sexual abuse Archives - Beyond the Temple

November 27, 2017

Hollywood & Rigpa Comparison, pt 4 – Time to Stand Together

The alleged abuses by Sogyal Rinpoche and Harvey Weinstein have been going on for decades, sometimes in situations where others were aware of the behaviour, so why did it take so long for people with complaints to be taken seriously? Where they not aware, or were they complicit by their silence?

Just rumours

Again some of the statements made by celebrities about Weinstein echo the feelings of many Rigpa students about Sogyal:
Kate Winslet acknowledged that there had been whisperings over the years: ‘I had hoped that these kind of stories were just made-up rumours, maybe we have all been naive.’
George Clooney said, “The rumours in general started back in the 90s, and they were that certain actresses had slept with Harvey to get a role. “It seemed like a way to smear the actresses and demean them by saying that they didn’t get the jobs based on their talent, so I took those rumours with a grain of salt.”
In the past when other accusations came to light, Rigpa management held special sessions for instructors to tell them what to say to anyone asking about the accusations. In these sessions we were told that the women making the claims were unstable or simply a girlfriend who felt jilted, and senior instructors running the session assured us that they believed that Sogyal had never harmed anyone.

Normalising the abuse

Many students (if not most) who have experienced being hit or publically humiliated do not consider it an abuse but an act of love. Earlier this year Sogyal Rinpoche gut punched a nun in front of around 1000 people, but despite her obvious distress at the time, a year later in a private letter she explained how she didn’t see it as abuse at all.
Rigpa students are taught from their very first retreat with Sogyal to see his public humiliation of students as a form of kindness and the actions of an enlightened being or ‘crazy wisdom’ master. They are told to suspend their critical mind and drop their concepts of good and bad. The result is a normalising of abuse as happens in the case of abusive families. It’s also one mark of a cult. Even with Sogyal resigned from his position, if students are still being taught in that way there is still a problem.
The equivalent in the Weinstein case would be his employees accepting that abuse by Weinstein was perfectly normal and acceptable, and those effected not being aware that they had, in fact, been abused.
The normalising of the boss’s behaviour appears to apply in both cases. In an article titled ‘The Cult of Harvey’, The Guardian reports that ‘Webster admitted that Weinstein’s predatory behaviour towards young women was common knowledge but that the culture of Miramax led them to “compartmentalise it”.’
Statements in the article make it clear that, according to these employees, Weinstein’s behaviour was not only damaging to women. Paul Webster, who was head of production at Miramax between 1995 and 1997, said, “Everything Harvey did was all about manipulation and fear. He was a massive bully. He would flatter people, get the best out of them and then dump on them really, really hard to destroy them. It was this whole thing of breaking people down so you could build them up in your own image.”
And from the letter from the 8 students:
“Your emotional and psychological abuse has been perhaps more damaging than the physical scars you have left on us. When we have worked for you while organizing and setting up the infrastructure for you to teach at different places around the world (Europe, North America, Australia, and India and Nepal), your shaming and threatening have led some of your closest students and attendants to emotional breakdowns. You have always told us to be appreciative of the personal attention that you give, that you were “pointing out our hidden faults” in our character, and freeing us from “our self-cherishing ego.” We no longer believe this to be so. It was done in such a way that was harmful to us rather than helpful, a method of control, a blatant means of subjugation and undue influence that removed our liberty.”
These similarities remind us that the case of Sogyal Rinpoche is not an isolated one, and not exclusive to any organisation. However, when it occurs in a ‘spiritual’ organisation, it is even more shocking and reprehensible.

Silence suggests support.

In one article, The Guardian says that they ‘contacted more than 20 male actors and directors who have worked with the movie mogul over the years. … All declined to comment or did not respond to inquiries about the accusations.’
Very few Tibetan lamas have said anything on the matter.
‘Migdia Chinea, a film-maker and screenwriter, said it was “outrageous” that so few men had been willing to speak up.
Many feel the same about the lack of comment by Tibetan Lamas.
‘Rose McGowan, one of the most prominent Weinstein accusers, has called for the entire board of men in Weinstein’s company to resign and tweeted that men have remained silent because “they are weak and scared”.’
An article on the What Now? blog also called for the resignation of Rigpa’s upper management and the accusation of them being weak and scared could equally be applied to them. Though five members of the Weinstein Company’s board have resigned, no one has resigned from Rigpa’s upper management.
Laura Finley, a Barry University professor and author of Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault in Popular Culture, said it can make a huge difference when men publicly support women who have come forward.
It also makes a huge difference when other women come forward, and when members of a community as a whole support those who speak out. This has happened a lot more in the Hollywood community than in the Tibetan Buddhist community where the silence of so many Tibetan lamas is seen by many to make them supporters of the abuse.
Many Rigpa students are also remaining silent, but isn’t it time, given the overwhelming indication about how the majority of the Western world feels about abuse that they, and those men contacted by The Guardian stand by those who have spoken out, and support them for their courageous stand. It appears that those who stand up in support have more courage and moral fibre than those who remain silent.

Further cases make the mood clear

Allegations of sexual abuse has destroyed the reputation of actor Kevin Spacey, and The Minister of Defence in the UK and comedian Louis CK confessed that allegations made against him were true. Complaints are stacking up in the Illinois Capital, and the Gate Theatre in Ireland made a statement in the wake of claims of abuse and misuse of power. The reactions to these are the same as they were for Harvey Weinstein, making it quite clear where the Western world stands on this issue.
The success of the #Me Too campaign also highlighted the extent of the problem, the desire for change and the power of people standing together.
In a discussion on News Hour Lynne Bernabei said, ‘I think that’s why this talk of banding together, the #MeToo campaign, all the campaigns to bring women together to sort of create that change or break through this sort of veil of silence on this issue, is going to be the most important thing we can gain from this series of scandals.’
Not only does the success of this campaign make it clear that sexual abuse is rife in our society but also that it’s clear that the time has come to act decisively to stop it and other forms of abuse. Buddhist organisations are not exempt from this movement in our society, and if they do not reframe the beliefs that allow these abuses to flourish, they will be discredited. The very institutions they think they are saving by holding onto antiquated ideas will die because they are holding on. Change has always occurred when Buddhism enters a new country, and the West is demanding that the abuse cease. Considering that ethics is the very basis of the Buddha’s teachings, it is hard for people to understand why this should be an issue. It’s time to stand together and stand up against abuse in all its forms.

Current and previous students of Rigpa wanting personal and private support in regards to the abuse issue can be found in the What Now? Facebook group. Please contact us via the contact page and ask for an invite using the email address you use on Facebook
If you would like to stay in contact with and support ex-Rigpa students, we have created the Dharma Companions Facebook Group. The group files include lists of online courses with reputable teachers, and members can join monthly Skype meetings and retreats. If you’re interested, click the link and ask to join. You will need to answer some questions before being admitted to the group.
Be sure to check out the What Now? Reference Material page for 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’ in general could ‘Like’ the Dharma Protectors Facebook page. Links to posts on this blog will be posted there as well as links to other relevant information related to the wider issues.
And if you would like to make sure that this blog keeps running, please consider sponsoring our editor for the many hours of work involved.

November 22, 2017

Hollywood & Rigpa: a comparison. Part 3 – Reactions

The news of Weinstein’s abusive behaviour set off a landslide of comments by celebrities against sexual abuse and in support of those who spoke out .
“It’s with a feeling of nausea,” Colin Firth said, “that I read what was going on while I was benefiting from Harvey Weinstein’s support. He was a powerful and frightening man to stand up to. It must have been terrifying for these women to step up and call him out. And horrifying to be subjected to that kind of harassment. I applaud their courage.”

The Guardian Reported that:
‘Pulcini, a writer and director, emailed a statement to the Guardian after publication of this story, saying: “I have such admiration for the women who have spoken up. What bravery. There should be zero tolerance EVERYWHERE for this kind of horrifying behavior.”

‘DiCaprio published a short statement late Tuesday night that did not name Weinstein but said: “There is no excuse for sexual harassment or sexual assault – no matter who you are and no matter what profession.

‘Affleck also released a statement Tuesday, saying: “I am saddened and angry that a man who I worked with used his position of power to intimidate, sexually harass and manipulate many women over decades.”’

These reactions reflect the responses of the broader community to the Wenstein scandal, and they also reflect the reactions of a large number of Buddhist students both in and outside of Rigpa to news of Sogyal Rinpoche’s allegedly abusive behaviour.

In an article in The Lion’s Roar Mingyur Rinpoche, a respected Tibetan Buddhist teacher, said:
“We must distinguish teachers who are eccentric or provocative—but ultimately compassionate and skillful—from those who are actually harming students and causing trauma. These are two very different things, and it is important that we do not lump them together. There are plenty of teachers who push and provoke students to help them learn about their minds, but that is not abuse. Physical, sexual, and psychological abuse are not teaching tools.
… It should go without saying that when schools, businesses, and other public institutions are expected to adhere to a code of conduct and the laws of the land, then spiritual organizations should be role models of ethical behavior. And teachers even more so.”

On the 1^st of August in Leh, Ladakh, India, His Holiness the Dalai Lama said, ‘Now, recently Sogyal Rinpoche; my very good friend, but he’s disgraced.’
And in Frankfurt on 14th September 2017, he said that lamas that do wrong should be arrested. He also said that such behaviour is not in accord with Buddhism:
‘The ethical principles of how to behave as teachers are clearly stated in the Buddhist texts. And these cases of abuse, which are reported, are clearly diametrically opposed to these principles.’
The Buddhist Union in France revoked Rigpa’s membership, and many Western teachers spoke out, most notably Mattheiu Rickard who said, ‘The behavior described in this letter and in the other past testimonies is obviously unacceptable—from the point of view of ordinary morality and especially from that of Buddhist ethics. This is all the more so given the considerable suffering that has resulted from such actions.’

Differences in Reactions

You’ll notice how very polite these statements from Buddhist teachers are and how they do not actually criticise Sogyal Rinpoche or his behaviour. Instead they speak in general terms. This is because in Tibetan Buddhist Culture it is not considered right to criticise other teachers. In light of that, these statements by His Holiness and Mingyur Rinpoche are very brave. Most Tibetan teachers have remained silent on the issue.
Many Buddhist students, however, in private or on social media were less polite in their responses, and were the letter to get into the NYT it’s likely that the reaction would be the same from the general population. It’s only within the Buddhist community that reactions are muted and even supportive.
Despite Weinstein sending an email to ask for support, no one spoke up publically in support of him, and yet many still support Sogyal Rinpoche and even feel he has done no wrong. Those voices are loud in certain Facebook groups. The most notable support for Sogyal Rinpoche and his behaviour are the statements made by fundamentalist lamas who cling to unnecessarily rigid ideas in stark contrast to His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s position on the beliefs involved.

Supportive comments

Dzongsar Khyentse addressed the situation specifically, and though he raised questions about Sogyal’s qualifications as a teacher and lacks in adequately training his students, he basically said that the students should not have criticised their teacher or spoken up about the alleged abuses.
This is in direct opposition to what His Holiness the Dalai Lama said:
‘Buddhist teachers who abuse sex, power, money, alcohol, or drugs, and who, when faced with legitimate complaints from their own students, do not correct their behavior, should be criticized openly and by name. This may embarrass them and cause them to regret and stop their abusive behavior. Exposing the negative allows space for the positive side to increase. When publicizing such misconduct, it should be made clear that such teachers have disregarded the Buddha’s advice. However, when making public the ethical misconduct of a Buddhist teacher, it is only fair to mention their good qualities as well.’
Dzongsar Khyentse also said: ‘However you describe Sogyal Rinpoche’s style of teaching, the key point here is that if his students had received a Vajrayana initiation, if at the time they received it they were fully aware that it was a Vajrayana initiation, and if Sogyal Rinpoche had made sure that all the necessary prerequisites has been adhered to and fulfilled, then from the Vajrayana point of view, there is nothing wrong with Sogyal Rinpoche’s subsequent actions.’
All the students who spoke out had received the ultimate empowerment of the nature of mind, so according to this view, they should have seen nothing wrong with being hit, humiliated and sexually harassed. And if they did see it as wrong then they shouldn’t have spoken out about it. Furthermore, he is saying that according to his religion there is nothing wrong with a teacher abusing students so long as he has given them an empowerment.
Imagine the furor if someone said the following about Weinstein:
However you describe Weinstein’s style of management, the key point here is that if his employees had received a contract, if at the time they received it they were fully aware that it was a contract, and if Weinstein had made sure that all the necessary prerequisites has been adhered to and fulfilled, then from the contract’s point of view, there is nothing wrong with Weinstein’s subsequent actions.

No place for victim blaming

When teaching in Lerab Ling, Namdrol Rinpoche, another Tibetan Buddhist teacher, said about the student’s speaking up, not about the teacher’s behaviour: ‘From a spiritual point of view it [speaking up] goes against every aspect of Dharma. And from a worldly point of view it is so disrespectful and unnecessary and also instilling doubt and wrong view in the minds of so many disciples unnecessarily, to the point where they may even turn their minds away from the Dharma for good.’
Here he says that the ‘problem’ lies with the students who spoke up, not with the unethical behaviour itself. It’s akin to blaming the child abused by a Catholic priest of breaking the sanctity of the confession box, while ignoring the crime committed by the priest.
Try substituting the word ‘it’ for the word ‘abuse’ and the above statement makes a lot more sense.
Unsurprisingly, the words of Namdrol Rinpoche infuriated some, confused others and reassured those who want to hold onto the idea that their teacher is enlightened and the apparently abusive behaviour is only the complainant’s perception, not reality. For many it was the final thing that turned them away from the religion. And yet, Namdrol Rinpoche blames the students who spoke up for turning their minds away from the dharma, not the teacher who abused his students and the lama who defended him.
This is in stark contrast to the enormous support those who spoke up about Weinstein received in the general community. Imagine the backlash that would occur if someone publically stated that it was wrong for those women to have spoken up? No one would suggest that those who came forward in the recent investigation into abuse in the Catholic Church should not have done so. They were applauded for their courage, and many Buddhists also applauded the 8 letter writers for their courage. The idea that people should not tell others that they have been abused is untenable in today’s Western society.
Orgyen Tobgyal is another teacher who takes the same stance. He told one of the 8 letter writers that he had broken samaya (his spiritual ‘contract’ with his teacher) and would go to hell for speaking out. In a subsequent statement, he essentially blamed the students who spoke up for Sogyal’s ill health, and in a teaching at the Rigpa Paris centre, he said that he saw ‘no problem’ with Sogyal’s behaviour, that ‘beating increases wisdom’ and that if a great master kills someone it is not problem.
Is anyone saying that Weinstein’s alleged behaviour is not a problem? No. They are not. Clearly it is a problem, and so is the allegedly abusive behaviour of Sogyal.
An article in the Seattle Times made it quite clear that in the modern world there is no place for victim blaming, and this is true no matter which way you phrase it. Blaming the girl who is raped for her rape is something we relegate to third world countries with medieval beliefs and to our own past in less enlightened times. These ‘fundamentalist’ teachers are showing that their ideas on the matter of abuse by a spiritual teacher do not belong in the West. Luckily there are other lamas with more enlightened views, thus the problem is not with the religion itself, but with how it is interpreted.
The mainstream Western world would not tolerate support for such behaviour in Weinstein’s case, and they would not tolerate support for it in Sogyal Rinpoche’s case either – if they knew. Though they published an article on allegations of abuse by Sogyal Rinpoche back in 2011, The Guardian, whose articles I have sourced here, has so far not published anything on the recent scandal. An article has appeared in The Telegraph, however, but the story is yet to make it to the New York Times. If it does will the Western world make allowances for Sogyal Rinpoche because he is a religious figure? No. They are more likely to be more horrified than they were over Weinstein, not less.
There are two more parts to this examination, so stay tuned …

November 11, 2017

Hollywood and Rigpa: a study in responses. Part 1 – Management

This is part one of a three part series on the present social context for the issue of abuse in the Western world.
Early in October Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein made big news after a New York Times investigation uncovered allegations of sexual abuse of women going back decades. What followed was a series of events, revelations, confessions and statements of support for victims and for ending the silence around abuse. All this shows just how important freedom from abuse in all its forms is to the Western world, and why, for the future of Tibetan Buddhism in the West, Rigpa must look deeply at the core issues and make healthy decisions on their interpretation of the teachings that allowed this to happen. Without this deep examination and change of interpretation of the teachings that enabled the abuse, instituting a code of conduct and thinking that deals with the issue is like applying a Band-Aid solution to a cancer.
Anyone who is disgusted that news of SR’s behaviour has gone public should consider just how more public it could be. Sogyal Rinpoche’s disgrace has not made the New York Times. But if it does, what will those who commented on the Weinstein case think about how SR and Rigpa have handled the fall out of their own scandal? The comparison between Sogyal Rinpoche and Rigpa and the Weinstein case and how his company dealt with it is telling and to some of us even embarrassing.

Apology

As soon as the news broke, in a statement to the Times on October the 5^th^, Harvey apologised, saying, “I appreciate the way I have behaved in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologise for it. Though I’m trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go.” He went onto say that he was working with a therapist and planned to take a leave of absence.
Sogyal, however, took six days to respond and did not apologise. In fact his words were more a defence than an apology, dwelling on the good he has done and his lack of harmful intent.
“I have spent my whole life trying my best to serve the Buddhadharma, to bring these teachings to the West, and not a day goes by when I am not thinking about the welfare of my students, holding them in my heart, and feeling concern and responsibility for their spiritual path. It’s clear now, though, that a number of people do feel very disappointed and hurt, and are looking for answers and changes. Please know that I take this very seriously and I will not ignore it. I am clear in my own mind that I have never, ever, acted towards anyone with a motive of selfish gain or harmful intent. This is unthinkable for me.”
Not only does he not realise that his behaviour has caused pain (only that a number of people feel disappointed and hurt) but also he virtually denied causing harm by saying that he has “never, ever, acted towards anyone with a motive of selfish gain or harmful intent.” Having no harmful intent is not the same as taking responsibility for the fact that people have found his actions harmful and apologising for those actions.
That lack of apology has poisoned Sogyal and Rigpa’s attempts to manage the situation effectively. Denial does not form a basis for healing. Attempts at healing while denying harm is like stitching up a wound without treating the infection beneath the surface.
Sogyal also said he would take time off, in retreat, but instead of talking to a therapist he said, “I am seeking advice from masters who have a genuine care and concern for Rigpa.” Considering S’s possible mental health issues and the medieval opinions expressed by some of these lamas, a therapist would probably have been a healthier choice.

A history of cover ups

When confronted with allegations “stretching over three decades” the NYT says, “Weinstein has reached settlements with at least eight women.” Likewise, “in November 1994, a $10 million civil lawsuit was filed against Sogyal Rinpoche and Rigpa by an anonymous plaintiff, who was given the name “Janice Doe” to protect her identity. The complaint alleged infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and assault and battery. Sogyal Rinpoche avoided service of the charges by not publicly entering the U. S. and thus was never deposed. The lawsuit was settled out of court through mediation.” [ref. http://howdidithappen.org/history-abuse-allegations-rigpa/]
In this instance, Rigpa and Sogyal has behaved in a very worldly way, paying off complainants to keep them quiet.

Code of silence

“Dozens of Mr Weinstein’s current and former employees from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him. Weinstein enforced a code of silence. Employees of Weinstein Company have contracts saying that they will not criticise it or leadership in a way that would harm their ‘business reputation’ or any employees ‘personal reputation.’” [ref. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html]
In the same way, according to the attestations many in Rigpa management have been aware of the emotional, physical and sexual abuse for years. But in Rigpa’s case, anyone who raised concerns were disregarded and when further information came to light with Mimi’s story in 2011, management hired a PR firm, stated that they ‘believed’ that Sogyal Rinpoche had not harmed anyone, and while attempting to discredit and belittle those who spoke out, actively encouraged students not to look at online sources.
Rigpa also has a code of silence. It’s a literal interpretation of 8^th Century teachings on samaya that say that one should not criticise one’s teacher for fear of going to hell. And yet HH Dalai Lama made it quite clear in Dharamsala in 1993 that in situations of abuse, students should speak out to avoid continuing harm to students and damage to the integrity of the Buddhadharma. S and R’s adherence to this fear-mongering interpretation of the teachings on samaya acts like a gag, keeping students quiet and compliant. In Rigpa’s case, being a belief system students are expected to adhere to rather than a contract, it meets one of the criteria for cult-behaviour – complete obedience is demanded and dissent and criticism are not permitted.

Resignations

The actions of the Weinstein board members compares to those of Rigpa’s upper level students and “holders” of the group.
On the 6^th of October, just a day after the news broke one third of the Weinstein Company board resigned, and the four who remained announced that they had employed an outside law firm to investigate the allegations and that Weinstein would take a leave of absence. Two days later, they fired him. Weinstein’s advisor also resigned. On October the 15^th a fifth board member resigned.
In comparison, those at the top of the Rigpa International management hierarchy remain the same as it has been for the decades.
On the 11^th of August, nearly a month after the letter attesting to abuse came out, SR resigned.
The glaring issue is that those at the top of Rigpa Management, those who knew of the abuse and covered it up for years, have still not resigned, instead, they are steering Rigpa through this minefield of public opinion using the same tactics as previously: make some token gestures, ignore criticism, carry on as usual, build up the good, and wait out the storm.

Investigation

Just one day after the information of abuse emerged, four members of the Weinstein Board hired a law firm for an investigation and gave a public statement: “We have retained an independent and leading lawyer and firm, John Kiernan of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, to undertake a thorough and independent investigation and report to the full Board on the results of that investigation.”
It took the Rigpa management one month to announce that they would undertake an independent investigation, and four months later, they have yet to announce who will be doing their investigation. Rigpa is taking months to do what the Weinstein Company did in days. This gives them time to ‘cover their tracks’ should they feel they need to.

Code of Conduct

Rigpa management announced that they would institute a code of conduct. The Film Academy announced the same thing, not the Weinstein company itself. However the Film Academy’s initiative came from their recognition of the culture in the film industry that supports sexual abuse, whereas the Rigpa workshops on cultural change are not looking any further than how students feel, not what they believe, which is at the root of the enabling culture.

How does Rigpa compare?

There are similarities in the cover up of decades of abuse, the announcement of an investigation, the resignation of the leaders, and in the culture that fostered the abuse, notably a culture enforcing silence and offering rewards for ‘close contact’, and I’ll go deeper into this in the next part of this series. The difference in situation is that S has also been accused of emotional and physical abuse as well as sexual, which makes it a more widespread issue in the community, involving men as well as women and the more subtle areas of emotional abuse. Rigpa’s business, of course, is spiritual rather than worldly, but that leads to expectations that management would behave more ethically and more definitively than a company making movies, not less as seems to be the case. The differences in responses are that S and R have given no apologies, no one in upper management has resigned, and they have been slow to begin initiatives, respond to individual’s concerns and communicate with interested parties.
The Weinstein Company seem to be much more aware of social expectations and the ethics involved, and more willing to act definitively, but then they are in the mainstream press. What kind of pressure would be on Rigpa were this scandal given the same coverage?
Don’t miss Part 2 – Culture and Part 3 -Responses. Sign up to follow the blog.
Post written by Tahlia Newland.