June Campbell was not a nun. She wore a Tibetan chuba and was known as Yeshe. She learned to speak and write Tibetan. But if she was ever ordained then I have missed knowing about it.

I think Campbell got a raw deal, she was caught in something where the rules of engagement were not clear and the players against her held all the cards.
I have sympathy for her predicament, but she was an adult woman and free to keep refusing if that was what she really wanted to do. The problem was that she thought she was playing on a totally different field of endeavour--human to human, with the trust that necessarily demands--whereas in reality she was always playing against a stacked deck with a bunch of very, very experienced conmen.

She decided in the end not to take the payoff--the house etc--she made the right decision and I am not at all surprised that she harbours ill-feeling towards the people who played her so well and for so long--that is human nature too.

Now back to Sogyal, who is a far worse specimen of the conman, by all accounts.

BTW, taking the payoff keeps you in the crooked game, however peripherally.

If you truly want out you walk away with nothing but the lessons learned. Its the only way to win, short of going to law, and we all know how that one works (at least thus far in our evolvement as a species).

As I've stated,. I knew June when she was a willing participant in the 60s-70s romantic fantasy about all things Tibetan. She was also a serious meditator and a conscientious scholar. She was not a dilettante --unlike many travelers during that era who grafted a Tibetan veneer onto Bay Area culture. The crunch factor is that in those days none of us were aware of the disconnect between Tibetan social values and our own. We now know that this chasm is wide and deep -- and the fact that it is still not generally recognised is the reason why unscrupulous conmen like Sogyal Lakar can get away with many levels of deception for many years. I think -- hope -- there is an awakening taking place now -- just as there is in relation to the con that the bankers, investors, hedge fund managers and corporate oligarchs have pulled on us pretty much since WW2. I am saying this FYI -- I do not want to engage in a protracted defence of Tibetan Buddhism. As most of you here know I am a practitioner and I value the authentic ( rather than marketable) tradition very highly.

In case anyone is wondering and putting 2 and 2 together to make anything other than 4--I ain't June Campbell and never have been.
My disillusionment came a lot earlier and was, for me, a lot harder to figure out--since I did not have any remotely decent grounding to build upon.
And you can speculate about 'introjects' all you want--I am just damn glad that I stumbled across an honest and honourable buddhist teacher who was willing to take this feral wretch on. He did a damned good job on extremely poor material.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2011 08:35PM by Stoic.

Why are we blaming Sogyal for doing what is in the teachings to do?

My own disillusionment came when I realized that Tibetan Buddhists believe in tantric sex and that you need it in order to become enlightened:

Lama Thubten Yeshe (Introduction to Tantra, 147) wrote: "There is a certain point in the mastery of the completion stage where physically embracing a consort is necessary . . . ."


Je Tsong Khapa who founded the Gelugpas, agreed that to attain Buddha-hood in one lifetime, it is necessary to use an actual consort (karma mudra) saying,


"A female companion is the basis of accomplishment of liberation."


That is, in order to generate an illusory body as that of a particular deity with all the qualities of existence, another person must interact with it.

Tsongkhapa, founder of the Tibetan Gelugpa sect is of the same opinion:


“A female companion is the basis of the accomplishment of liberation”


The Dalai Lama said he would not reach enlightenment in this lifetime because he did not have a consort.

The Dalai Lama also said that many within Buddhist schools believe that the Shakyamuni became enlightenment with a consort under the Bodhi Tree and that his was edited out in many iconographies and written accounts.

It is generally understood in the tantric tradition, that it is not possible to bring all five winds into the central channel at the same time unless one performs karmamudra. The yogi will do the practice at an advanced stage. Milarepa did karmamudra with dakinis. The source for the oral instructions on the completion stage of the Kalachakra Tantra by Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey of the Gelugpa. I've also heard this from the Drikung Kagyu lamas. In some lineages an advanced yogi who is a monk will take a consort and it is not seen as violating vows, because this is what the Buddha said to do as part of the tantric method.

In Dzogchen and essence mahamudra, karmamudra is not important, and works with different channels.

From The Essential Dalai Lama: His Important Teachings by Dalai Lama:


"Yogis who have achieved a high level of the path and are fully qualified can engage in sexual activity, and a monastic with this ability can maintain all the precepts."


And while I was trying to understand just what my own teacher taught, I was met with hostility for questioning, which in turn caused me to realize that Tibetan Buddhism is not actually about peace. I even wrote to Stephen Batchelor who wrote back and told me that it is about sex and for me to be careful.

I do not believe that you have to incorporate sex in meditation in order to become enlightened. But I can also understand why Soygal was like he was, that is, he was only following the tantras. So how can we say that he was bad or evil unless we also make the claim that the entire Tibetan Buddhist system is evil, and actually one Tulku has called it a cesspool:


[www.youtube.com]

But actually he isn't the only one that feels this way, as there are others.

Tashi Tsering was part of the Dalai Lama's dance troop, and was raped but also given to an official lama for this lama's own pleasure. He in turn wrote the book, The Struggle for Modern Tibet. He also talked about how the Dalai Lama took truck loads of gold and silver out of Tibet before the Chinese arrived. It was horded in the monasteries. I wonder why it wasn't used to help his people? But that is another topic.

Quote

Why are we blaming Sogyal for doing what is in the teachings to do?

My own disillusionment came when I realized that Tibetan Buddhists believe in tantric sex and that you need it in order to become enlightened:

This and one other thread are dedicated to discussing Soygal. He merits threads focused on his name and his organization RIGPA because those are high profile and big money organizations.

In Sogyal's case not only has his sexual behavior been troublesome, there are serious concerns whether he even has the qualifications to teach.

Such as this:

Quote

259

1. Pema, on December 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm said:

@Drolma. Working within the limitations imposed on him by Tibetan cultural constraints and political expediency. I was recently in conversation with a lama whom I respect. He told me that despite deep distaste for Sogyal’s behaviour and dumbing down of the dharma, no lama who wishes to stay within the TB fold can publicly criticise another one. In other words they have to maintain an outward appearance of solidarity. I can see how this stacks up for them as a refugee community — but to me it smells like hypocrisy and a lamentable absence of transparency. Its the way the Vatican functioned for a long time — I don’t need to remind how this worked through.

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

A person who reported leaving Rigpa and joining another Tibetan lineage reports this incident. It indicates that the quality of teaching at Rigpa is less than desirable.

Quote

4. Drolma, on December 29, 2010 at 10:36 pm said:

Still the main points are being missed. I personally am not that concerned with whether or not SR is a nice person with “good motivation” as you say. I am much more concerned with what Pema terms “the dumbing down of Dharma,” a phenomena that is occuring throughout the West and very particularly at Rigpa.
I have some serious questions for the Rigpa trolls:

1. Is it still policy during teachings that questions not be asked? I remember we were told to “hold our questions in our hearts and they would be answered.” I’m afraid that this instruction simply encouraged me to look towards psychotic experiences for answers to my questions, instead of seeking the solid ground of Dharma. You know, don’t you, that questions and investigations are the core of Buddhist practice? Why won’t SR take them? Is he afraid that he can’t answer them?

2. Why are none of the major Tibetan Buddhist texts taught at Rigpa (except in the Eastern Shedra, which I presume is only for very advanced students)? It is, in fact, beginners who have the most need of studying these core texts. Why does SR have Patrick read from texts during teachings? Does he not know how to read? Where is the Bodhicharyavatara? Where are the Lojong Teachings? Are they studied or just quoted from randomly?

3. Why do none of HH Dalai Lama’s commentaries appear in any Rigpa study programmes? Believe me, there are many commentaries available! Does SR truly respect HH Dalai Lama as a teacher or just as an ornament to show off, showing people that he has friends in high places?

4. Why, in fact, at the Tenzin Gyatso Institute, are there absolutely no teachings from His Holiness taught? What does that name mean? Is it just another ornament?

5. I once asked the Nyingma lama HE Shyalpa Rinpoche about the importance of studying all the major Madyamaka texts for Dzogchen practice. He said that practicing Dzogchen without studying these texts would be like trying to rock climb without hands. Is that fact properly honored in Rigpa? Or is Dzogchen just taught as something that can occur suddenly in a moment of great devotion? Is Rigpa turning Buddhism into Lamaism?

These are my concerns, as a Buddhist, who would like to see true Buddhism flourish in the West. I remember an alarming incident that occured a couple of years after I left Rigpa. I was working in the front office at a monastery in upstate New York when a group of Rigpa people, accompanied by some famous lama whose name I’ve forgotten (the movie star one) came by. They had just blessed the ground for the Tenzin Gyatson Institute and wanted to visit all the nearby Buddhist centers. One of the women in the group recognized me and we talked a bit about how I was studying with Kagyus now. Suddenly, one of the men in the group looked at me and said: “Traitor.”

He didn’t speak with any rancour, but that he could even come up with such a response to my freedom to leave Rigpa spoke at best of dangerous Sectarianism and at worst of Cultism.

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

However, the problem of tantric sex is worth discussing but on a separate thread because thats a topic in its own right.

This thread is strictly to discuss sexual, financial and legitimacy problems for Sogyal.

The legitimacy of tantric sex has to be discussed on its own thread, for many different gurus both Buddhist and Hindu fall in this catagory.

This thread must stay focused on Sogyal and Rigpa.

Why are we blaming Sogyal for doing what is in the teachings to do?

Because Sogyal is an ordinary man with a much or as little free will as any of us gets--so his behaviour is judged on his overt actions.
In the west we hold people to account for their actions--tempered with some mercy if it is warranted--but people are held to account, not made excuses for.

The answers aren't in the books and texts Grainne, they're in the work and thinking that you do for yourself. What does it matter to your life and future what the Dalai Lama is reported to think on any issue? Let the DL do the DL's thinking--you do your own or you will never get your own answer.

Its a good system, --at least as good as any other right now---if taught properly, with patience and integrity.

Sogyal isn't like some of the other lamas (through drawing distinctions can get tricky), in that he's an outright charlatan. I don't know what he was taught as a tulku, supposedly he had good teachers. People who have known him closely say he's just not very bright, and that he set out with the intention to get everything Chogyam Trungpa had, the fame, the money, the women. He said this openly, back when he was the interpreter for Dudjom Rinpoche, who eventually divorced himself from Sogyal.

So Sogyal isn't a tantric practitioner, he's not very highly realized, judging by reports of very watered-down lectures, his inability to answer students' questions (Q & A is a fundamental component of the learning process in TB), even his refusal to allow questions, or deflecting attention with an attempt at humor or by verbally abusing the questioner. These are signs of a charlatan. He has a rock-star mentality, meaning he thinks he can cycle endless numbers of women through his room. It really has nothing to do with tantric sex, except that he sometimes uses that as bait. If he were in a non-tantric tradition, he'd be operating the same way, even without the exotic bait.

I'd read somewhere that Campbell was a nun. Thanks for setting the record straight, Blue Dakini.

My point actually is, they are all the same to me. He just got caught.

Would love to start a thread on tantric teachings. I will start one.