those beliefs in light of what happened and seen how they were used to manipulate, control and silence us.

If you’re trying to hold onto your belief in Sogyal’s worth as a teacher, then ask yourself why, against all evidence to the contrary?
You may have had only good interactions with him yourself, but does that make up for the serious harm he caused others? No it does not, just as in the Jimmy Saville case. No one would say that the good that he did makes up for the harm he caused.
Over the last year I have heard many more stories such as those in the report. This didn’t happen to only a few people, and a lot of people are too scared to speak out. Some are too scared to even consider that they were abused in the name of training. The long-term results of that denial is not good for their mental health. If you’re having flashbacks to your ‘training’, particularly ones associated with a feeling of fear or anxiety in your body, then you have been traumatised, and your mental gymnastics to tell yourself that it was love, not abuse, is the result of the brainwashing you were subjected to that made you ‘take’ it and see people ‘taking it’ without complaint. Listen to your body, not your mind on this, and if you are unsure if what you experienced was abuse or love, then don’t talk to someone in Rigpa (because they’ll pretend to be open but their agenda is likely to be  to try to convince you it was love), find a councilor from outside and have a chat.
Fear is not a good motivation for remaining with a teacher – fear of hell, of being shuned or shamed, of losing one’s practice and so on – but you can leave without breaking samaya. You just say thank you for the good you brought me, but my trust in you is now broken, so I must move on. And there are other lamas who you can go to so your practice need not suffer if you’re afraid of it falling apart. Just substitute one lama for the other. After all, the focus of our practice was supposed to be Guru Rinpoche, the embodiment of the love and compassion of all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
I handle this situation by thinking – he was my teacher and I gained much from my relationship with him. I’ll always be grateful for that, but now he is no longer my teacher. I could not possibly take him as my teacher now that I know what I know. He is, as HHDL says, “Disgraced.”

Were the teachings as pure as we thought?

Now I believe that his teachings on devotion and pure perception, though not incorrect, were subtly distorted in order to set himself up at the centre of our spiritual life, to make us dependent on him, and to make his inner circle his virtual slaves, just as in any personality cult. I doubt this was intentional; it is, however, what happened.
It’s hard to accept that you were, or are, in a cult, but after studying what characterises a cult, and seeing how Rigpa management persists in using cult tactics for manipulation of student’s perceptions, I can come to no other conclusion. Once I accepted that, I found the literature on recovering from a cult very helpful. Here on the blog, we looked at some of the key beliefs we were taught and saw how they had been used to manipulate and control us, and to give Sogyal permission to behave as he liked. Once you see that, there is no going back.

The yes-or-no question

But whether or not you want to use the cult word, and whether or not you want to stay and try to help Rigpa reform, you still have to ask yourself: Is this a man I can follow as my spiritual teacher now? And the answer to that for this moment in time has to be yes or no.
For so long as you avoid asking yourself that question, and for so long as you avoid making a decision, you will be in a state of confusion, and your spiritual life will suffer. So I encourage you to decide. Can you still take Sogyal as your teacher now that you know what he is really like?

Current and previous students of Rigpa can participate in private discussion on this and other abuse-related topics on our What Now? Facebook Group. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from any Vajrayana sangha can join the Survivors of Vajrayana Abuse and Allies Facebook group for support. Click the link to request to join.
Anyone who has left a Buddhist sangha that had an abusive teacher can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group. The focus in this group is not on the abuse, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page, which posts links to related articles as they come to hand.
Posted on

Hollow words? An Analysis of Rigpa's Statement on the Results of the Independent Investigation

Rigpa’s response to the Lewis Silkin report on the results of the independent investigation shows a continuation of their methods of operation to date. Once again we see the kind of response given by expensive PR firms and sneaky lawyers, words that appear to say the right things and appear to tell us what we want to hear – and many will read it at face value and go away content (which is what they want) – but what does it actually say? Or not say?
The words of the report are in the quote boxes. The analysis follows each section.

5 September 2018
We acknowledge the gravity of the independent report that Rigpa commissioned last year following allegations of misconduct by Rigpa’s Founder and former Spiritual Director Sogyal Rinpoche, and thank the investigator and the witnesses.

This does not say that Rigpa accepts the findings of the report.  This does not say that Rigpa thinks Sogyal Rinpoche or anyone in Rigpa has done anything wrong, even though the Report clearly concludes that there has been “serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse” by Sogyal Rinpoche and misconduct by Senior Rigpa Individuals “who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk.”

We feel deeply sorry and apologise for the hurt experienced by past and present members of the Rigpa community. We are contemplating on our role as an organisation, and how we may have contributed to this situation. We will do everything we can to reach out to, and support everyone who has been affected, and take full responsibility for ensuring that Rigpa provides a safe environment for all. These are our heartfelt commitments.

This does not say that Rigpa accepts that Sogyal Rinpoche or anyone in Rigpa has actually harmed anyone, despite the conclusions of the Report and the evidence presented there.  They still only apologise for hurt “experienced” not for the hurt they and Sogyal caused.  The inclusion of the word “experience”  also reminds cult members of the subjective nature of the victims’ perception, something that reinforces the Rigpa ‘party line’ that the problem is with the victim, not with the perpetrator.
And they do not commit Rigpa to anything specific, instead they use the same vague soothing language they are so well known for – “reach out to”, “support”, “safe environment,” “heartfelt” – and they are only “contemplating on” their role, not admiting that they actually did have a role in the harm, and neither are they taking any actual responsiblity for it.
The only thing they are taking responsibility for is “ensuring that Rigpa provides a safe environment for all.” I seem to remember hearing something similar to this kind of committment from them in the past, all while the abuse continued. They will point to their code of conduct as one way they’re doing that, but there are serious loopholes in that code.
Their use of the words “taking responsibility” might lead people to think that they’re taking some responsiblity for the harm, but if you read carefully, you’ll see that they’re not.

The findings in the report will affect many people. It will take time for all of us to reflect on the report’s contents.

They have had the report since August 22nd and we have been told, via Rigpa streaming, that 30 individuals have been involved in developing this response. How much time do they need to come up with something more specific than this?

Rigpa commits to act upon the report’s recommendations. We will move forward in consultation with our community.

This is a key paragraph.  It does not commit Rigpa to implementing any of the recommendations in the report, although it gives that appearance. They commit only to “acting upon” the recommedations; they do not committ to implementing them. Acting upon can be as vague as considering whether or not they will actually implement them.

In the face of the allegations, last year Sogyal Rinpoche retired definitively as Spiritual Director of Rigpa, and now has no organisational role in Rigpa.

Sogyal Rinpoche’s main role in Rigpa is not and never has been “organisational”.  He resigned only as spiritual director. He has not resigned from his position as the community’s guru and has stated himself that he is still their teacher. He gave a teaching on devotion to the Dzogchen Mandala retreat recently, and has been giving “messages” to the sangha at all the retreats held since his stepping down as spiritual director.
Why use the word “definitively”? It’s completely unecessary. He has either retired or he hasn’t. The only reason why this word, which unecessarily emphasises the fact of his retirement, would be included is to make the reader think that this is the separation suggested in point 2 of the report recommendations – “Rigpa should take steps to disassociate itself from Sogyal Lakar as fully as is possible.”
Full dissociation is not him retiring, it’s Rigpa no longer taking him as their teacher. It’s them denouncing his behaviour and ceasing using his teachings as the core of their programs. It certainly isn’t having him give a streamed teaching to a retreat.

Rigpa has already undertaken a number of significant steps in the last twelve months:

  • A new Vision Board was appointed, guided by spiritual advisors, and Rigpa boards have agreed a new decision-making and governance structure;

The Vision Board was appointed in consultation with teachers, Khenpo Namdrol and Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche, who have made it clear that they think Rigpa students who have spoken out are samaya breakers and possessed by demonic forces. The Vision Board was then approved by Sogyal Rinpoche himself.  It is contains students who knew about and enabled the abuse. It should be disbanded.

  • Our community has taken part in an international process to put in place a strong Code of Conduct published in June 2018. We have also just completed our grievance procedure, that includes an independent Grievance Council of senior western Buddhist teachers that will receive complaints brought by Rigpa members and the public;

The Code of Conduct is weak. Amongst other things, it allows sexual relationships between teachers and students and makes vague reference to a different unspecified code for Vajrayana and Dzogchen students which students will have to agree to if they want teachings at this level.  No grievance procedure has been published.

  • And we set up this independent investigation for complainants to come forward, and be listened to in an open, impartial and sensitive way.

Rigpa was forced to set up the investigation due to the seriousness of the complaints.  It was also forced to agree to make it public because witnesses refused to participate otherwise.  This was not a voluntary Rigpa initiative, and yet they list it as if it were an achievement on their part.

We are committed to continuing the process of healing, reconciliation and change. To acknowledge the importance of this process of healing and change, senior members of management are stepping down from their positions of governance.

This is another key paragraph.  It only refers to positions of governance.  Senior Rigpa Individuals identified in the report as having been, “aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk”, have many roles in Rigpa, not just governance.  Rigpa received this report on August 22nd.  Witnesses P, N and O should have been removed from all their positions, or at the very least suspended, on August 23rd, at the latest. That is what would have happened in any properly run organisation.
Again it is vague. Who are these senior members of management? What positions are they stepping down from? And what ones will they retain?
Update from Sangha connection newsletter sent out 30 mins ago:
“Patrick, Philip and Dominique will no longer hold any position of governance in any Rigpa entity by the end of November. Patrick and Philip will also step down from the Vision Board. The next elections of the Chapter of the Lerab Ling Congregation are scheduled for November this year. Dominique Side has decided to retire as Superior of the Congregation so she will not be a candidate in these elections.
These steps will come into full effect by the end of November, 2018. All three remain committed to supporting the sangha and Rigpa’s vision in whatever way may be appropriate and helpful.
Patrick sent the following message to share with the sangha:
“I have read the report of the independent investigation and I am deeply troubled by its findings. I feel a real and genuine concern for anyone who feels hurt or damaged by their experience in Rigpa. For the last forty years, I have tried my hardest to serve the Rigpa community responsibly and with integrity, and the best interests of the Sangha and Rigpa’s work have always been foremost in my heart. I have done my best to help support anyone experiencing difficulties or problems of any kind. If there have been any failings on my part to understand the nature of complaints that were made, or to listen or to act, I am truly sorry… ” and there is more.
These three are not the only people that should be stepping down, however.
Now back to the statement:

Rigpa’s goal has always been, and continues to be, to offer a complete spiritual path, to invite many teachers, especially from the “Ancient” Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, and to offer the Buddhist teachings of meditation, compassion and wisdom to the modern world.

If Rigpa had addressed the problems, laid out clearly and forensically in this excellent Report, when issues were first brought to Senior Rigpa Individuals’ attention, as described in some detail in the Report, then Rigpa would still be in a position to achieve this goal.  Due to not addressing these problems in the past, Rigpa now has to consider, as stated in the Report’s recommendations, if it will be “possible for the organisation to move past these events and operate sustainably and successfully in the future.”
It may not be possible. Particulary when we have a conflict of values between this “Ancient” fuedal tradition and the modern world. Do they really think that reverting to a fuedal system of masters and slaves that we gave up in the West centuries ago is what’s best for the modern world?
Finally, the statement is from the “Vision Board, Rigpa Boards, and the boards of Lerab Ling and Dzogchen Beara.”  If any of you still trust the members of these boards to tell you the truth, to act with integrity, or to have your best interests at heart, remember this: these boards still include individuals who were identified in the Report as “senior individuals within Rigpa who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk.”

Current and previous students of Rigpa can participate in private discussion on this and other related topics on our What Now? Facebook Group. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
Anyone who has left a Buddhist sangha that had an abusive teacher can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group. The focus in this group is not on the abuse, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page, which posts links to related articles as they come to hand.

Posted on

Lewis Silkin Report Released.

The results of the Lewis Silkin investigation into the abusive behaviour outlined in the letter to Sogyal Rinpoche written by 8 students in July 2017 was released a short time ago.
You can download the 50 page Lewis Silkin report here  and you can find the French translation on the Rigpa website along with the introductory part, including the Executive Summary and Recommendations,  in German,  Spanish, and Italian.
Please note that the full report might be distressing to some people as it addresses serious issues including violence and sexual misconduct. Those traumatised by such abusive behaviour may find some of the content retraumatising.
I would like to express, on behalf of all interested parties, our deep gratitude to everyone who has spoken out about the abuses and in particular to those who spoke to Karen Baxter and helped her to make a report that reflects the truth.
May this report be a catalyst for genuine progress in removing abuse and the acceptance of abuse not only from Rigpa but also from Tibetan Buddhism as a whole.
Here are just the Executive Summary and Recommendation part of the report for your quick perusal.

Executive Summary

Whilst I have seen evidence that many people feel that they have benefitted greatly from having Sogyal Lakar as their teacher, individual experiences are very different. There are varying degrees of closeness to Sogyal Lakar, with the closest relationships regularly referred to as the “inner circle”. The experiences of some of the members of the inner circle are very different from the experiences of many of those who are less close.
Not all of the allegations against Sogyal Lakar are upheld, as explained in the body of the report below, but based on the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities:
a. some students of Sogyal Lakar (who were part of the ‘inner circle’, as described later in this report) have been subjected to serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse by him; and
b. there were senior individuals within Rigpa who were aware of at least some of these issues and failed to address them, leaving others at risk.”

A number of serious concerns arise out of my findings which, in my opinion, must be addressed. Recommendations and proposed action points are set out at the conclusion of this report.

Recommendations

I have been asked to set out any recommendations that I have for change within Rigpa as a result of my findings. My practical recommendations are set out below. Should they be accepted, there will be detailed work to be done in implementing the recommendations across the Rigpa organisation, which operates in a number of different territories. It will be necessary in a number of respects to take into account local laws, regulations and guidance in each such territory as well as having regard to the legal personality and governance structure through which Rigpa operates in each territory.
There are also a number of matters which may require further investigation before the Rigpa leadership is able to reach final decisions in relation to this overall matter. The possibility of such further investigations is referred to at various points above.
Before moving to implement the recommendations below, my view is that the leadership of Rigpa should consider first the overall effect of these findings on its mission and work as an organisation. In the United Kingdom, for example, the trustees would need to consider whether the findings of the report, the resources required to act on the recommendations and the degree to which the work and profile of Rigpa has in the past been closely associated with the persona of Sogyal Lakar, make it possible for the organisation to move past these events and operate sustainably and successfully in the future. Appropriate advice should be taken on this and it should be noted that in raising this issue for the trustees I do not seek to guide their decision either way, such guidance being outside the scope of my investigation and remit.
Assuming that the Rigpa leadership concludes that the appropriate overall course is to put in place structures and procedures to ensure that its work as an organisation can continue in the future without the risk of harm, I recommend the following:
1. Sogyal Lakar should not take part in any future event organised by Rigpa or otherwise have contact with its students;
2. Rigpa should take steps to disassociate itself from Sogyal Lakar as fully as is possible (having regard to any legal arrangements which may for the time being connect the organisation with him);
3. Rigpa leadership in each country (being the trustees or equivalent) and the Vision Board should, as necessary, be refreshed in order to ensure that;
a. its members are unconnected with the harmful events referred to in this report and so can credibly lead the programme of changes required;
b. its members are all publically committed to the concept that abuse will not be tolerated by anyone, or against anyone, within Rigpa (including teachers); and
c. wherever possible, the leadership should include some members who are unconnected with the student body, for example lay trustees as such would be recognised in the United Kingdom.
4. Professional management should be appointed at each major Rigpa centre. Wherever possible, the management team should include some members who are not part of the student body. Care should be taken to ensure that all members of management are able to perform their responsibilities and are not inhibited in doing so, for example, as a consequence of considering themselves bound to demonstrate ‘unwavering respect’ towards the guru.
5. An appropriate risk assessment addressing the whole range of the organisation’s activities should be conducted and regularly refreshed. The risk assessment should specifically address teaching practices which are, or have been, associated with the Dzogchen Mandala – careful, well guided judgments will need to be made on the future use of such practices in the organisation’s work. For the avoidance of doubt any practice amounting to abuse of a student should never be tolerated.
6. A comprehensive and written safeguarding policy should be put in place to ensure that:
a. sexual relationships between teachers and students are either prohibited entirely, or subject to specific safeguarding measures to ensure there can be no abuse of power;
b. any ‘lama care’ that is deemed to be necessary is carried out in a way which ensures the health and safety of those providing these services is adequately protected;
c. mechanisms for the confidential reporting of concerns are clear and can be easily found by those with concerns;
d. reports of any incidents and allegations are recorded and stored in a secure and proper way;
e. incidents and allegations are promptly investigated in accordance with the policy with appropriate follow up action taken;
f. consideration is given to reporting serious incidents to relevant law enforcement authorities and/or regulators; and
g. the management and leadership of each Rigpa entity is aware of and properly trained in its responsibilities.
7. An abuse helpline outside of Rigpa should be set up, in addition to the internal reporting mechanisms made available.
8. To the extent that it has not done so already, Rigpa should review its fundraising activities to ensure that these are compliant with local laws and regulations. This review should specifically include contexts in which Rigpa events such as retreats may be used as an opportunity for third parties such as external speakers to raise funds for other causes and/or invite gratuity payments on their own behalf. There should be absolute clarity on the proper uses of all such funds.
9. A clear approach to the engagement of speakers and teachers should be established which ensures that they are aware of relevant policies, including the safeguarding and fundraising policies, before having contact with students.
10. So far as is consistent with the wider financial responsibilities of Rigpa, a fund should be created to provide professional counselling to those affected by abuse.
11. An appropriate programme of communications related to the above steps should be undertaken with the letter writers, students and the wider Rigpa community. In addition to a first communication setting out Rigpa’s commitment to a safe and secure environment for all students and the steps to be taken in achieving that, regular updates should be given until the programme of changes has been completed.
12. Rigpa’s leadership should consider (taking further advice as necessary) the extent to which it is obliged to report any of the matters set out in this report to law enforcement authorities or relevant regulators in each applicable jurisdiction.

 

Karen Baxter, Partner, Lewis Silkin LLP
22 August 2018

Rigpa’s Response?

Click here to read the statement_from_Rigpa on the results of the independent investigation
Unfortunately there is no indication in this statement that Rigpa is taking a different approach to the one they have taken over the last year. The language is the same as what we’ve heard before and of as little substance. They do say that ‘Rigpa commits to act upon the report’s recommendations,’ but what they mean by that remains to be seen. Excuse my cynicism, but I have good reason for it since saying one thing and doing another and outright lying  is something we’re all familiar with from Rigpa management.  So far their words of healing and reconciliation have only extended to those still in the organisation. The only new thing is  this ‘To acknowledge the importance of this process of healing and change, senior members of management are stepping down from their positions of governance.’  We are not given names, however. Why so vague when they have had 14 days with the report already? Plenty of time to work out who has to leave in order to follow the report’s recommendations.

Looking to the future – a message for Rigpa management

Here is an opportunity for Rigpa to truly make a fresh start. Come on my vajra family, you can do it! Find the courage of a true bodhisattva and work for the dharma, the true wisdom and compassion in Tibetan Buddhism, not the religious power structures that faciliate this kind of abuse; clean it up, remove the fuedalism and acceptance of abuse that stains the tradition so it can benefit countless future generations.
Stop acting merely to protect your status, your financial and time investment, your organisation, your religion, and your disgraced teacher. Be bigger than that; see further. And to do that you will have to stop listening to fundamentalist lamas cast in the same mould as Sogyal. Accept that the lineage is not as pure as you think it is and that the beliefs that faciliated this acceptance of abuse have no place in the modern world. Be willing to leave them behind for they cause more harm than good.
Instead show that you understand the real point of the dharma by using your own intelligence and connecting with your own deep wisdom and compassion, and give us more than vague, sweet-sounding words that you seem unable to live up to.
This is your challenge. It was always your challenge. You have failed to grasp it so far. But you can do it now if you can muster up the vision.

 
Current and previous students of Rigpa can participate in private discussion on this and other related topics on our What Now? Facebook Group. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
Anyone who has left a Buddhist sangha that had an abusive teacher can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group. The focus in this group is not on the abuse, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page, which posts links to related articles as they come to hand.

Posted on

SOGYAL RINPOCHE & THE JIMMY SAVILLE PROBLEM

This week we have another guest post by Jo Green. The two key questions are ones that I’ve heard asked many times by people unwilling to accept that Sogyal did actually abuse his students. This post shows just how possible it is for evil to lurk below an apparently benefical exterior.
TWO KEY QUESTIONS
“He brought so much benefit to so many people – how could he be a bad person?”
“If the allegations are true, how come nothing been proved in court?”
I have seen these two questions and variations upon them asked almost daily since last year’s revelations exposed the extent of abuse by Sogyal Rinpoche. They are asked by those who seek to protect his reputation at all costs, but they are also asked by a large number of people who are sincerely trying to make sense of the dissonance between their personal experiences and the accounts they’ve heard.
That’s why I thought it would be useful to tell the story of another person who certainly brought benefit to many people and whose reputation was never challenged in court, yet – if justice had been done – should probably have spent most of his life in jail. I think it may shed a lot of light on those two questions.
 
THE GREAT PHILANTHROPIST
Although he’s not much known outside the UK, there probably isn’t an adult in Britain who doesn’t know who Jimmy Savile was. Whether you thought he was great or he drove you crazy, everybody was familiar with his tracksuits, bling, cigars, Tarzan impressions and catchphrases. He said that he played the clown in public so that he felt accessible to everybody, but he was highly intelligent.
At the time of his death in October 2011 at the age of 84, he had long been SIR Jimmy Savile and the newspaper obituaries spoke with one voice: “Disc jockey, television presenter and tireless fundraiser for charity”, “Flamboyant disc jockey with a flair for good works”, “Exuberant disc jockey and TV personality who harnessed his cigar-chomping public persona to raise millions of pounds for charity” and so on. It was estimated he had raised up to £40m for good causes, as well as giving away a considerable slice of his personal income.
From a humble background, he went on to present the very first edition of the legendary Top of the Pops on the BBC in 1964 and would be there to present the last in 2006, with endless appearances in between, plus regular slots on Radio 1. At Saturday tea times, his show Jim’ll Fix It was the nation’s family viewing. In this programme, viewers wrote in – usually children – and asked him to help their dreams come true: be it meeting their sporting hero or eating lunch on a rollercoaster. This he did, across hundreds of editions over 18 years.
But Savile chose to do something truly remarkable with his fame and fortune: he used it as leverage to generate money and attention for a variety of charitable causes, working ceaselessly to fundraise for them. During the war he was sent down the mines, where he sustained a spinal injury, requiring a long period of recuperation. In recognition of this, he dedicated special effort to supporting the spinal injuries unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, bringing many millions to them over the years, helping to turn it into a world-class institution. But he also did epic charity bike rides and ran marathons in aid of many charities.
He volunteered at Leeds General Hospital and at Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital. Such was the frequency of his visits to both institutions that he had his own room to stay in. He was eventually made a junior health minister under Margaret Thatcher, appointed to head a task force to oversee the management of Broadmoor hospital after its board was suspended.
He was a friend of Prince Charles. Margaret Thatcher got him knighted by the Queen in 1990 and that same year, as a lifelong Catholic, he was given a Papal Knighthood by Pope John Paul II. These last two events were widely regarded as closing the book on the rumours there had been about him, since people are thoroughly vetted before receiving such honours. But rumours there were.
 
RUMOURS BECOME FACT
When a well-respected journalist, Lynn Barber, dared to tell Savile that “What people say is that you like little girls,” even after his knighthood, she was widely criticised. Savile answered the claim expertly and it rested there. A decade later, Louis Theroux – an interviewer specialising in difficult subjects, who made My Scientology Movie – spent a long time filming with Savile and brought up the same questions, but found no evidence of wrongdoing. He continued to meet with Savile over the years and later acknowledged to Savile’s victims how completely he had been hoodwinked. Because victims there were. Many.
A year after Savile’s death, ITV broadcast “The Other Side of Jimmy Savile” which, for the first time, aired accounts from women who said they had been abused by him. A police investigation started the very next day. Ten weeks later they revealed the extent of the allegations they had received:
450 victims had contacted them. They had identified 199 crimes in 17 police force areas, including 31 allegations of rape. 82% of those to come forward were female, 80% had been children or young people at the time of the incidents. Staff at Broadmoor claimed he had engaged in necrophiliac acts with corpses in the mortuary.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary later concluded that 214 of these complaints would have been criminal offences, had they been reported at the time. Sixteen victims reported being raped by Savile when under the age of consent, another ten when over 16. Four of these victims had been under the age of ten at the time. It’s thought his oldest abuse victim was 75.
There had already been reports to the police over the years and there had been many issues raised by people who worked alongside him in hospitals or in the media. All the signs had been there, with alarm bells having been rung at various significant moments, right back to the 1960s. An independent report for the BBC listed five significant times they had missed opportunities to identify and stop the abuse. But none of these individually had seemed a strong enough basis on which to take any action. Then there was the high esteem Savile was held in publicly – what is referred to as the “halo” effect. And then there was the potential loss of income to charities if accusations came out – the “benefit” Savile brought.
 
THE VALUE OF “BENEFIT”
People talk a lot about “the benefit Sogyal Rinpoche has brought to sentient beings”. Some might point to the fact that he introduced people to meditation and the nature of mind, whereas Savile was just an entertainer. But imagine for a moment you had lost the use of your legs in an accident and were in Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Would you be happier to hear the doctor tell you:
“We’re able to give you a treatment to help you walk again.”
Or “Sogyal Rinpoche is coming to visit you to introduce you to the nature of mind.”?
The benefit Sogyal Rinpoche has brought to the Dharma is highly debatable. Whatever he may have done to get people interested in Buddhism is now being radically undone because of his behaviour. I have recently spoken to many people who have been completely put off Buddhism by hearing these things and concluding that in the end it seems as abusive as any other religion.
Neither Sogyal nor Rigpa have shown much interest in helping any cause outside of the world of Tibetan Buddhism. True, they make some donations for the lives of animals to be spared. Then Sogyal orders another steak. So, in the practical or financial sense, there’s not much benefit to the world at large.
By contrast, the benefit Jimmy Savile brought is quantifiable: thousands of people helped in many practical ways, down the years – people healed, lives saved. By contrast, Sogyal founded his fame on talking about dealing with illness and death but was far more reluctant to set foot in a hospital. Of course, had Jimmy Savile been arrested and imprisoned for his abusive behaviour back in the 1960s, those institutions might not have received that benefit. So, are we to conclude that it was a good thing he went to his grave without ever being caught?
I don’t believe there is a charity or hospital out there that would consider child abuse or rape an acceptable price to pay for some extra funds. Most of the recipients of Savile’s help could surely have found financial support through other means, just as most Rigpa students could have been introduced to Buddhist ideas by a teacher that did not abuse a significant minority of his students. One could argue that without Savile, Stoke Mandeville would not be what it is today, just as without Sogyal Rinpoche there would be no beautiful Buddhist temple at Lerab Ling. So, are these structures worth a lifetime of suffering for the victims of abuse? Does that somehow make it OK? I hope nobody reading this thinks so.
 
THE HALO EFFECT
Jimmy Savile was a popular public figure and had dealings with thousands of people. To most, he was a comical, eccentric celebrity. Those he abused were just a very small percentage. Far more people got some kind of benefit by being associated with him. Most people attending teachings from Sogyal in that temple or at Rigpa centres would come to no harm whatsoever and might well come away feeling they had learnt something important. But many of those who found themselves alone with the teacher or the celebrity were having an entirely different experience – experiences that would leave them traumatised.
If the Queen or the Pope or the Dalai Lama or Richard Gere appears to endorse you, then it can be very, very hard for victims to be believed when they speak up and recount experiences that don’t fit with the public image at all. And if nobody joins all the dots between a multitude of acts occurring at different times in different places, then a skilful perpetrator can appear completely untouchable.
 
THE CHALLENGE OF JUSTICE
Most people who have been abused have little or no motivation to be retraumatised by the process of police interrogation and being publicly exposed in a courtroom. It takes a very brave person to do that, and the minimum they need is a sense they will be believed and that others will rally around them. When each victim feels isolated and disbelieved they also feel powerless to go up against figures who stand as tall as a Sogyal Rinpoche or a Jimmy Savile. So, it is entirely possible for there to exist hundreds of victims and crimes, and yet there not be a single court challenge.
Of course, I am not for one moment suggesting that Sogyal Rinpoche did the same things as Jimmy Savile, but it must be stressed that we currently do not know the full extent of what Sogyal did. In the Savile case we see that rumours swirling for decades and occasional instances of people raising concerns or reporting incidents proved indicative of an almost unimaginably large catalogue of crimes. We do not know if this may prove to be the case with Sogyal Rinpoche as well.
Those people who worked closely with Savile for long periods of time seemed to simply refuse to believe what they heard or, sometimes, the evidence of their own eyes. There seem to be a number in the Rigpa leadership who are still doing the same. In a few days’ time, if the report of the investigation by Lewis Silkin paints an honest picture, then one of the things it is likely to conclude is that what we know so far is only scratching the surface and there is much more yet to be revealed.

Private discussion on this and other related topics can be had on our  What Now Facebook Group. It is only for current and previous students of Rigpa, however, and we do moderate it closely. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from other sanghas can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group . It’s a support group for anyone who has left their Buddhist sangha after hearing revelations of abuse by their teacher or after experiencing such abuse. It’s for people who see ethical behaviour, love, compassion and introspection as the core of their spiritual path. The focus is not on the abuses, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience of spiritual abuse and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page, which posts links to related articles as they come to hand.

Posted on

LIES, DAMNED LIES & LERAB LING – part 2

By JO GREEN
In the first part of this post we saw how, in a new video from Lerab Ling to the sangha, Rigpa are continuing to construct a false narrative about the cause of their current difficulties. In this part we see how they are trying to erase the word “abuse” from all discussion.
LOJONG LEADS TO LAWYERS
Apparently, the events of 2016 were not the end of the problems caused by Lerab Ling’s local newspaper. A year later, in August 2017, Dominique Side says Midi Libre published a full-page article “which advocated Lerab Ling should be shut down”. This is an interesting interpretation of that article. It’s an interview with Dominique Cowell, one of Sogyal’s closest and most trusted assistants until 1995, who left when she saw for herself that sexual abuse was happening. She recounts an absolutely horrific incident where Sogyal led a naked woman about by a rope around her neck, making her bray like a donkey. At the end of the interview Cowell does say “We must send the gendarmes to Lerab Ling, close the centers,” and that Sogyal Rinpoche should be brought to justice. But this is a quotation of her words: it is not the main thrust of the article and it is not what the newspaper itself advocates.
Dominique Side cites this article as an example of “people acting against you”. She then goes on to restate the principles of lojong, that Sam Truscott had also explained in his letter the previous year, as being the reason why they had never reacted to negative media coverage. She says this as if this is some great noble thing: to not refute accusations of abuse against a person who has, in fact, abused people.
She explains, “You don’t judge. You don’t immediately set out to attack the other person. This is part of a compassionate Buddhist stance.” Now I find this a surprising attitude from Dominique Side. Not long after The Letter had come out, one of its authors included her in an entirely innocent mailshot about something which had nothing to do with Rigpa. Dominique fired back an angry, insulting response within minutes. Let’s just call that “the gap between theory and practice”.
She goes on to explain that “the turning point” was a December 2017 article in the same newspaper when they interviewed Jean-Baptiste Cesbron – a lawyer who had been gathering accounts of abuse committed by Sogyal Rinpoche, with the aim of bringing criminal proceedings. But what principally concerns Dominique, Sam and the rest is that they feel he characterised Lerab Ling as a cult.
Once again, the Lerab Ling leadership are framing things in a very misleading way. In fact, the lawyer Cesbron never called Lerab Ling “a cult” in that article. If you read it and watch the video interview that accompanies it, he never once spontaneously mentions Lerab Ling. He is asked a question about whether the centre should be shut down and answers “No.” That’s all. He makes clear he is not against Buddhism as a whole. His criticisms relate specifically to Sogyal Rinpoche and the effect his behaviour had.
Nonetheless, Dominique Side has framed his words as a specific attack on the Lerab Ling community: an attack so serious that lojong goes out of the window and you bring in the lawyers.
WHY SUE NOW?
I can’t say I follow her logic. Why could they not issue a statement rebutting the article, yet not launch legal actions? Why could they not focus on acting in such a clearly non-cult-like way that the accusation becomes ridiculous? Apparently, their lawyers said they HAD TO prosecute the newspaper, the journalist and the interviewee. Oh, and 133 people at Lerab Ling have coincidentally decided to take their own joint action against the newspaper (it’s not clear if Dominique is one of them). So that’s four writs out there. But they still really believe in lojong. Honestly.
It seems to me that Dominique, Sam, Lerab Ling and their lawyers have not had it fully explained to them how newspapers work, and I would like to save them some trouble, so here’s a quick guide:

  • Newspapers report news stories;
  • Journalists research and write those stories;
  • To do that, they interview people;
  • The journalist reports what interviewees say;
  • The newspaper edits and publishes what the journalist writes.

So, if a journalist reports the racist statements of a politician, that obviously doesn’t make the journalist or the newspaper racist and one would therefore not normally prosecute either for racism. The only exception would be if there was editorialising by the paper, supporting these views. In the case of Midi Libre, there was no editorial comment, just reporting of events and statements – by Rigpa and others.
I mean, if they really want to sue this lawyer for what he said, they can try it – although, given how completely unperturbed Cesbron appeared after they started their action, I’d say they’re on a hiding to nothing – but it seems barking mad to go after the newspaper and journalist. Or is it? Dominique commented that “It has already had an impact, although the suit has not been tried. The press coverage is much more balanced than it has been previously.”
In other words, they may have successfully intimidated the newspaper into not publishing anything more about the abuse. It’s not a huge newspaper, perhaps they can’t take the risk of the financial consequences. Maybe that was the main intention of the suit, to gag the press, in which case it worked. Or perhaps the newspaper is biding its time – I note that they have now taken all their articles about Sogyal and Lerab Ling out from behind the paywall, so everyone can see them.
SO, WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON?
I’m still a bit confused about something, though. Lerab Ling say they now believe they need to take the legal route to protect their reputation, but that’s not what they’re really doing. On 24th January France 3 Television, in their region, did a report on the legal action being taken at Lerab Ling and the events that caused it. They interviewed the father of “Mimi”, also the lawyer at Lerab Ling who is bringing the group action, and the lawyer Cesbron – who correctly points out that no one in Lerab Ling has denounced the abuse – plus Dominique Cowell, who unequivocally states that Sogyal rapes women. The video and accompanying article are still online, and there is an English subtitled version.
As we have seen, Rigpa defended Sogyal Rinpoche from the allegations of ‘Janice Doe’ against him, with Patrick Gaffney taking a central role, whilst Sogyal stayed away. We’ve also seen that Rigpa rebutted allegations on behalf of Sogyal when criticised by Marion Dapsance, but they have not given any such defence of him with regard to the behaviour outlined in the letter of July 2017 written by 8 concerned students. Instead they are manipulating their members’ perception by sidestepping the main issue – the abuse committed by Sogyal, which is what is really harming Rigpa and Lerab Ling – and focusing on the ‘we are not a cult’ smokescreen they have created.
A LIE UPON A LIE UPON A LIE
The leadership at Lerab Ling has weaved a multiple fiction. Firstly, that Cesbron went out of his way to characterise Lerab Ling as a cult. He did not – he criticised Rigpa as a whole and Sogyal specifically.
The second is that there is some distinction between the notion of Rigpa being cult-like and the allegations against Sogyal. This is like arguing that your cough has nothing to do with your emphysema. Cesbron’s points are clear:

  • He has compelling evidence of abuse committed by Sogyal.
  • Sogyal’s idea of “crazy wisdom” was used to justify everything from public humiliations to sexual abuse, and one could not really be part of Rigpa without accepting it.
  • This group mindset led to the creation of a cult-like environment in which it was very hard for anyone to speak up.

Without the actions and ideas of Sogyal, there is nothing that could be described as cult-like. Rigpa cannot meaningfully fight the notion that they are a cult whilst refusing to discuss Sogyal’s actions.
Thirdly, in the new video Sam Truscott speaks of how relations with the local council, tourist board and neighbours have suffered as a result of what was published. I have no reason to doubt this. However, in their version of events, apparently local people were more or less OK with years of rumours, then serious allegations and national scandal around Sogyal hitting and humiliating students, sexually abusing women and embezzling money, and that this was happening on their doorstep with some of their neighbours and fellow parents at the school gate implicated in it all. But, when they heard the word “cult”, that was too much for them and relations went bad. Is there anyone outside Rigpa that buys that idea?
It is a lie upon a lie upon a lie. And these are the lies that are being fed to the remaining students through internal communications.
According to publicly-available testimonies, Sogyal beat people unconscious, made them bleed, compelled women to do sexual acts they found degrading or raped them, and punched nuns. So, Dominique, if you’re still struggling to pinpoint the cause of Lerab Ling’s current problems, I can provide clarification: Sogyal did this. If you don’t accept that, then please call up those journalists you’re so upset with and demand to be allowed an interview where you categorically deny that Sogyal ever harmed anybody. Tell them you are 100% sure that he never abused anyone sexually or physically, that he never committed a rape or misused funds. Actually, why don’t you get Patrick Gaffney and Philip Philippou to join you and make a definitive statement on his innocence that all Rigpa students can get behind?
In fact, why don’t you mount a media campaign about it?

Thanks for your articles, Jo.
I think it’s really important that people become aware of how Rigpa international leadership is manipulating (or attempting to manipulate) their perception, particularly with the results of the independent investigation coming out soon. We can be sure that whatever that report finds, Rigpa will find a way to spin it to their advantage. It is not a time for students to be niave and trusting of those who have known about the abuse for decades and have already had much practice at covering up the truth. Will they ever come clean? The deeper they dig themselves into lies, the harder it will be for them to do so.

Private discussion on this and other related topics can be had on our  What Now Facebook Group. It is only for current and previous students of Rigpa, however, and we do moderate it closely. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from other sanghas can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group . It’s a support group for anyone who has left their Buddhist sangha after hearing revelations of abuse by their teacher or after experiencing such abuse. It’s for people who see ethical behaviour, love, compassion and introspection as the core of their spiritual path. The focus is not on the abuses, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience of spiritual abuse and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page, which posts links to related articles as they come to hand.
 
 

Posted on

LIES, DAMNED LIES & LERAB LING – part 1

Today we have a guest post by Jo Green in which he takes a look at the latest video update from Lerab ling and unpacks the language used by Lerab Ling’s ‘Superior’ . (Ugh. I can’t write that word without rolling my eyes!) If you think Rigpa students aren’t being manipulated by the leaders of their organisation, you really should read this.
VIDEO NASTIES
Today I watched the latest video update from Rigpa’s epicentre, Lerab Ling. It was a mixture of the depressingly predictable with the truly reprehensible. By the end, my jaw had dropped so far that I may need reconstructive surgery to be able to eat again. But that’s not a worry: with this much nausea I have no appetite. I haven’t seen such a total failure of compassion, combined with complete rejection of the facts, since the last Trump rally.
What has caused this much distress is not just what was said but what was not said. Back in last August, when Patrick Gaffney and Dominique Side took to the stage at Lerab Ling to address the whole Rigpa sangha online, there were at least some miserably vague, morally equivocal acknowledgements that something had gone wrong, such as when Patrick said, “We have to take charge of this situation and do our best to resolve it in the best way possible for everybody concerned, including anybody who feels aggrieved or upset.” Obviously, words like “abuse” or “harm” or “victim” were strictly avoided, but at least there was a sense that something had happened.
That’s all gone now. In the edited 40 minutes that went out, the problems – as far as Dominique Side (the “Superior” of the Lerab Ling congregation) and Sam Truscott (the Director of Lerab Ling) were concerned – had nothing to do with people being physically injured, sexually abused, financially exploited or psychologically traumatised. No, the real problems are:

  • Because people said nasty things about Sogyal Rinpoche in a letter, students have left and the public are not coming as much. Attendance is down 50%.
  • Because people aren’t coming as much, Lerab Ling has financial problems. They have had to “let go of” 67 out of 170 workers (not all workers are paid).
  • Because people said nasty things about Sogyal and Lerab Ling in a newspaper, they had to start multiple legal actions.

I think that covers it. Apparently, none of these problems were caused in any way by Sogyal’s behaviour. It was all the result of other people causing trouble. But with the wonderful equanimity and good grace that years of study under “Rinpoche” have bestowed on them – and the advice of lawyers and financiers – they are seeing all this as “a blessing in disguise”.
Oh yes, and they told a pack of lies.
THE FICTION FACTORY
There is a really insidious fiction that Dominique Side has been elaborating for some time now, with others at Lerab Ling, and every time she comes back to it, we move further from the truth. In the video she traces their financial woes back to the latter part of 2016. She claims that because of “one media campaign” it was necessary to cancel a conference at the last moment, with a huge loss as a result. But is that what really happened?
In September 2016, Marion Dapsance’s book about Tibetan Buddhism – and more specifically, Sogyal Rinpoche and Rigpa – had been published: Les Dévots du Bouddhisme.  I read it. The book is, unquestionably, highly critical of the person and the organisation. It is also sober, academically thorough and definitely not sensationalist. It is the product of 7 years’ study for her PhD, put into a more readable form. It is also a story which begins with Dapsance sincerely wanting to explore Buddhism on a personal level.
The response of Rigpa was to issue a very angry Press Release. This was put up on the Lerab Ling website (not Rigpa.org) so one assumes that’s where it originated. Since the publication of The Letter, it has been removed.
The things it said included: “Both Rigpa and Sogyal Rinpoche categorically reject the assertions of abuse and cult-like behaviour that have been made in this book.” So, just to be clear, Sogyal HAS officially denied abusing anyone. It goes on, “this book merely recycles old, unfounded rumours and accusations that have been posted on the internet since the past fifteen years which, in fact, always originate from the same sources.” So, they are equating “heard it before” with “untrue”. Why? In fact, the vast majority of the book consists of completely original research carried out by Dapsance, plus a diary kept by a very faithful student whose view completely changed, leading him to abandon the 3-year retreat just days before the end. Dapsance wasn’t especially sneaky about researching – she even talked to Olivier Raurich, the then French National Director, about what she was doing.
Perhaps the reason they decided to take their response down is this ridiculous accusation they make against the author: “Marion Dapsance’s studies have been financed by Chinese benefactors”. They offer no evidence for this. In a public response, Dapsance made clear that her only benefactors during those seven years had been her parents. She added that she was now receiving support from Hong Kong for her research into the explorer Alexandra David-Neel: from the Robert H.N. Ho Family Foundation, which aims to promote Buddhist philosophy and “the application of Buddhist insights in today’s world”. Rigpa also characterise her as “with those who seem primarily motivated by their desire for fame and sensationalism”.  They did not issue a retraction or an apology.
They then point out that the same publishers put out a book that was critical of the Dalai Lama, claiming “This book presents a scathing and aggressive attack on the Dalai Lama, accusing him of being an agent of the CIA”. Even if this is the case (I haven’t read that book) what does that have to do with anything? Dapsance does not attack the Dalai Lama in the 39 references to him in her book, nor does she mention the CIA. Harper Collins publish “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying”. They also publish books written by, and sympathetic to, Donald Trump. Is Sogyal therefore a Trump supporter?
FAKE NEWS ABOUT NEWS
 A few weeks later, a regional/local newspaper, Midi Libre – which had published many news stories about Lerab Ling, of various kinds – put out a feature on Lerab Ling and the accusations against Sogyal Rinpoche.
A few days after, the Press Release was re-issued, now with an explanatory letter from Sam Truscott and Judith Soussans, the Rigpa/Lerab Ling PR manager, which complained, “For several weeks, Rigpa and Sogyal Rinpoche have been the victims of a malicious media campaign based on the publication of a highly critical and extremely prejudiced book… We are deeply shocked and dismayed at the way Lerab Ling and our spiritual director, Sogyal Rinpoche, have been depicted. In no way does this picture correspond to reality.”
Let’s unpick that. First of all, most people would absolutely recognise the reality the book describes: how when you first go to Rigpa, knowing nothing, wanting an introduction to meditation, you find you are taught to fixate upon the image of Sogyal Rinpoche. You’d recognise him turning up late for teachings at retreats and then spending ages berating people. You may well have experienced being taken aside by instructors who then check your reactions to his strange behaviour and tell you to accept this as “crazy wisdom”, no matter how it may seem. As for the stories of abuse: they’re everywhere.
And what “malicious media campaign”? The book attracted some press coverage. It’s normal for publishers to send books out to newspapers – it’s how books get noticed, so people buy them. If the subject is newsworthy, that helps to get coverage. It’s not “malicious” and it’s not a campaign: it’s just some journalists and editors independently thinking, “This sound interesting”. Midi Libre were the only ones to do more extensive coverage and their articles were not taken up by the national press. Also, these articles were behind a paywall, so only people who bought the paper that day, or were subscribers, could see them.
Nonetheless, in this new video Dominique Side claims that these specific articles were the direct cause of the last-minute cancellation of “The 5th International Forum on Buddhism and Medicine” at Lerab Ling, due to take place two weeks after publication. The significant income loss that the centre took as a result was the beginning of all their current financial woes, she claims. It was all the fault of the “fake, fake, disgusting news,” in the words of Sogyal’s publishing companion, Donald Trump.
Really? I mean REALLY? Some articles behind a paywall, in a regional paper, in French, could bring this whole international event crashing down? So, what happened? All of the speakers heard about it and abandoned ship? Everybody asked for a refund? Dominique Side doesn’t say, nor has anybody given a coherent explanation. So, what might have happened?
Well, when the going gets tough, Sogyal has a habit of getting going. Around 1994, when the “Janice Doe” abuse case in the USA was in the news, Sogyal suddenly felt the need to go on retreat and thus, sadly, “could not be reached for comment”. Then, curiously enough, the next North American Retreat was moved to Canada, so Sogyal had no need to set foot in the USA and have his teaching interrupted by the serving of a writ. When The Letter came out last year, Sogyal was once again gripped by the sudden need to go into retreat (perhaps more in the military than religious sense), but this was stepped up to “retirement” after the Dalai Lama criticised him. His location has remained a Rigpa secret ever since (although it’s called “Thailand”).
So, it’s entirely possible, if he and Rigpa were feeling so much heat after the fallout from the publication of the book, that he had again speedily left the country and decided to cancel the event. Or they didn’t sell enough tickets. Or many of the international speakers felt uneasy about sharing a stage with him. Dominique skips over an incident that did attract a lot of attention: just a few weeks before the conference, Sogyal thought it would be OK to punch a nun painfully hard in the stomach, in front of 1000 people. Now, it doesn’t take a “media campaign” for that kind of thing to get around. 1000 shocked people will talk.
THE PERVERSION OF LANGUAGE
 The most hypocritical aspect of the repeated use of the phrase “media campaign”, by her and the rest of the Rigpa leadership, is that they know perfectly well which party in all this has mounted a media campaign: it’s them. Rigpa has, for years, hired PR companies to help “spin” stories about Sogyal’s bad behaviour. This was particularly so during the fallout from the “Mimi” story in a 2011 Canadian documentary, for which they used PR people in various countries. Amongst other things, senior Rigpa staff were given training in dealing with the media. Olivier Raurich, the former National Director in France said they were told to say, “‘The Dalai Lama is supporting Sogyal Rinpoche one hundred percent’, and repeat that, only that, without answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’.” Perhaps this is why the Dalai Lama recently felt it necessary to make so very clear that he was not.
Given their past record, it’s almost certain that Rigpa are currently using PR people to help manage the ongoing crisis. Indeed, it’s perfectly possible that they have been taught by them to use the phrase “media campaign” to refer to any negative press coverage, in order to make them sound like victims. If Dominique and Sam want to bring the sangha up to date with what they’ve been doing, why don’t they let them all know that it’s Rigpa policy to employ PR companies? After all, it is the students’ subscriptions, retreat fees and donations that pay their bill.
There is a word that their PR/legal advisors have advised them to deploy, which they must consider has served them well. In 1994, when Patrick Gaffney had to pen the first press release defending Sogyal Rinpoche in the wake of the accusations from ‘Janice Doe’, he wrote, “These allegations are unfounded.” Remember what they said about Marion Dapsance? “This book merely recycles old, unfounded rumours and accusations.” And what do we find Sam Truscott saying on French TV at Lerab Ling’s Open Day in May? “These accusations are completely unfounded.”
“Unfounded” is the pernicious little word behind which they pompously stand, but let’s be clear about what they are saying. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “not based on fact; untrue”. The Oxford English Dictionary says: “Having no foundation or basis in fact.” So what Sam Truscott did was call all the letter writers LIARS. He also called every woman brave enough to talk about being sexually abused by Sogyal Rinpoche a LIAR. Likewise, he branded every trustee or director who ever spoke up about abuse a LIAR.
Now, it’s one thing to say, as Sam did, that he never saw or heard anything bad occur (although perhaps he’s overdue for eye and ear tests) and he could even hide behind the lame old “nothing has been proved in court,” but to say all victims and witnesses are liars is simply disgraceful and profoundly morally perverted. This is a new low and he should be ashamed.

Addition 18th August 2018

Since this post was published, I have received new information around what happened at Lerab Ling during the Dzogchen retreat of 2016, after the publication of the Marion Dapsance book and before the conference. A French student told me that, during the retreat, French students were summoned, two or three times, to gather in the Guru Lakang room on the first floor, whilst the rest were invited to meditate in the temple below. Feeling like the bad guys, these French students were told to put up their hands if they had any doubts and these were then worked on.

Although this was about the effect the book might have had, the title of the book and the name of the author were never shared, presumably for fear of encouraging people to take a look. The Rigpa/Lerab Ling PR manager, Judith Soussans, led the sessions. She later advised people to Google The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying rather than the one by Marion Dapsance, in order to keep hers lower down searches.

Another instructor brought in was an academic from the Sorbonne who said that the (unnamed) book was badly written, of poor academic quality and was just gutter press sort of stuff, reporting gossip.

These are all classic Rigpa disinformation tactics to make sure nobody thinks for themselves:

Withhold details

Persuade people not to inform themselves

Denigrate the individual concerned

As far as the cancelled conference goes, some details of what was planned can still be found here. Its theme was “Living With Cancer”. Interestingly, on that web page they have a competition to win free places. A sign of difficulty in selling tickets? It should be pointed out that this was put out before Midi Libre published their reports.

Although some have confirmed that they were told the conference was cancelled as a result of what was said in the press, others have informed me that the reason they’d been given for cancellation was that it wasn’t possible to properly care for cancer sufferers on-site. This sounds very strange, given that the conference is clearly targeted at health care professionals, not patients. Not to mention that having cancer does not prevent you from going to Lerab Ling. It’s ironic to consider that, at that very moment, Sogyal Rinpoche himself was probably already experiencing symptoms of cancer.

If anybody can corroborate what happened at the 2016 Dzogchen Retreat – especially French students – or around the cancellation of the conference, please share your experiences.

Thanks Jo for your article. The second part will be posted next week.
What do our readers think about all this. Is this your perception of that video or do you see it differently?

Private discussion on this and other related topics can be had on our  What Now Facebook Group. It is only for current and previous students of Rigpa, however, and we do moderate it closely. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from other sanghas can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group . It’s a support group for anyone who has left their Buddhist sangha after hearing revelations of abuse by their teacher or after experiencing such abuse. It’s for people who see ethical behaviour, love, compassion and introspection as the core of their spiritual path. The focus is not on the abuses, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience of spiritual abuse and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page, which posts links to related articles as they come to hand.

Posted on

Why Rigpa Students Find it Hard to Challenge Sogyal Rinpoche’s Abuse

When Rigpa students study Ngondro, they are indoctrinated with teachings that make it very difficult for them to challenge their teacher’s abusive behaviour. Below are some of the key ‘teachings’ that supported the idea that we had to do whatever Sogyal asked of us and that everything he did, even if it didn’t ‘appear’ to be in accord with the dharma was for our benefit. These ideas were drummed into our heads through daily repetition. Those of us who did our 100,000 recitations of the Longchen Nyingtik Ngondro Guru Yoga were well and truly brainwashed into believing that following these ideas would bring us to enlightenment.

Problematic beliefs

The quotes and page references below are from: A Guide To The Practice Of Ngöndro – The Brief Dudjom Tersar Ngöndro and the Longchen Nyingtik Ngöndro with commentaries and guidance on how to practise them. 2nd edition – January 2007, published by Rigpa.
“You should rely upon your vajra lama, the ultimate master whose mind is emptiness and compassion and who accomplishes the benefit of self and others, cherishing him as though he were your very eyes. Follow his instructions to the letter, and take to heart the profound practices he gives, not just now and then, but with diligent and constant application. Practise with unflagging diligence for as long as you live. Pray that you may become worthy of the transmission of his profound wisdom mind, so that your realization becomes indivisible from his.” Commentary Page 210
“Towards the lifestyle and activity of the lama, may wrong view not arise for even an instant, and may I see whatever he does, whether it seems to be in accordance with the Dharma or not, as a teaching for me.” In this respect, you should remember the story of Captain Compassionate Heart killing Black Spearman, and Brahmin Lover of the Stars forsaking his vow of chastity for the brahmin girl.”  Commentary Page 221. (Note 101: See The Words of My Perfect Teacher (revised ed.), p. 125 – Read it here. It explains why negative actions performed by a Bodhisattva are in fact positive, in some circumstances)
“May I rely upon my vajra lama meaningfully,
as though he were my very eyes,
Following his instructions to the letter,
and taking to heart the profound practices he gives,
Not just now and then, but with diligent and
constant application,
May I become worthy of the transmission
of his profound wisdom mind!”
(Root text. Page 273)
“Towards the lifestyle and activity of the lama,
May wrong view not arise for even an instant, and
May I see whatever he does as a teaching for me.
Through such devotion, may his blessing inspire
and fill my mind!”
(Root text. Page 278)
Wrong view here refers to seeing the teacher as an ordinary being. You can see how steeped in blind devotion this tradition is.
If the teacher was actually enlightened, or even just a decent human being who actually cared about his students, these ideas wouldn’t be so harmful, and in terms of the pure perception teachings of Vajrayana might even be helpful for students who truly understand what is meant by pure perception – very few do, though! HH Dalai Lama said in Dharamsala in 1993 about the practice of seeing one’s lama as a Buddha, “If it is misunderstood, and thus gives the guru free license, it is like poison, destroying the teachings, the guru, and the disciple.”
The assumption that a lama is worthy of the responsibility of being a guru is unrealistic these days and giving him or her this kind of trust is just not healthy. And in a situation where the lama is only concerned with his own worldly success and gratification, these ideas make a community a destructive cult.
If you think the ‘destructive cult’ label is a bit extreme, take a look at this quote from the Zindri, which you can find on page 261 f. (printed version) under chapter (1) Common Activities (of the teacher). The whole chapter is very revealing. It culminates in the statement:
“His (the teacher´s) charisma may attract men and women alike, but even if he were to seduce a hundred girls daily, see it as the activity of bringing under control. And when he causes trouble, stirring up disputes and so on, even if he slaughters hundreds of animals every day, regard this as the activity of fierce subduing.”
In other words, your teacher can do what he likes and you have to see it all as good! This is the kind of belief that fosters abusive cults – beliefs that put the leader above norms of ethical behaviour. Maybe all Tibetan Buddhist sanghas were actually cults according to our present understanding of the term. I have it on good authority that there is no word for destructive cult in Tibetan, not in terms of a lama and community that is controlling and manipulative. Why is that? I bet it’s not because all their lamas were perfect! More likely it’s because Tibetans were well and truly indoctrinated in this way of thinking. Not so in the West. Here we call a spade a spade, and an abuser an abuser – that is, if we’re not brainwashed into thinking the abuse is enlightened activity.

Is The Words of My Perfect Teacher a relevant text for modern times?

The Words of My Perfect Teacher and The Zindri, a commentary on it, are the two core texts of Rigpa along with The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, and both books make it very clear that once you’ve taken a teacher as your Vajra master you have to do what he or she says, see them as a Buddha, see everything they do as enlightened activity, and never criticise. These teachings were often emphasised in Rigpa. Pure perception was the whole purpose of vajrayana, we were told, and to many people that meant actually thinking that Sogyal was really enlightened. They forgot that pure perception means seeing everyone as enlightened, yourself included, not just the teacher!
The trouble with following these books comes if these aspects are stressed over other sections that moderate them, and in Rigpa, the section on the qualifications of the teacher ( p 138 – 143) was rarely mentioned. Why? Because our teacher clearly did not meet the qualifications!

“He should be pure, never having contravened any of the commitments or prohibitions related to the three types of vow … He should be learned and not lacking in knowledge of the tantras, sutras and shastras. Towards the vast multitude of beings, his heart should be so suffused with compassion that he loves each one like his only child. He should be well-versed in the practices … He should have actualised all the extraordinary qualities of liberation and realization in himself by experiencing the meaning of the teachings. He should be generous, his language should be pleasant. He should teach each individual according to that person’s needs and he should act in accordance with what he teaches …”
Later Patrul Rinpoche says, “Not having many disturbing negative emotions and thoughts, he should be calm and disciplined.”

Sogyal’s negative emotions weren’t hidden; most people who went to a Rigpa retreat saw him yelling at his students, sometimes sending them into tears.
I remember being disturbed at just how much Sogyal didn’t fit the list of qualifications, but I ignored my concerns because I’d already accepted him as my teacher and been told that since he’d given me an introduction to the nature of mind I was now ‘stuck with him as my teacher’. What I failed to realise is that since he didn’t meet the requirements of a qualified teacher, the instructions for following a teacher simply didn’t apply.
No emphasis was given in Rigpa to the section on choosing a teacher – we read the section through as part of our Ngondro study, but that was the extent of it. Whereas we said the above passages daily. But those instructions ONLY apply to a student of someone who meets the requirements for a qualified teacher as laid out in the WMPT, and since Sogyal does not meet those qualifications, the rest of the book isn’t applicable to him or his students.
The whole book is based on being a student of a perfect teacher, not an imperfect one!
I don’t think this text is appropriate in an age where, in the words of the book in question, “All the qualities complete according to purest dharma are hard to find in these decadent times.” As we’ve seen in Rigpa, the result of applying these teachings to an imperfect teacher can be an abusive cult, and the numbers of lamas accused of similar behaviour makes it quite clear that we cannot blindly trust that any of them have our best interests at heart. Some do, yes, but we need to be very sure before we take them as our Vajra guru, and I suggest that, even then, we never ever give up our right to say, “No,” our right to criticise, and our discernment in ascertaining what is harmful and what is helpful.  Any teacher who asks you to give up those rights is one to avoid, but be careful, some teachers will say one thing in public and expect something else in private.

Is knowledge a sufficient qualification?

Since Sogyal never did Buddhist high school, his lack of classic Buddhist studies is an obvious place where he lacks the necessary qualifications for the instructions in the book to have any relevance to him or his students, but just because a lama has done his Buddhist training doesn’t mean he or she is qualified to be a vajra master. Why? Because the requirement is that the teacher’s “heart should be so suffused with compassion that he loves each one like his only child”, and “He should have actualised all the extraordinary qualities of liberation and realization in himself.” In other words, knowledge is not enough. Compassion and realisation are necessary attributes of a true Vajra master. Without those two qualities knowledge can be easily manipulated to meet the teacher’s agenda.
In light of this, it’s clear that any teacher who shows no compassion for those traumatised by their guru’s behaviour is not worthy of your devotion because they lack the necessary compassion. Any guru that protects their religion over and above protecting and caring for those damaged by their religion is not a qualified teacher. Let’s be clear on this: having a Buddhist degree, tulku status, a sharp mind, a quick wit, an entertaining manner and enthusiastic followers is not the compassion and wisdom required to meet the definition of a qualified Vajrayana teacher.
And it goes without saying that anyone who abuses anyone doesn’t meet the requirement for wisdom and compassion either – Chogyam Trungpa and the Sakyong included.

“On the level of our personal spiritual practice, it is important to have faith in and reverence for our guru and to see that person in a positive light in order to make spiritual progress. But on the level of general Buddhism in society, seeing all actions of our teacher as perfect is like poison and can be misused. This attitude spoils our entire teachings by giving teachers a free hand to take undue advantage. If faith were sufficient to gain realizations, there would be no need for qualified teachers.” HH Dalai Lama. Dharamsala 1993

What do you think?

Private discussion on this and other related topics can be had on our Secret  What Now Facebook Group. It is only for current and previous students of Rigpa, however, and we do moderate it closely. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from other sanghas can join the  Beyond the Temple Facebook Group . It’s a support group for anyone who has left their Buddhist sangha after hearing revelations of abuse by their teacher or after experiencing such abuse. It’s for people who see ethical behaviour, love, compassion and introspection as the core of their spiritual path. The focus is not on the abuses, but on ourselves and our spiritual life as we recover from our experience of spiritual abuse and look to the future. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page.

Posted on

If the Mental Disorder Fits, Wear it.

When a cult leader has a mental disorder

When a cult leader has a mental disorder, (Anti-social Personality Disorder (psychopathy) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder are comon ones), devotees will find all kinds of ways to downplay it or call it something else. And when the leader abuses his or her students, devotees may even justify the abuse as being for the benefit of the student – certainly this is the case in the Tibetan Buddhist sangha of Rigpa. A devotee in a cult cannot be convinced that there is anything wrong with their leader. On the contrary, they spiritualise their damaging behaviour as ‘crazy wisdom’ or ‘beyond the ability of ordinary beings to discern’ and so forth.
A Bagwan Shee Rashneesh follower told me back in the 80s that Bagwan had 100 Rolls Royces because he was free of attachment, and the fact that this was an illogical stance since the very opposite appeared to be true – he appeared to be very attached to Rolls Royces – made no difference to the devotees conviction. In the same way, you cannot convince those in Rigpa and other Tibetan Buddhist communities who think that assaulting students, coercing people into sex, and emotionally abusing them is enlightened behaviour that it is in fact trauma-inducing abuse delivered by a person with a mental disorder. And yet, maintaining this stance that there is nothing wrong with the perpetrator of the abuse, which they do as a mark of their devotion and allegiance to their leader, does not help the leader at all. What such leaders need is to be made aware of their disorder and encouraged to seek help, for the leader’s sake and the sake of those who are devoted to him or her.

Where psychology beats Buddhism

The Buddha had some profound insights into the nature of the human mind and its role in human happiness. When I found Buddhism, I, like many others, thought I’d hit the spiritual jackpot. This is it! I thought. Here is the truth. Encouraged by a teacher who put down psychology at every opportunity, I thought vajrayana Buddhism was way ahead of psychology, but it’s very clear to me now that in the area of personality and mental disorders Buddhism is lagging far behind psychology.
There is nothing in Buddhism about mental disorders. The system of thought is designed for people who are already mentally healthy, so there is no way for someone relying on that system of thought for their understanding of the mind to recognise a mental disorder when it’s staring them in the face. This is a problem when a teacher or instructor is faced with trying to help a student with such a disorder,  but it is even more of a problem when the guru themselves is exhibiting signs of a mental disorder. Not only does Tibetan Buddhism not recognise a mental disorder in a guru for what it is, the religion mistakes it for a special kind of spiritual achievement – crazy wisdom!
Talk about the snake and the rope! (In joke for Rigpa Dzogchen students: the rope is not only not seen as what it is, it is also mistaken for a snake. This is an analogy for how we don’t recognise reality for what it is, empty of essence, and instead mistake it for something solid.)
In a fuedal society and a religion with a fuedal power structure this turning an issue with a leader into something that adds to his or her power isn’t surprising. Keeping the power of the guy at the top is of vital importance in a fuedal system, so rather than admit that the guru has mental issues, the religion makes him out to be especially gifted.  It happens once, and then the concept of ‘crazy’ as a mark of great realisation is enshrined within the religion. How much of the stories told to back up the benefits of a crazy wisdom master are true? Did such behaviour really benefit the student or was it a white wash from the start? We will never know. I suspect that Tibetan Buddhism has been gaslighting devotees for centuries.
And even if Marpa really did assist Milarepa on his journey to enlightenment through ‘unconventional’ means, then we still have to ask how much has this story been used in service to a lineage of lamas who, generation after generation, suffered from the trauma of being abused as children.  They were brought up to believe, as Orgyen Tobgyal said in Paris last year, that ‘beating increases wisdom’ and that pain will wash away bad karma. This is awfully like what the Christian flagellents believed in the fourtheenth century. And guess what? We’ve come a long way since then, but some sects of Tibetan Buddhism are still stuck in that antiquated and unhealthy belief system.
Modern psychology recognises trauma and mental disorders and knows how to treat them, and the best thing students can do for their lamas and their sangha is to recognise the signs when they see them and help their lama to see that they need help. Easier said than done, I know. Some tried with Sogyal, but he never actually made it to a psyciatrist. What a shame!
Why am I talking about lamas as if they have mental disorders? Well, obviously some are quite sane, but others? If the cap fits, wear it, I say. Denying the issue does no one any good, and any student who gives unquestioning obedience to someone with a mental disorder, (even if he is not physically present with them) is not in a healthy situation.
I leave you to decide how much of the following applies to Sogyal Rinpoche and Chogyan Trungpa. Oh and maybe you should also consider Orgyen Tobyal and Dzongsar Khyentse while you read.  It’s from an Integrative Psychology article on institutional abuse.  https://integrativepsychology.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/institutional-abuse.pdf

Characteristics of Abusive Group Leaders

“One type of abusive group leader is the charismatic leader, common in cults. Such a leader possesses strong talent for self-expression coupled with the ability to sense and read the needs of followers. These needs are then normally converted into the form of seductive promises that slowly lure the individual into the personalised ideology of the leader. Cult leaders are often incredibly manipulative and whilst they spend a great deal of time creating an image for their followers the essence of their personality is predatory. Therefore, charismatic leaders exhibit many of the features required for formal diagnoses under the DSM ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ) category of personality disorders. Two personality disorders in particular- Anti-social Personality Disorder (psychopathy) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder- share many of the characteristics of abusive group leaders (APA, 2014; Aron, 2011; Edelstein, 2011; Shaw, 2003).
In the text “Take your Life Back” by Lalich and Tobias (2006) they suggest a checklist to help individuals identify and demystify the traits of a psychopathic/sociopathic, charismatic leader.

  • Glibness and Superficial Charm: The charismatic leader is able to beguile and confuse and convince through the use of language; they are able to disarm and persuade with incredible proficiency. Tilgner, L., Dowie, T.K (Ph.D)., & Denning, N. (2015). 15
  • Manipulative: The inability to recognise the rights and needs of others enabling any self-serving behaviour to be permissible. They divide the world into (1) those who can be manipulated, (2) those who are one’s enemies, and (3) themselves. Many people involved in a cult have been allocated to the category of those who can be manipulated and anyone who objects to behaviours quickly finds themselves in the position of the enemy.
  • A Grandiose Sense of Self: Leaders have a tremendous feeling of entitlement, they by nature believe that they are owed and have the right to whatever behaviour they wish hence nothing is immoral or out of reach if it is in the quest to quench their insatiable desire.
  • Pathological Lying: The leader is able to lie and be untruthful without any sense of impropriety. The cult leader will often construct complex self-aggrandizing narratives, which will represent them as having special or unique powers. This kind of lying is connected to something called pseudologica fantastica, which is the term given to the complex belief systems and traditions which they themselves develop (eg., they are the manifestation of some supreme power).
  • Lack of Remorse, Shame and Guilt: The leader exhibiting sociopathic tendencies is unable to experience shame or guilt for their hurtful and damaging behaviours thus they see others as mere objects for the gratification of their needs. These needs are often carefully hidden and concealed within the subtext of some system of thought, which condones the lack of care and concern. They also tend to lack the capacity for genuine empathy but may disguise this with false displays of care and understanding.
  • Lack of Emotional Depth: The leader who is unable to express remorse is also likely to have difficulty with anything but shallow displays of emotion. Due to the power imbalance the emotional lack on behalf of the leader is often mistaken for some kind of profound equipoise gained through diligent adherence to the group values and practices. Much of the emotional display is designed simply to manipulate the followers.
  • Impulse Control: Leaders can exhibit problems with impulse control (otherwise referred to as acting out). This acting out normally takes a number of forms, the most common of which are sexual and physical abuse. This behaviour is often known only to a select few yet when it is publicly known complex explanations are offered. Usually this involves the leader behaving in ways that are simply beyond the understanding of their “less enlightened” followers. Thus there is often a claim to a special kind of teaching; this is particularly the case in sexual exploitation within spiritual cults. Spiritual cult Tilgner, L., Dowie, T.K (Ph.D)., & Denning, N. (2015). 16 leaders may claim they are passing on or helping their victim’s consciousness or spirituality. In the history of cultic studies it is usually the case that the sexual behaviour of the cult leader towards the followers is never truly consensual as it has arisen through sustained and deliberate degradation of personal will via threats of violence, control, and slow and surreptitious psychological manipulation over extended periods of time.

Conclusions and Key Recommendations: Profile of Abusive Leaders

  • Psychological abuse, a powerful weapon of abusive leaders, is usually insidious and highly corrosive of identity and sense of self. Being harder to detect than physical abuse, the victim may find themselves caught on the receiving end of a destructive cycle of “crazy-making”.
  • Authoritarian style personality is linked to abuse of power and control. Authoritarian personality characteristics: organise through hierarchy, move towards acquisitions of power and wealth, tendency to use people and see others as inferior or wrong, have a tendency towards sado-masochism, incapacity to be fulfilled and satisfied, suffer from feelings of paranoia and persecution.
  • Two personality disorders in particular- Anti-social Personality Disorder (psychopathy/sociopathy) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder- are found in abusive group leaders.
  • Characteristics of sociopathic group leaders: glibness and superficial charm, manipulativeness, a grandiose sense of self, pathological lying, lack of remorse, lack of emotional depth and impulse control.
  • We may expect such sociopathic characteristics in cult leaders but consider leaders of new age movements, that proclaim a superior way of life; and survivors of clergy abuse who have frequently described a process of “grooming”, whereby their dependency and powerlessness was used to abuse and threaten them into silence. People in power who abuse others may share some if not all of the characteristics of authoritarian personality, charismatic, sociopathic and narcissistic personality styles.
  • We recommend when dealing with individuals exiting an abusive group to appreciate the impacts of exposure to authoritarian and personality disordered group leaders and fellow members who may have emulated the behaviour of the leader.
  • We recommend fully recognising the extent to which psychological control and influence have been used to disempower the individual. Working with exmembers of abusive groups is a process of rehabilitation; the supporting and rebuilding of a person that has been violated psychologically and possibly physically, sexually, and financially.
  • Greater awareness, prevention and intervention of psychological abuse is required. Prevalence and impacts of psychological abuse across all levels of interpersonal relationship (ie., intimate relationships, schools, sporting, community and church) requires investigation and appropriate intervention.”

There’s a lot here to think about, not just about the teacher who may have a mental disorder, but also those who may have emulated the behaviour, and those of us in the process of recovery after exiting an abusve cult.
What jumps out of this article for you?

Private discussion on this and other related topics can be had on our Secret  What Now Facebook Group. It is only for current and previous students of Rigpa, however, and we do moderate it closely. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from other sanghas can join the Dharma Friends Beyond the Temple Facebook Group . It’s a support group for anyone who has left their Buddhist sangha after hearing revelations of abuse by their teacher or after experiencing such abuse. It’s for people who see ethical behaviour, love, compassion and introspection as the core of their spiritual path. The aim of the group is to support each other in our spiritual journey wherever it takes us. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page.

Posted on

Seeing the Master as a Buddha, an Examination

This week we have a post by Joanne Clark.
One belief on Tahlia’s list of “Beliefs We Need to Examine” has spoken particularly strongly to me:
You must see your master as the Buddha if you want the blessings of the Buddha;
 This belief pervades Tibetan Buddhist culture. I had received that instruction myself, first from Sogyal Lakhar and later in a Kagyu monastery, years before I had even received a teaching on the Four Noble Truths. I had also heard the story of the woman who achieved realization as a result of praying to a dog’s tooth while believing that it was the tooth of the Buddha. Both teachings convey the idea that faith alone is sufficient to attain blessings and even realizations, that Buddha has that power through faith alone, like the power of Jesus Christ.
But this does not seem consistent with the Buddha’a  teachings. In Vajrayana, seeing the master as a Buddha has a specific meaning and purpose, one that is profound and never divorced from discerning wisdom. However, when it is practiced without the necessary understanding and wisdom of discernment, then all of that meaning and purpose are lost—and dangerous abuses can easily occur.
About ten years ago, there was a big earthquake in Tibet. Some monasteries were destroyed and lives were lost. It was a terrible tragedy. During a broadcast interview of a Tibetan woman at the scene, she repeated several times the idea that they were waiting for the “living Buddha” to arrive and help. In her grief, that anticipation seemed to be the one thing that mattered to her. “The living Buddha is coming,” she said.
Shortly after, I heard that a teacher I knew had travelled to the scene. He was a renowned lama connected to one of the monasteries. Here in the West, some thought he was a crazy wisdom lama. There were stories about his unusual antics. The first time I met him, he smelled of smoke and alcohol and he could be pretty brutal to some of us as well. I wondered if he was the living Buddha?
Certainly, in the midst of tragedy, faith is a tremendous help, so I would never want to suggest that this woman’s faith was misguided. Nor can I judge who is and who isn’t a living Buddha. Faith gives us hope. I also have prayed simple prayers of faith to the Buddhas during my journey through trauma. But how far do we let simple faith go?
Some years ago, I visited a website of a well-known lama. There was a banner running across his homepage which read “If you see the lama as a Buddha, you will receive the blessings of a Buddha. If you see the lama as an ordinary being, you will receive the blessings of an ordinary being.” In light of the fact that this was the first page someone would find who might be just exploring the dharma for the first time, this was strange. It seemed no different than visiting the homepage of a Christian leader, with a banner that instructed followers to take Jesus Christ as their savior—except that Jesus Christ isn’t a man who could enter one’s bedroom some night.
When Milarepa was giving parting advice to his chief disciple Gampopa, he had this to say about seeing the lama as a Buddha:
“You can start to teach and spread the Dharma when you behold and stabilize the realization of Mind-Essence. In time you will see it more clearly, which will be quite a different experience from those you are having now. Then you will see me as the perfect Buddha Himself. This deep and unshakable conviction will grow in you. Then you may start to teach.” (The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa; translated by Garma Chang; p. 490-491)
In Milarepa’s perspective here, the experience of seeing the guru as a Buddha is the result of advanced realization and wisdom—not as something taken on as an early, naïve belief, not something separate from practice and wisdom—Milarepa doesn’t even present it as an instruction, but as a realization. This is an important distinction.
In Precious Garland, Nagarjuna wrote:
“4. High status is considered to be happiness,
Definite goodness is liberation.
The quintessence of their means
Is briefly faith and wisdom.
 
“5. Due to having faith one relies on the practices,
Due to having wisdom one truly knows.
Of these two wisdom is the chief,
Faith is its prerequisite.” (Precious Garland, First Chapter)
 
Nagarjuna is clear. We cannot have faith in the absence of wisdom and it helps to know the purpose for having faith. We can have beliefs and they are necessary, as long as they do not compromise our discernment, wisdom and practice, as long as we aren’t blinded by them and led astray by them. Simple, yes, but I think in practice it is not so simple, especially in the Vajrayana and for those of us who come from Judeo-Christian cultures. There is very little space between the instruction of seeing the master as a Buddha and the born-again experience of a Christian.
In a recent publication, HH Dalai Lama referred to the story of the woman who prayed to the dog’s tooth in a discussion on excessive faith. He wrote:
“It is easy to conclude from this story that blind faith is necessary on this path. This is clearly contrary to the Buddha’s emphasis on developing discriminating wisdom. I do not see much point in this story and propose, replacing it with the following, a more suitable account to illustrate the benefit of having confidence in the Three Jewels.
“Two or three centuries ago, a great teacher and sincere practitioner named Togyen Lama Rinpoche lived in Tibet. He had a small clay image of Tsongkhapa on his carefully tended altar. One day, due to Togyen Lama’s genuine practice and heartfelt aspirational prayers, that image of Tsongkhapa actually spoke and gave teachings to him. This came about not from the side of the statue but mainly due to Togyen Lama’s excellent practice. Due to his spiritual experiences and confidence in Tsongkhapa, this clay image became the real Tsongkhapa and spoke to him. However, for ordinary people who lack that kind of spiritual experience and faith, the statue just looked like clay.” (The Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron, Approaching the Buddhist Path; p. 140).
Once again, in this story of strong faith, it is not separated from practice or discernment. Faith strengthens the practitioner’s wisdom—the statue is perceived to give teachings, not just blessings.
Thirty years ago, HH the Dalai Lama made a strong statement about the dangers of instructing students to see the guru as a perfect Buddha and sacrificing discernment to do so. These words are still relevant:
“It is frequently said that the essence of the training in guru-yoga is to cultivate the art of seeing everything the guru does as perfect; but personally, I myself do not like this to be taken too far. Often we see written in the scriptures, ‘Every action seen as perfect,’ but this phrase must be seen in the light of Buddha Shakyamuni’s own words: ‘Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith for me.’ The problem with the practice of seeing everything the guru does as perfect is that it very easily turns to poison for both the guru and the disciple…” (Essence of Refined Gold, Commentary by Tenzin Gyatso; p.54).
And later, he made an ominous warning:
“As for the guru, if he misrepresents this precept of guru-yoga in order to take advantage of his naïve disciples, his actions are like pouring the liquid fires of hell directly into his stomach.” (p.55)
And he spoke about pure perception:
“The disciple must always keep reason and his knowledge of the Dharma as principal guidelines. Without this approach it is difficult to digest one’s Dharma experiences. Make a thorough examination before accepting someone as a guru and even then follow him within the conventions of reason as presented by Buddha. The teachings on seeing the guru’s actions as perfect should largely be left for the practice of highest tantra, wherein they take on a new meaning. One of the principal yogas in the tantric vehicle is to see the world as a mandala of great bliss and to see oneself and all others as Buddhas. Under these circumstances it becomes absurd to think that you and everyone else are Buddhas, but your guru is not!” (Essence of Refined Gold; Commentary by pp. 55-56)
So these beliefs do serve a purpose, as with the woman after the earthquake described above, but more particularly in the Vajrayana and even more so in Dzogchen. When we sit on the cushion, there is a purpose to viewing the lama as the Buddha, a purpose that increases the power of devotion and does not skew our critical awareness. There is a purpose to pure perception off the cushion for the practice of highest yoga tantra. There are many statements from Dzogchen masters about the importance of strong devotion in order to practice Dzogchen. It is essential for the introduction to the mind’s nature.
The vital point being made in all of these statements is that the practice of seeing the lama as a Buddha is an advanced Vajrayana practice and it does not mean that we give away our capability of seeing truth clearly as a result of that practice. It is not a blinker. If the lama is abusing students, then these are not the practices of a Buddha. To say that they are the practices of a Buddha—because we are training to see the lama as Buddha—is to sacrifice our discernment and decency. That is blind faith and never a Buddhist practice.
Blind faith is a linear perspective, which sees reality in black and white, simplistic terms. Blind faith cannot allow for troublesome conflicts of interest or complicated realities. For example, how can Rigpa students account for the fact that the lama they perceive as Buddha himself, the lama who has brought them teachings and profound experiences, is behaving like a cruel criminal? Blind faith would say to simply deny reality, blinker the truth.
But Rigpa students can only truly account for the situation through a discerning wisdom capable of seeing a many dimensioned, complex and murky reality—difficult as that is. The challenge of balancing the perception of Sogyal Lakhar, a deeply flawed man who has abused students and must account for his misdeeds in courts of law, with the perception of Sogyal Rinpoche, the lama who brought the Dharma into their lives and whom they have perceived as a Buddha, is huge.  Certainly, to acknowledge these two realities in one mind is difficult or impossible for most. But for Rigpa students who have been practicing Vajrayana for many years with Sogyal Lakhar, discounting those years of practice is not tenable either—but nor is it tenable to ignore the harm being caused to themselves and others. I think everyone is seeking their own way of moving forward through this murkiness. For myself, like many other ex-Rigpa, cautions about devotion and viewing the lama as a Buddha are burned into me after years of struggle. In my opinion, teachers and students of Vajrayana in the West must acknowledge the murky terrain we are on if Vajrayana is to survive in the West.
Thanks for your thoughts Joanne.
Another post on the topic of seeing one’s teacher as a Buddha  can be read here https://whatnow727.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/are-vajrayana-teachers-really-buddhas/  
In that post I draw on Alexander Berzin’s writing on the matter, writing that I highly recommend.https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/lam-rim/student-teacher-relationship/seeing-the-spiritual-teacher-as-a-buddha/is-the-guru-really-a-buddha

“The sole purpose of viewing the teacher as a buddha is so we can see these same awakened qualities in ourselves, in others, and in the world around us. It is a tool that helps us to gain confidence in the purity of our true nature.” Minguyr Rinpoche. Lions Roar, Sept 24th 2017

The instruction that we should see our teacher as a buddha if we want the blessings of a buddha is clearly problematic in a world where teachers cannot be trusted to behave as decent human beings, so how are we to practice this under these cricumstances?

Private discussion on this and other related topics can be had on our Secret  What Now Facebook Group. It is only for current and previous students of Rigpa, however, and we do moderate it closely. If you’re interested in joining, please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
People from other sanghas can join the Dharma Friends Beyond the Temple Facebook Group . It’s a support group for anyone who has left their Buddhist sangha after hearing revelations of abuse by their teacher or after experiencing such abuse. It’s for people who see ethical behaviour, love, compassion and introspection as the core of their spiritual path. The aim of the group is to support each other in our spiritual journey wherever it takes us. Click here and request to join.
The What Now? Reference Material page has links to a wealth of articles in the topics related to abuse in Buddhist communities. For links to places to assist in healing from abuse see the sangha care resources page.
Those of you who are interested in ‘keeping Buddhism clean’ could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page.
.

Privacy Policy Proudly powered by WordPress