How is Rigpa doing now? Can we see any indications that the organisation is changing to the degree that is needed for it to become a healthy organisation.
A heartening apology
From Feb 2018 Sangha Connection Newsletter
“The boards and the national teams feel deeply sorry for any hurt experienced by past or present members of the Rigpa sangha. The allegations of the 8 students and anyone who speaks up with criticisms or stories of hurt or wrongdoing will be respected and heard – not marginalised or suppressed. We take full responsibility for ensuring that Rigpa provides a welcoming, open and safe environment for all. These are our heartfelt commitments to our community.”
The use of the word “experienced” is significant, as is the acknowledgement that people who speak up have been marginalised and suppressed in the past. Of course those who are criticising have left and even if they wish to return are not allowed to, so this is a bit like closing the gate after the bull has bolted. Nevertheless, the rest of the letter does show that they have listened to people, because they list the concerns they have noted, for these reasons, this communication can be seen as a big step forward. Actions speak louder than words, however, so let’s see if anything changes in their actions.
Sogyal’s message to the Australian retreat
Sogyal’s audio message to the Australian retreat was shared with the whole sangha at a sangha day recently and was widely seen as a true apology. I was told that it is obvious that he is reading a prewritten script but those who have heard it say that his tone of voice is such that the message appears to be truly heartfelt. One person who heard it was surprised, therefore, to discover the actual wording. Here’s the transcript of the relevant part:
“I know that some of you in the Sangha still feel very hurt and upset, perhaps even at me. I really want to acknowledge your feelings of hurt and once again offer you my deepest apologies for anything you feel I may have done to cause you really pain.
”Not a single day goes by where I don’t take these things seriously, and ask forgiveness for whatever I may have done knowingly and unknowingly in the presence of all the Buddhas and also in your presence I invoke you, the sangha, too, really heartfelt, and pray that the healing will take place soon, that something really good may come out of this.”
Sincere apology or pseudo-apology
Sogyal’s apologies have always been dependent on the feeling of harm, not the actual harm. This article in the Tricycle points out the difference between a sincere apology and a pseudo-apology
https://tricycle.org/magazine/forgiveness-not-buddhist/
“Apology is part of the third force, remedy. An apology can do much to mitigate the harm done and to set things in a more constructive direction. Even in serious medical situations, when a doctor does something wrong, in many cases what the aggrieved party wants most of all is a sincere apology. To know that the doctor knows he or she did something wrong and sincerely regrets it may put patients at ease, if only because now they have some confidence that no one else will suffer the same fate.
What constitutes a sincere apology? A sincere apology consists of an admission and expression of regret not for the results of an action but for the action itself. Feel the difference between the words “I’m sorry if I offended you” and “I’m sorry I spoke harshly to you,” or even “I’m sorry—that was insensitive on my part.” In the latter two versions, I am acknowledging my action. I am not making the apology conditional on your state of mind. We can only take responsibility for our actions and the intention motivating our actions.”
Note these parts of the ‘apology’: ‘your feelings of hurt” and “anything you feel I may have done”. This use of the word feel makes it another pseudo apology, indicating that he has not accepted that he actually caused hurt, only that people felt hurt. This puts the responsibility for the hurt on the person harmed, on their feeling of hurt. He’s sorry for their feelings not for his actions. Can one heal with a pseudo-apology?
Of course, it is also possible that a lawyer got to the script.
Vision Board
Want to know who’s running Rigpa these days. Take a look here: http://www.rigpa.org/rigpa-vision-board. Oh, look who it is? The people who enabled and covered up the behaviour outlined in the July letter for decades. Are we really supposed to trust that they can suddenly start doing a better job than they did before?
Code of Conduct
The first draft is out and they are taking feedback on it now. Of course, it’s wonderful that they are working on such a thing, but as it stands at the moment, there is nothing in it that will stop abuse by a lama of his close students because there is a special category for the student who has accepted a teacher as their vajra master. This section has has little in it at present because ‘the lamas’ are looking at it, so we can’t really say anything about it except that it exists, and that’s a worry in itself.
However we can say a little about other parts: The document suggests that students use lojong practices to look at their feelings and perception. Do such directions, ones that suggest that the problem is the student making the complaint, have a place in a code of conduct? One student in evaluating the code said that this focus simply ‘codifies the cult.’
A student joining Rigpa presumably accepts this code of conduct, but a new student does not even know what lojong is, let alone have the spiritual experience and knowledge to apply the practice with a correct understanding.
And sexual relations between students and teachers are permitted, so by agreeing to this code, a young woman may be putting herself in a worse position than if there wasn’t a code. She is joining a group where, though harm is not permitted, sexual relations with teachers are, and teachers in vajrayana are powerful people who can flatter potential conquests with their attentions and promise all sorts of spiritual rewards if they accept a sexual advance. How does one define ‘harm’ when it comes to what happens in the privacy of a lama’s bedroom and a woman has agreed that such relations are permissible. Where is her protection? With such an allowance in a code of conduct any woman who feels as if she has been sexually abused will be at a disadvantage similar to a married woman trying to convince someone they have been raped.
They would be better to keep the philosophy out of it and make it based on behaviour not perception of behaviour, because focusing on our perception of behaviour rather than the behaviour itself is what got Rigpa into this mess in the first place. Any special category for the vajra master and their student that gives the vajra master special licence in terms of conduct is also completely missing the point that this special relationship is exactly what was abused in Rigpa.
The key to proving they aren’t a cult (any more)
Regardless of the outcome of the court case Lerab Ling has undertaken to try to prove they aren’t a cult, for so long as they do not denounce the behaviour laid out in the July letter, everything they do will remain suspect, and people will have good reason to see Rigpa as a cult. On French TV the lawyer the Lerab Ling community is suing emphasised the importance of the fact that they have not denounced the abusive behaviour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiIA8TUMYs&t=3s
What point is a code of conduct if management still sees abusive behaviour as acceptable? Can we trust management if they don’ t denounce it?
NB: The attitudes and feelings of people commenting on this blog do not represent those of either the members of the What Now? Private Facebook group or those running this blog. The blog administrators are not responsible or liable for comments left here.
We request that people refrain from personal attacks, spreading gossip and speculation. Please keep to things you know from personal experience.
We apologise for any hurtful or offensive comments you may have read here. Please contact us via the contact form if you see any such comments and we will remove them without discussion. This blog is not the place for people wishing to destroy Tibetan Buddhism or any human being be they associated with the religion or not.
Current and previous students of Rigpa wanting private support are welcome to join the What Now? Facebook group. Please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite.
Ex-Rigpa students and their dharma friends who want to move on from the discussion of abuse in Rigpa can stay in touch through the Dharma Companions Facebook Group.
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.
Want to keep this blog running? Become a Patron!
Brilliant article Moonfire! Thank you so much for articulating so clearly what many people, including myself must be feeling.
Didn’t the Buddha say that “Words have the power to create or destroy.”
I can only say that Sogyal needs to name, accept and apologise for his own behaviour before any apology will be truly genuine. This is certainly a start but it’s a “conditional” apology. And wasn’t he trying to teach us about “unconditional” love, compassion, joy and equanimity?
I still find it sickening that none of the senior managers who were complicit by shrugging off their responsibilities towards vulnerable students are still in charge. A line from the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying comes to mind! In the chapter on Compassion there is a description of Western busy-style laziness and Eastern-style languid laziness…..
“…. perhaps it was their karma to find a way to help!”
While in Ireland at the weekend, I went to mass in a Catholic church with my father. Alongside all the other prayers, I heard prayers offered “for those who were injured within the church, let us pray for God’s mercy for all concerned”….
Then in my hands in the mass booklet and among the general notices was a notice about the meeting times of the group that met to support survivors of clerical abuse….. and there was a poster about this meeting in the entrance hall outside.
Alongside this poster was a big fat report and a review of safeguarding children and adults within that very parish!
My God if the Catholic church can do that, then why can’t Rigpa? If only they had listened to their advisers back then in the early 1990s after that American court case.
Such arrogance and folly to think that they were above the law back then and now.
The Rigpa brand is forever tainted in my mind!
Rigpa should have taken the advice of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Mingyur Rinpoche instead.
Who said they are looking to the cc?
To Jacko,
It was just a facetious response to Europa’s comment, Jacko. However, the Catholic Church does seem to have more ethical conduct than RIGPA, as witnessed by Europa.
If only RIGPA took the compassionate advice of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Mingyur Rinpoche instead of Dzongsar…. Things would have been so very different!
Okay, keep up the good work saint marge
Agreed that until there is REAL acceptance of the problems, ranging from emotional abuse – public humiliation, threats and open favouritism, along with what amounts to fraud by any other name, misrepresentation of what the lama is doing (ie not meditating as claimed but other activities including watching inappropriate tv programmes) – all the sexual stuff – nothing will change, no excuses and apologies accepted and for the chief perpetrator – no change either. What of the advice from other lamas – those named, one at least, is highly suspect. 3-year retreat to reflect? Should happen but pretty sure it won’t.
This photo of close allies, Sogyal and Dzongsar, was taken only a year ago. Neither of them could predict this storm that now surrounds them. A lesson in impermanence…..
https://www.facebook.com/sogyal.rinpoche/photos/a.485061908344.252790.30766398344/10156042758043345/?type=3&theater
The March 2018 draft of the Code of Conduct was quite disappointing in a number of respects, but especially regarding the simple mechanics of filing a complaint.
Note that an aggrieved individual cannot go directly to the (as yet unspecified) ethics board. One must first go through “steps” of seeking resolution through dialog and informal grievance via instructor, support person, or local/national team members. Even then, a formal complaint must go to a National/Retreat Director without any guarantee that the complaint will ever reach an ethics board member. It seems to me, the whole point of an ethics board is that complaints be moved to a venue outside the regular Rigpa structure.
My comment to Rigpa was that “an aggrieved party should have the right to go directly to an ethics board as their first option, should they so choose. It is naive, impractical, and unfair to require an aggrieved, possibly traumatized party to go through multiple hoops of Rigpa position holders, likely of limited experience in addressing abuse issues and placed in the difficult position of judging friends. … Indeed, in some circumstances the oversight and advice of an ethics board member may be required to make the “steps” work at all.”
Ethical codes for Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist groups are not new, so it is not clear why the Rigpa panel is having such difficulty in drafting a realistic Code. Is there more concern with protecting the organization than in supporting an aggrieved and/or troubled individual?
“Note that an aggrieved individual cannot go directly to the (as yet unspecified) ethics board. One must first go through “steps” of seeking resolution through dialog and informal grievance via instructor, support person, or local/national team members. Even then, a formal complaint must go to a National/Retreat Director without any guarantee that the complaint will ever reach an ethics board member. It seems to me, the whole point of an ethics board is that complaints be moved to a venue outside the regular Rigpa structure.”
Thanks Joe for providing this piece of information.
I am surprised that those Rigpaofficials still could shock me with their defensive tactics.
So a “funny” idea. Imagine that my daughter would be manipulated and drawn into that inner circle club in order to deliver sexual services to the “lama” and only later found out how much she had been manipulated and abused.
She goes to her local “instructor” or “support person” or even to a “care person” ?
Those people are in most cases exactly that people that follows the Rigpa doctrines in the most blind manner. They are happy and proud to have such a eminent position. Its their lifeforce, their motivation, their feeling ” to be someone in the hierarchy “.
They are rarely the right choice for such a challenge. Imagine that your national police has abused prisoners over the years and then a new law say you can go to the police local station and report there. A simple example but it explains a the idea behind it.
Its made sure nobody goes and fill a complaint or whatsoever to do. And then under the control of national directors, those dedicated 100% to the “follow blindly” line ?
But this construction for a “code of conduct” shows whats behind Rigpa: on the first look everything seems to be fine, its need a thorough look and some experience to find out whats wrong.
How do I call it: brash, brazen and impudently, and in stupid way clever, because those that want believe anyway everything as long it helps to maintain the spiritual stupor.
So what, it’s here also:http://www.kagyu.com/introduction/ethics-policy
Petition them too and everyone else!
Indeed. Other vajrayana groups manage the kind of clarity people expect in a code of conduct. No sex is allowed between student and teacher in this code. http://www.kagyu.com/introduction/ethics-policy
Apparently that group learned from their own abuse debacle. Rigpa has yet to learn that they cannot continue as they have done in the past. Their draft code seems to be an attempt to write down the very structures they used to prevent complaints ever being taken seriously in the past. It’s very sad that on the one hand they say how much they’ve changed and then they cannot see just how much this draft code shows that they have no intention of truly changing at all.
Yes catlover, we all know the Nyingma lama’s do not abide by the monastic code and where the robes, that they have families, girlfriends etc, there is no problem there.
The problem is when the guru who has a Samaya vow commitment to his students and steps out of his religious role as guru to do publicity for his own worldly pursuits using his robes to play off the irony, he has not only already stepped outside of the traditional role of the guru, but using it in his samsaric aspirations.
He has jeans and t shirt, he wears them when he is not on tour or when he is making the movie, but to use this for publicity purposes is the wrong context. Lay lama’s wear robes when they teach but they do not need to wear them when not.
In their private sexual encounters they should also be wearing normal clothes to signify the separation from their religious role but Sogyal has manipulated this, that his sexual encounters were ‘spiritual’, the robes signify something religious and to use it for non religious purposes or to get laid is where the problem is.
As previous comment thread closed, must post contact deets promised to Deborah Bouldin here…
rose@ritestogether.org.au
Many thanks
One of the lojong slogans is about giving all credit to others, and *taking all blame on oneself*.
This clearly has no place in a code of conduct, as part of the steps to follow when reporting an ethical violation.
Rigpa needs an elected board. That way these decisions wouldn’t just be handed down from above. The rank and file could push for Sogyal and Dzongsar to be fired, if that’s really what they wanted, and replaced with better-behaved lamas. For that you’d need a formal system of determining just who would be a “member” of Rigpa. (Most likely it would involve paying annual fees.) There could also be restrictions on how money is spent, so the whole organization doesn’t become the lama’s personal piggy bank.
The Samaya vow goes both ways, the student is devoted to the guru and the guru is supposed to be devoted and pay more attention to the student than himself.
A constant spiritual friend along the journey. Most students will not get even 5 minutes in private, they delibritly do this to get increased devotion from the student, however the situation is different if they are sexually attracted to the student, this is where all the confusion and manipulation on part of the teacher comes in.
When DKJR writes on his Facebook that everyone should take shorter showers to conserve water, in his first book that the queen of England or Margaret thatcher conserves scrap pieces of paper by writing on both sides, and in his second book that using a washing machine for one article of clothing is decadent. Yet at the same time squanders millions of dollars on films no one outside the Tibetan Buddhist world watches but justifies it with pretentious quotes like
‘all rinpoche’s were tanka painters and I am a tanka painter of LIGHT’ he has already stepped out of his traditional role. The carbon footprint and the wasted investment which could have been put to far more compassionate and productive use has been more than all the critiques he gives to dharma students who take a longer showers or are on the dole.
A guru who considers being an art house tanka painter of light and giving promotional interviews in his monk robes (irony? Publicity?) has already broken the dedication his part of the Samaya has to awaken and serve his students. The robes have been misleading all along as if he has detached himself from worldly life. Yes Nyingma lama’s do not have the monk code of celibacy etc but donning the robe at movie premiers and sleeping with students is where that leads to trouble.
To send out emails to all of the sangha telling to vote for his movie on the online competition is example of how the sangha is used to his benefit, what about the other filmmakers who do not lead a sangha or a cult. And offering to his students a special screening to his films at $60 a ticket of which there will be only 30 special screenings is also frankly a misuse of his position and the sacred sangha. While film crew and equipment are being flown around the world at huge financial and ecological costs, he feels that reminding us about conservation is his duty.
One only needs to read his books to realize the best parts are plagiarized from the Buddha and his parts are just his critiques of western society. Who is he to judge that Eckart Tolle and all these western Buddhists plagiarizes Buddhism.
As we have seen DKJR and Sogyal have been the biggest plagiarizers of Buddhism. And they think they own the copyright patent.
Dharmalover, AFAIK, the funding of DKR’s movie ventures is distinct from offerings made to him personally out of students’ devotion or to his orgs such as Khyentse Foundation. So by whatever means he raises film funding, i don’t really think it is an indictment of him as a spiritual teacher. If you had a creative pursuit entirely seperate from your professional role, you would be entitled to raise money to support your endeavours, independently of your work role, wouldn’t you? But you might possibly ask your work colleagues to support your creative sidelines, by inviting them to exhibitions and even encouraging them to buy your work, etc.
Many of us commenting on this blog are critical of DKR’s paradoxical behaviour, particularly around Rigpa. I just think it’s important to stick to the facts – if you are aware that he’s actually used devotional offerings to fund his film work, then by all means, please provide the evidence. And who knows, maybe his films have brought people to Buddhism.
It is certainly scary that he invokes Margaret Thatcher to support his eco-awareness. And i’m not sure that he or any other Lamas should be too critical of people who are forced to live on the dole. When was the last time any of them applied for a job?
Yes the film thing is a completely different topic here. Leaves me with some questions but I’m not going there right now. Would be better to see if we can get a round table discussion with prominent players going so we get a more balanced dialogue with a variety of perspectives on abuse of power with buddhist lamas in the west. There will be no editing or cherry picking at such a dialogue.
@ concerned, you’ve raised this round table idea a number of times but i’m not at all confident that it would yield a full and frank discussion from the Lamas, (DKR, Mingyur, etc) due to their ingrained habit of not openly disagreeing with each other. It would require a fearless interviewer prepared to challenge DKR’s evasiveness on the crucial points, and i don’t think such a person exists amongst Western Buddhist followers. More likely, such a forum would just end up with the other spiritual dignitaries deferring to DKR.
@matilda7 Unless they get an interviewer from the NY Times….
It could be groundbreaking with the right panel and a fierce interviewer.
Yes, it would require an interlocutor with cut-through journalistic skills but they are unlikely to have a proper,long-term grip on the Vajrayana. Have you really thought this through, concerned? Should this proposal ever proceed, I think you’re likely to be disappointed with the outcome. Lamas simply aren’t comfortable disagreeing with each other in public, regardless of what happens behind the scenes.
Art house painter of light😄 so so profound life changing movies that your Samaya and responsibility to students welfare can be ignored for a year of production..
https://onecanhappen.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/wwjdwhip.jpg?w=540&h=386
@Dharmalover,
I am not a fan of DKJR, but for the sake of clearing up confusion, I would like to point out that lay lamas often wear robes too, which are similar to monk’s robes, but slightly different. For example, I believe that a monk’s outer robe crosses over the front and one arm is bare, and a lay lama’s robes do not expose the shoulder. They are sleeved jackets. His robes look like a lay lama’s robes to me, so I don’t see anything wrong with him wearing them. Regardless of other things about him that one may not like, he is not a monk, nor does he pretend to be a monk. If he ever wears actual monk’s robes, then I agree he shouldn’t do that.
Yes catlover, we all know the Nyingma lama’s do not abide by the monastic code and where the robes, that they have families, girlfriends etc, there is no problem there.
The problem is when the guru who has a Samaya vow commitment to his students and steps out of his religious role as guru to do publicity for his own worldly pursuits using his robes to play off the irony, he has not only already stepped outside of the traditional role of the guru, but using it in his samsaric aspirations.
He has jeans and t shirt, he wears them when he is not on tour or when he is making the movie, but to use this for publicity purposes is the wrong context. Lay lama’s wear robes when they teach but they do not need to wear them when not.
In their private sexual encounters they should also be wearing normal clothes to signify the separation from their religious role but Sogyal has manipulated this, that his sexual encounters were ‘spiritual’, the robes signify something religious and to use it for non religious purposes or to get laid is where the problem is.
The arm out/in to signify whether they are monk or not is not known to the greater public, DKJR carefully plays on this ignorance. Even in his London talk he sits with his legs and knees together like he is a chaste virgin too timid to talk about this but making jokes that play off of that persona.
A while ago I saw an image of DKR clearly posing as a monk. He wore the robes of a monk including the dongkha* which I had heard a lay lama wouldn’t put on. But he did. He had also a bald head. You could not discriminate anymore if he is a lay person or a monk. I am myself a monk and I live among monks wearing the Tibetan robes.
However, in Tibet it was custom that high lay Rinpoche wore monks robes. But still, in the West I think it confuses people and it’s not a good behaviour I think. When DKR was invited by a famous anthropologist for a dinner, he came with his girlfriend (or wife) wearing the robes. Not sure why there’s is a need for such an action in such a context and whom this is going to benefit.
For the dongkha see image 4 here https://buddhistische-ordensgemeinschaft.de/tibetisch-buddhistische-roben-moenche-nonnen.htm He wore a only red coloured dongkha without the yellow like I also wear. I remember this image vividly because I couldn’t believe what I saw and wondered what this will tell to people and how it might confuse them.
@tenpel,
I guess that would be confusing if DKJR is wearing monk’s robes sometimes, since he is not a monk! During his more recent talks, I only saw him wearing the lama robes.
Well, I wasn’t at the talks. I just saw the videos.
When I remember correctly, the only image I saw was taken in Nepal. He looked in all ways like a monk and you couldn’t infer from the robes he is not.
Actually, speaking of DKJR, maybe some of you have already seen his “just to clarify” post on his Facebook page. (You have to scroll several posts down.) It is a video of His Holiness the Dalai Lama making a comment at a conference in 1993 about whether a student can criticize a Vajrayana guru. The video does not include the rest of what HHDL said at the same conference when he was asked about the same issue again. Here is a post from another blog that people can read for further clarification of what HHDL said. I’m including it here because I think it’s important to know the complete context of what HHDL said.
https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2018/03/29/just-to-clarify-what-h-h-the-dalai-lama-really-said-about-criticizing-a-vajrayana-lama/
Here is a more direct link to what HHDL said after being questioned at the conference again. (It is about 10 minutes long.)
That’s good to post the video around Catlover. I noticed that DKR’s misleading video has been shared 263 times and that feels like a big problem to me.
@Joanne,
Yes, that’s the reason I posted it. I felt the links should be here too. Take heart that all of the corrective comments underneath DKR’s post are also being shared along with his post. Maybe people will see those too.
Thank you for doing this. It has kept me from drawing the conclusion that HHDL was contradicting himself, which I might have believed if you hadn’t done this work.
Neither HHDL nor DJKR are contradicting themselves or each other! Why? Both are saying that you must speak out about abuse if it’s happening. But both are also saying that after taking a teacher as your root master consciously, then this is where the problem is. On breaks one’s samaya.
Both did say that if that’s the case (that you have a samaya after saying I’m going to become the student of this master), then one should move away silently. If one doesn’t do this then that’s where the as HHDL says “Now this is where the problem comes as a buddhist who practices tantrayana…..”
To me that is loud and clear.
You may say, but HHDL said we must expose abuse. Yes, that’s what he said, but if we have taken that master consciously as our teacher and went and received empowerment or dzogchen teachings from him, then the “is where the problem comes”.
HHDL further explained loudly clearly how he resolved the problem in his case.
“I have had many teachers, and I cannot accept seeing all their actions as pure. My two regents, who were among my sixteen teachers, fought one another in a power struggle that even involved the Tibetan army.
When I sit on my meditation seat, I feel both were kind to me, and I have profound respect for both of them. Their fights do not matter.
But when I had to deal with what was going on in the society, I said to them, “What you’re doing is wrong!”
We should not feel a conflict in loyalties by acting in this way. In our practice, we can view the guru’s behavior as that of a mahasiddha, and in dealings with society, follow the general Buddhist approach and say that that behavior is wrong.”
@Buddy,
Neither HHDL or Mingyur Rinpoche said that it would be breaking samaya to make the teacher’s bad behavior public, IF the motivation was pure and sincere. In fact, Mingyur in particular said it *wouldn’t* be breaking samaya to make painful information public under those circumstances.
Buddy, before spreading some misinformation you’d better check the facts. What you are saying is NOT the position of HHDL since 1993. Now, please check the facts and try to not to disappear like a coward. Try to be honest and bring the testimony of what you found out. Let’s see if you have some integrity.
To Joanne,
You said, “I noticed that DKR’s misleading video has been shared 263 times and that feels like a big problem to me.”
This is also a big problem for everybody who cares about the future of Buddhism, particularly as thousands have already seen that video on his Facebook page. Moreover, if it has already been shared that many times, many more thousands would have seen it elsewhere – all of whom have now been misled.
What Dzongsar has done, particulalry as it has involved editing His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is grossly unethical, and it’s being seriously frowned upon throughout the Buddhist community.
Dzongsar must have gone through so many hours of video footage of HHDL teaching over the years, in order to find that tiny fragment which he could easily edit out of context. Dzongsar knows damn well what HHDL believes, as HHDL has made his opinion absolutely clear many times before.
It’s obvious that Dzongsar is continuing to manipulate the situation in any way that he can, in order to suppport his and Sogyal’s shared agenda about RIGPA, where deals are being struck behind closed doors.
I’ve said this before, and I will say it again:
Dzongsar and Sogyal are very close – Be warned.
@Marge,
“Dzongsar must have gone through so many hours of video footage of HHDL teaching over the years, in order to find that tiny fragment which he could easily edit out of context.”
THIS.
He must have looked long and hard, lol!
This is very disturbing that he cherry picked such a piece from HHDL when DKR himself demanded that no westerner should cherry pick from his obnoxious 10000 rambling words. I can only imagine that he and a few of his inner students went through all of HH teachings to find that segment knowing it could be taken out of context. And DKR is saying there must be some ‘misunderstanding’ or misinterpretation’? I’m so over it. His films aren’t even worth a look. I walked away. On the other hand, HHDL is clear and to the point and deserves the full watch.
Sogyal was openly abusing women in front of visiting lama’s.
There is no Lama closer to Sogyal than DKR. I find it hard to believe knowing DKR’s character that he had no idea about Sogyal.
As someone commented on Open Buddhism if DJKR could accuse Eckart Tolle and other western ‘new age’ writers of plagiarizing Buddhism as if only DKR has the authority to use buddha’s words, then he is judging someone he doesn’t know.
But now he says he is not ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Sogyal because he cannot judge him and who is he to judge.
‘So he judges people he does not know, and cannot judge people he does know’
Moreover, it seems Sogyal and DKR have made a handsome living ‘plagiarizing’ buddha’s words.
The issues with Sogyal had been going on for decades, how could he not know what his friend was up to. If there was one person from back home Sogyal would have liked to ‘party’ with in the west it would have been DKR.
Everyone who worked around Weinstein knew!