'I have yet to see any proof of Sogyal Rinpoche's alleged settlement.'

And you are unlikely to ever see proof because of the confidentiality clause, expensive but worth it to Sogyal. They do, however, confirm that a settlement was made:


[forum.culteducation.com]

'The case was settled privately and no details were made public. A spokesman for the Rigpa organisation said it was precluded from speaking about the matter although he confirmed it was settled.'

A settled civil case means 1) there either was no criminal case, or if there was, Sogyal Rinpoche was found not guilty and 2) the complainant felt satisfied with the results of the civil case.

We have one in Devon calling himself Kelsang Pawo. He tends to gather a group of inexperienced Dharma practitioners, gets properties off them and moves their stuff out! He's connected with the fake charity Gesar Foundation for children.

The local BBC are on to him. His latest ploy is to try to con businesses out of money to buy the Brighton Pier on the south coast of England 'for the benefit af all beings'..haha!

'A settled civil case means 1) there either was no criminal case, or if there was, Sogyal Rinpoche was found not guilty and 2) the complainant felt satisfied with the results of the civil case.'

There was no criminal case, Sogyal paid up rather than have his questionable behaviour exposed and judged in court.

That the complainant felt satisfied is pure conjecture on your part.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 09:26PM by Stoic.

I found the case. It was not against Sogyal Rinpoche, but “Sogyal Rinpoche et al” and included Rigpa Fellowship and the Spiritual Care for Living & Dying Network as co-defendants.

Complaint Number: 0001 — COM COMPLAINT of DOE JANICE
Original Filing Date: 11/02/1994
Complaint Status: Entry of Ct. Ordered Dismissal 02/22/1996

The case was ordered dismissed.

The money for Sogyal/Rigpa's attorneys came from dana donations given by the faithful.

The vast majority of Buddhist teachers go for lifetimes without one single case of this kind.

And saying it wasnt Sogyal who was sued but

Quote

“Sogyal Rinpoche et al” and included Rigpa Fellowship and the Spiritual Care for Living & Dying Network as co-defendants.

is merely verbal quibbling.

It is standard legal procedure to name not only a defendent (in this case Sogyal) but also the organizations who support the defendant, because that makes it possible for plaintiff's legal team to subpoena evidence and find out whether other persons in Rigpa or the Spiritual Care for Living and Dying were involved in covering up evidence or knew of Soygal's behavior.

All this was standard legal procedure, and one case of this kind is one case too many, even if it was settled.

A settlement means a private arrangement was made before the case could go to public trail and part of that arrangement would have been to seal records.

What it means is that the suit didnt just name the Rinpoche but also the entire organization of which he is head and that the attorney filing that case understood that Rigpa and the Spiritual Care for Living and Dying were:

1) comprised of persons who may have been complicit in hiding Sogyal's behavior from new people, including the plaintiff. Rigpa and SPCLD might have been named as 'fiduciaries' in the suit.

A 'fiduciary' is a person or organization legally designated as responsible for care and protection of those persons using its facilities (eg a retreat center)

One lawsuit of this kind is bad enough.

British journalist Mick Brown in his book, The Spiritual Tourist wrote this. And this book is still available and has not been sued out of existence.

Quote

Three years after the publication of the book (The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying), Sogyal was served with a law suit in California, alleging that, using the justification of his spiritual status, the lama had sexually and physically abused a female student . The case was subsequently settled out of court, but not before other female students of Sogyal came forward to say that they too had felt obliged to sleep
with him in the belief that, because he was their teacher, he had their best...

[books.google.com]

There is a long thread discussing Sogy here.

[forum.culteducation.com]

[groups.google.com]

Here is text from an article in The Guardian.
one can quibble endlessly that the one case was settled.

Settlement of a case is different from a case being dismissed.

For a case to be settled as Sogyal's case was, the plaintiff still had to have information that a judge deemed to be admissible evidence according to the rules of law.

To quote the article below

Quote

Last year, an American woman and former pupil of Sogyal
decided to bring a civil case anonymously, and was allowed
by the court in Santa Cruz, California, to use the pseudonym Janice Doe.

Corboy: If you dont have admissible evidence, your case doenst even enter the legal system and get as far as Jane Doe's suit got.

A suit dismissed is different from a suit that is settled out of court. It means an arrangment was made, privately after the lawsuit was filed.

Settlement is negotiated between the parties (plaintiff and defendant) as an alternative to going to trial. A judge will then approve of this and the case ends as a settlement. Often part of the settlement includes sealing the records of the case.

This does not prove innocence. It merely means the case never reached trial. That matters got far enough for settlement means the plaintiff had admissible evidence, but a jury never got to hear it, and (important!) reporters never got to cover the case and public doesnt learn about it.

Now...there are different ways a case can be dismissed.

Settlement, in which the parties all agree to end the case with all records sealed is a settled case.

Dismissal means a judge takes action.

Dismissed means a judge dismisses the plaintiffs case for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps deadlines were not reached or the case was not filed properly, a case may be dismissed for lack of admissible evidence or because what information exists doesnt meet rules of admission.

When a case is dismissed the settlement stage isnt even reached because a case that is dismissed doesnt go far enough to reach the stage where it can either go to trial or a settlement be reached.--or go to trial and settlment be reached at some point during the trial.

Repeat, a lawsuit that is dismissed is different from a lawsuit that is settled.


Dismissed with prejudice means a judge not only dismisses a plaintiff's case, but that the plaintiff can never sue the defendant ever again.

Repeat, dismissal is not the same as settlement.

Here is the text of the article from 1995 from The Guardian

Here is the text of the two articles by Mary Finnigan and
Emma Brooker which appeared in The Guardian, London
dated 10/01/95.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[FIRST ARTICLE]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SEXUAL HEALING Mary Finnigan


The Tibetan lama Sogyal Rimpoche is being sued for $10
million in the United States by a woman who alleges sexual
harassment, coercion and abuse. Sogyal (Rimpoche is an
honorary title meaning Precious Jewel) has been teaching
Buddhist meditation for more than 20 years, with a
world-wide following and meditation centres known as The
Rigpa Fellowship in London, France, Ireland, America and
Australia. He is the author of a best-seller, The Tibetan
Book of Living And Dying, and appeared in Bertolucci's film
Little Buddha.

The Rigpa Fellowship in London has issued a
letter informing its members that a suit has been brought
against Sogyal Rimpoche. Although he is not a monk, and has
not taken vows of celibacy, he is accused of using his
position to obtain sexual favours. Allegations like these
threaten to blow a hole in the aura of asceticism and
austerity surrounding Buddhism in the West.

In the late 1960s, western hippies seeking spiritual
enlightenment were drawn to the Tibetans' exuberant,
colourful style. Tibet was seen as a Buddhist Shangri-La -
a far cry from the reality of a country under repressive
Chinese occupation.

In the seventies, rumours started to circulate about other
globe-trotting Buddhist gurus, who were said to be seducing
their students and behaving more like spiritual barons than
spiritual mentors, exercising _droit du seigneur_ among
their followers. The late Trungpa Rimpoche was one of the
first high-ranking Tibetan lamas to learn English, which he
studied at Oxford in the mid-sixties. He fathered a child
while still a monk, discarded his robes and settled in
America, where he gained a reputation as an inspired
meditation teacher. He became a role model for others,
including Sogyal Rimpoche. He was also an alcoholic and a
notorious womaniser. He died of drink in 1987. Before his
death, he chose Osel Tenzin, an American student as his
successor. Osel died of Aids, after passing the HIV virus
to several of his students.

Although not all Tibetan teachers are monks - many have
renounced their vows and some are from non-celibate
traditions - if a sexual relationship arises, the imbalance
of power in the teacher-pupil relationship can lay the
student open to abuse. Many Buddhists see this as a
contravention of the moral code which frowns on all actions
that cause harm.

At a conference of western Buddhist teachers in India last
year, the Dalai Lama urged delegates not to be afraid of
criticising corrupt gurus. "If you cannot find any other
way of dealing with the problem," he said, "tell the
newspapers."

(Corboy--the Dalai Lama ignored that it is difficult to do this, given that
many vested interests support lamas and that the media live in terror of being guilt tripped for daring to suggest that the poor oppressed Tibetans are capable of having spiritual leaders who fall into temptation. Back in 1995, the Tibetans and their lamas were being romanticized in the movies, by journalists, etc. Daring to buck this and bring charges would be a nightmare most would shrink from)

Last year, an American woman and former pupil of Sogyal
decided to bring a civil case anonymously, and was allowed
by the court in Santa Cruz, California, to use the
pseudonym Janice Doe. She says in her suit that she
approached Sogyal at a time of a time of confusion, shortly
after her fathers death. According to the suit, Sogyal told
her that "through devotion and his spiritual instruction,
she could purify her family's karma". The woman alleges he
seduced her the next day, claiming that she would be
"strengthened and healed by having sex with him".

**Corboy This woman was allowed to file the lawsuit. This means she had information which the judge deemed met the legal rules for admission of evidence.

These rules for admission of evidence are very strict.

That this woman was allowed by a judge to file her lawsuit meant she had admissible evidence. Many plaintiff's cases never get that far.

That this case was later settled simply means that Jane Doe and Sogyal's legal team
found a way to settle before the case would have gone to trial--and entered the public eye and generated piles of documents that would have become part of the public record and shed light on the inner workings of Rigpa and the Spiritual Care for Living & Dying Network --Corboy)

(Guardian article continues) However unconvincing such an argument may sound, the Zen priest Yvonne Rand, who is counselling Janice Doe, points
out that the relationship between guru and disciple is one
of power and submission. People who seek guidance from a
spiritual master want to believe what he or she tells them.

"Many women who seek out spiritual teachers come from
dysfunctional families. They may have experienced physical
and/or sexual abuse, had no father or bad father
relationships, so are looking for a good father. This
creates blind spots in their perception of a teacher."

Rand is emphatic that such high risk relationships rarely
benefit both parties. This opinion is shared by other women
who have had sexual liaisons with their gurus.

"I was touched by his need for me," says one, who had a
long relationship with a lama, "but it was difficult and
strange, in no way a normal relationship. It fuelled my
fantasies about having special qualities, but he debunked
them. I felt empowered by him but though he treated me with
respect, I was always aware he had other lovers."


Another woman speaks of the confusion that arose from being
first a humble devotee, then an exalted sexual partner,
then back in the ranks again. "I felt used," she says "He
put his needs above mine."

More recently, a young English woman attended a residential
retreat. She thought she had been singled out for special
attention only to discover that she was being invited to
join a harem. "At first I was flattered, and very open and
trusting. He encouraged me to fall in love with him - but I
realised that he was toying with me. I noticed several
other young, pretty women going in and out of his
apartment, when I confronted him with this, he dropped me
for the rest of the time I was there."

Did she learn anything from her intimacy with the guru? "He
gave me good advice, but I am left with a hangover of pain
and confusion. I also have doubts about Buddhism. If
anything, I have learnt to be more cautious."

Rand and the British Buddhist teacher Ngakpa Chogyam
Rimpoche share the view that the majority of westerners
sign up too quickly with their gurus and find themselves in
a much more intense relationship than they had bargained
for. This is especially true of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism
which, at an advanced level, incorporates sexual union into
spiritual practice.

Rand believes that westerners often fail to make the
distinction between a teacher who helps along the way and a
guru who is an enlightened being.

"Some Tibetan lamas do not see themselves as accountable in
the western sense of the word," says Ngakpa Chogyam. "They
get blown off-centre by too much adulation."

This potential for adulation makes it vital that teachers
accept responsibility for the well being of their students.
Responsibility must include, if not celibacy, then extreme
care with sex. According to psychologist Deborah Clarke,
everyone who enters into a spiritual or therapeutic
relationship is vulnerable to exploitation.

"I'd be furious if a guru made a pass at me," she says.
"They should all know by now that people with that sort of
power have a moral and ethical duty not to abuse it."
[END]


[groups.google.com]

Soggy's situation was being discussed years back on the Google list serves.

[groups.google.com]

[forum.culteducation.com]

"..information on Sogyal onto his entry on www.wikipedia.org Winthin hours it is deleted."

Pema wrote in 2009

Quote


[forum.culteducation.com]

Quote

An update on Sogyal. I have been entering factually accurate, corroborated information on Sogyal onto his entry on www.wikipedia.org Winthin hours it is deleted.

This indicates to me that his poodles are hot on the trail -- and more significantly, that they are in deep denial.

I have recently been reading interview material with several ex Rigpa people in France. Their statements corroborate similar ones made to me by English speaking ex Rigpa people over the years since 1994.

I believe the momentum to expose Sogyal as an abusive, self-indulgent charlatan is close to tipping point. The sadness I experience is that when this happens it will tarnish the reputation of Tibetan Buddhism as a whole and HH The Dalai Lama in particular.

The Tibetan diaspora has had its collective head buried in the sand for a long time -- hoping, I suspect, that the details of Sogyal's depraved lifestyle will remain secret. This is no longer an option. Too many people know about it and are willing to speak out. HHDL knows because among others, I tiold him. Several times.

But -- and its a big but -- he is the only high profile public figure on the world stage today who speaks from the moral high ground and is taken seriously. This position is now threatened because of HH's association with Sogyal. IMHO, this is a great pity and will not benefit humankind. Sogyal has a lot to answer for -- and HHDL and his advisors have made some very bad decisions.

Note to readers:

If you want to learn the actual bigotry and idiotic idolatry of the DL that goes on in Dharamsala, get and read a copy of Nikolai Grozni's memoir, Turtle Feet.

Grozni's landladies, both devout and both adoring of the Dalai Lama demanded that Grozni eject a friend of his from his rented lodgings.

Why?

Because Grozni's friend was a man who had taken vows as a monk and then had disrobed. Grozni's rented lodgings where he had permitted his homeless friend to stay, were situated within a couple hundred feet of the Buddhist Institute of Dialectics and...the Dalai Lama's own lodgings.

The landladies, one of them a Geluk nun, informed Grozni that it was morally wrong for a man who had given up monastic vows to live so close to the Dalai Lama!

Grozni said, you are treating my friend like an animal, he has no where else to call home.

And Grozni also told them he had just recently paid the next months rent.

He was ordered to kick his friend out or get kicked out too.

Such wonderful compassion.

So if this bigotry is how superstitious Tibetans relate to the Dalai Lama, how does he actually behave when behind closed doors and away from Westerners, among his own cozy clique?

Note: Grozni also learned that the Tibetans in Dharamsala considered stray dogs to be disrobed monks who had been reborn as those dogs.

And stray dogs are not usually treated well in Dharamsala, from what I have heard. The dog care that has been set up was instigated by kindly Westerners, not by the locals.