Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Paul Valleley got it wrong. As far as my memory of both June's book and my interviews with her goes, she never mentioned taking ordination. But Corboy is right -- it is off topic on this thread.

Only reason I was being tough yesterday is that so many high quality discussions have become sidelined by red herrings (distraction tactics) or by vicious attacks on someone's character.

Ol' Soggy has devotees who do anything to divert attention away from Sogyal himself.

Note: The way to profit from Dialogue Ireland and discussions here is focus on people who consistently give high quality information about Sogyal and about research methods.

Anyone who has a consistent record of distracting us--ignore as though the person is not present.

Just like meditation, in fact. Keep focused on the important matter. On this thread its Sogyal and his organization.

This from Dialogue Ireland.

It illustrates the challenges of dealing with a case such as Sogyals.

There appear to be two issues

*His misbehavior with women

*Concerns that he is not even qualified to teach. (Like someone who hangs up a shingle to practice medicine but who is not actually trained and licensed to practice)

These are two big topics just within the Soygal problem.

However, the most important topic is his abuse of women, because in secular society which doesnt give a damn about theological qualifications, abuse of women is considered at the very least immoral and in some conditions, criminal.

This makes Sogyal's sexual behavior the most important topic and the one to stay focused on.

****At some point we may have to create a new thread dedicated to discussing whether Soygal is legitimate as a teacher--because thats a discussion that goes into the subtleties of Tibetan Buddhist lineages and its levels of teaching.

Quote

42. Pema, on April 7, 2010 at 11:56 am said:

(someone else had written)

” I don’t think any of SR’s harshest critics would doubt his mastery on Buddhism.”

Oh yes they would. This one for starters. Sogyal was never trained as a lama, never does retreat, never meditates and knows eff all about Dzogchen. He plagiarises other teachers and regurgitates his pickings as his brand of Buddhism-lite to his naive devotees — who are misled by continuous hype into believing that they are getting the genuine article. Those who experience an epiphany leave Rigpa — often in droves. Sadly they are usually replaced by another wave of gullible innocents who fall under the spell of his undoubted charisma (on throne, not off it) and part with their hard earned cash on a regular basis in order to be led by the nose into la-la land.. How do I know this? From personal experience and from listening to many other fugitives from Rigpa. Also from several highly respected academics who happen to be my friends. Madhair if you email me privately I will tell you their names.

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Therefore I propose that this thread be dedicated to focusing on reports concerning Sogyal's behavior toward women.

If others think it worth while, we can start another thread dedicated to discussing whether Sogyal is actually qualified to teach, period.

for on this same thread 'themadhair' replied


43. themadhair, on April 7, 2010 at 12:20 pm said:
That puts me right I suppose.

You already have my email, but I don’t think sending me that information would serve any useful purpose. Whether or not SR is authentic/genuine Buddhism or not doesn’t concern me as much as whether he is abusing his position as teacher. If anything a theological discussion tends to fog the serious problems in these types of situations.

Again, at some point, to keep the discussion of SOGYAL on point,
a separate thread could be dedicated to discussing the theology and legitimacy claims that themadhair ID'd as having potential to fog up the discussion and distract away from what is being done to the women.

Congratualtions on finding your faith-donr forget, its the message thats important, not the delivery boy

Quote

But surely you have noticed the way he publicly humiliates his acolytes?

Quote

112. JB, on April 17, 2010 at 8:20 am said:
Thank you, Sogyal Rinpoche devotee for your neutral portrayal of the situation ‘as it really is’ as you put it.

Please be aware, those here speaking of first hand experiences are not liars. Those who have seen it happen to colleagues are not liars.The journalistic writers of various pieces in the media have not been sued. The book authors who have written on this case have not been sued. The abuse which took place went further underground around the same time as you became a Rigpa member. One colleague of mine, for example, was abused in 1985. She is a lovely down to earth girl. The salt of the earth. Fortunately not damaged too much on the surface, though it has turned her against the Dharma for this lifetime.

“I have never seen anything like the behaviour described on these boards”

It took place at various locations but NOT in the shrine room.

“i asked lots of questions even of Rinpoche himself and i got answers.”

You are probably too young to remember the Profumo affair, (1960s)where a leading politician claimed never to have slept with prostitute Christine Keeler. When questioned as to why Minister Profumo denied ever having slept with her, Miss Keelers response was “Well, he would say that wouldnt he?”

In future, feel free to raise questions here, the same questions you raised with Sogyal. See if the answers are the same. If they are not, count the victims and work it out for yourself

113. JB, on April 17, 2010 at 8:25 am said:

Please also feel free to read the briefing document at the head of this page, a document comprised of significant information which is in the public domain and remains unsued.

Congratualtions on finding your faith-donr forget, its the message thats important, not the delivery boy.

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

169169. Pema, on April 23, 2010 at 11:36 am said:

I agree that post Janice Doe Sogyal became more discreet about his promiscuity. Most of the action these days takes place at his chalets at Lerab Ling. This probably accounts for the fact that people who have attended Rigpa retreats for many years, minus close encounters with Soggy, have not noticed the sexual shenanigans. But surely you have noticed the way he publicly humiliates his acolytes? And surely you have noticed the very pretty young women in deisigner Barbie Doll outfits who always accompany him?
quote]





[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Now that was a valuable post, the quote from "Pema". So the reason Rigpa people and students defend him so vociferously is that they truly believe he's behaving ethically. Because he's changed his m.o., and is better at hiding his extracurricular activities.

I used to work in a university. After sexual harassment policies were enacted, the professors became more subtle. They learned to skirt the fine line between overt harassment and acceptable behavior. They changed their m.o., but their character didn't change. People like this find a way to keep operating within whatever new strictures come along. They adapt.

This explains a lot about why Soggy is able to keep operating.

I've read comments that the public humiliation of acolytes or students is a diversionary tactic for when he doesn't have the answer to a question. It's sad to hear of so many people who just sit and take the abuse. What would happen if one day, everyone wised up and just walked out? Hey, we can dream, can't we?

Public humilation also creates a confusion in the mind of the humiliated person, acts as a thought stopper--in future he will think twice before asking a question--so its a double whammy--no answer given because there is none and the person gets a mental kicking that he will remember.

We can dream or learn, is my best guess.

I have a friend, she was a devotee of Sogyal for more than ten years. Some things she liked, some things she disliked, and above all she hated the public humilation of students.

One day there was a practice, where he had given some advices, in which order the text should be practiced. Suddenly he changed the order- because of the freakishly behavier of those yogis, what the followers admire as "spontanous"- , but people could not follow so fast. Then he shouted and shouted: You flip and flip and flip, you are too stupid.
She got up, took her things and never looked back. That means she had not lost her selfrespect over the years like the ones who were brainwashed for a long time.

She is very happy today.

Misstyk wrote humiliation of acolytes or students is a diversionary tactic for when he doesn't have the answer to a question

Yeah. My dad used to do the same thing to hide when he didnt have answers to my questions when I was a kid.

Problem with this Tibetan or Hindu guru shit is that they can invoke the enlightenment/crazy wisdom alibi and con vulnerable students into believing this nasty behavior is something too sublime for them to understand.

Thats why I 100% distrust the crazy wisdom alibi.

God knows how many people who grew up in abusive households and cant see, because of residual loyalty to an introjected abusive parent that a guru like Soggy is just an abusive parent/powerholder writ large--swaddled in brocade with Tibetan hoo doo to rationalize it all.

Sugar coated doo doo is still dung.

In a film about Chogyam Trungpa to be released next year, his students say he believed the dharma should be taught through abuse. Most of the Tibetan gurus believe this; "destroying the ego" is part of the program. Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche, the Bhutanese filmmaker, justifies this by chirping cheerfully: "When there's no ego left, there's nothing there to abuse"! But the Buddha never taught this way. It can help to see how far off from orthodox Buddhism Tibetan Buddhism is, if we look at what the Buddha actually taught and how he behaved. The contrast can be eye-opening.

Quote
corboy
Sugar coated doo doo is still dung.

Maybe it's more like dung-coated sugar? :p

'But the Buddha never taught this way.'

How can you know this when the first writings were done several hundred years after his death? Knowing how anybody taught is a projection of how you would wish to be taught in a perfect world. Reality ain't like that.

It is pointless comparing Sogyal to how you would want a semi-mythical figure to behave. Sogyal abuses his students and sexually exploits his female students--end of. He's a pig--same as any other overbearing pig.

I like what I've read about Dzongsar Kyentse R--he sounds quite sane and down to earth to me and he likes a laugh. He's more open than most. He may also be an abuser though, being in the same system.

You have no idea, and can have no idea how the Buddha behaved--look up the term 'hagiography.' Dead people get progressively turned into saints the longer they've been dead.

Forget Buddha--all you need to know is that you don't like what this pig is doing and you keep away from him. That applies to anyone you meet in life--you get a choice about it once you are an independent adult.

No point in having a choice if you fail to use it. Like a muscle, use it or lose it.

Dzongsar is right too--its a buddhist joke because nobody ever gets rid of their ego completely until they become a zombie follower, and then it pops up slyly--obvious to everyone except the self-declared egoless.

More to the point would be examining your own egoic behaviour and deciding which is worth keeping and which not--behaviour is practised action--practice makes perfect.


It is obvious to the world what behaviour Trungpa practised--boozing, women and bullying.
It is obvious what Sogyal practises--sexual exploitation and being a fraud.

That makes them no different in their results than boozers, womanisers, bullies and frauds the world over.

Maybe it's more like dung-coated sugar? :p

I'd go for 100% pure unadulterated doo doo.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2011 10:08AM by Stoic.

Guru Induced Bliss as Sprinkles on a Dog-Shit Sundae

(For non Americans, a "sundae" is a confection of vanilla ice cream with hot chocolate fudge sauce topped with whipped cream and a candied cherry on top- Share with one or two friends, then go for a run or a swim. Nicer than an energy bar. Corboy)

"If abusers were abusive 24/7 -- if they weren't capable of doling out a little bliss now and then -- no abusive relationship would last longer than one date. "

(One can substitute "guru" for "abuser")

Dan Savage writes a relationship advice column. Someone wrote to him in confusion about a boyfriend who gave her good times but who was threatening to mess up her stuff if she dared to leave him.

He said something that may apply to gurus. Very many people will make excuses for abusive gurus by saying 'But this person did so much good in this other area.."

Or "I had all these blissful experiences and all these great insights--so how is it possible for abuse to co-exist along with these (alleged benefits)?"

The person wrote this to Dan Savage:

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

I've been seeing this guy for about two years in August. We've been living together for six months now, and it's been REALLY bumpy. We fight a lot, I cry a lot, and it just gets really messy. To tell you the truth, I'm tired of it. I work two jobs, and I never get any time to myself because he's moody and insecure. He always wants to know where I'm going or who I'm with. He doesn't like to do the same things I do, and I'm beginning to think this is all one big mistake. The problem is every time I try to leave, it always gets ugly. Ugly to the point that he's thrown my stuff in the front yard, broken things of mine, and even called me names. He's abusive.

As sad as this sounds, and as ridiculous as I feel, I want to make this work. I want us to be happy. And the thing is, I know that we can be. When we're mad, it's like World War III over here. But when we're happy, it's so blissful that I know in my heart with him is the only place I want to be. What can I do? People tell me it's time to sever ties, but the people who usually tell me this are the ones who can't stand him. How can I make a completely unbiased decision? Am I stupid for believing in a love that feels destined to fail?

Hopelessly Devoted To Him

Dan replies:

This is not a relationship, HDTH, it's a hostage situation. He's a controlling, abusive piece of shit -- listen to your fucking friends, HDTH. When your boyfriend breaks your shit, he's making an implicit threat: I can break your face just as easily as I'm breaking your shit, bitch, so don't even think about leaving me. And of course things are great when they're great -- that's part of an abuser's MO. If abusers were abusive 24/7 -- if they weren't capable of doling out a little bliss now and then -- no abusive relationship would last longer than one date. Like all abusers, he parcels out the good times, doping you up with a little bliss now and then, because he knows that these glimpses of how great things could be convince you to stick around against your better judgment.

The bliss is a con, HDTH, a weapon that he uses against you, just as much a part of the cycle of abuse as his tantrums, fits, and threats of violence are. Think of the good times as rainbow sprinkles on a dog-shit sundae -- sprinkles or no sprinkles, you're still standing there with a bowl full of dog shit in your hands.

Get a couple of friends to come over when he's at work or out of town, box up your shit, and leave. You can't change him. Go.

Too many people allow themselves to dwell on a bliss experience and use it to cancel out the howling misgivings emerging from their guts.


Now..let us continue to discuss SOGYAL