Further Tibetan Buddhist thoughts on Sogyal/Rigpa

Last updated on: November 28, 2017 at 12:30 pm by Justin Whitaker

Further Tibetan Buddhist thoughts on Sogyal/Rigpa 2017-11-28T12:30:51-07:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The following comes from the head teachers of the Aro community, a Nyingma lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. It was posted to facebook by a senior teacher, Bar-ché Dorje, and is reposted here with his permission.

Reflections on the Ramifications of Disgrace

It is not our custom to address those other than our students – but our view has been requested on the recent revelations with regard to Sogyal Lakar – and their implications in respect of Vajrayana Buddhism. We wish both to support the abused—several of whom have approached us—and to defend the vajra master rôle.

These revelations vis-à-vis Sogyal Lakar are not recent. He has appeared to exhibit sociopathic tendencies increasingly since 1976. According to substantiated accusations, he has damaged those who trusted him – and, brought Vajrayana into question; regarding ‘crazy wisdom’ (yeshé ’cholwa / primordial wisdom chaos) and wrathful compassion (tröwo tshul). His behaviour cannot be legitimised either by ‘crazy wisdom’ or by wrathful compassion – for various obvious reasons that we shall explain in this discourse.

Whilst defending the abused – we oppose limiting the ‘vajra master rôle’ according to ‘common moral criteria’. Each Buddhist vehicle is distinct in terms of base, path, and result – and Vajrayana is not required to be in exact accordance with Sutrayana. Be that as it may, we feel that vajra masters must be understood as fundamentally different from cult leaders. This distinction requires careful observation of anyone acting as a vajra master. No one is a vajra master to everyone. Relationship with the vajra master is a style of relationship rather than a person. Vajra relationship must be requested: it cannot exist merely because an empowerment appears to have been taken. Empowerments are frequently taken without due consideration – and it is the Lama’s responsibility to ensure that no one enters vajra relationship without sufficient experience of study and practice. It is the Lama who bears the responsibility because the Lama has superior wisdom in terms of who should enter into vajra relationship. To blame students for lack of wisdom is inappropriate.

There are many examples in Vajrayana history, where Lamas have acted in extraordinary ways – but the results have been extraordinarily positive. When extraordinary behaviour leads to confusion and misery – it can only be understood as the teacher’s lack of realisation. Our two ‘wrathful Lamas’’ (Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche and Kyabjé Künzang Dorje Rinpoche) manifested extraordinary behaviour – but we only ever experienced it as positive. They gained no personal advantage from their unusual displays. Both were known for displays of yeshé ’cholwa and tröwo tshul – but neither abused their rôles. Neither were sexually predatory, sybaritic, gluttonous, self-aggrandising, narcissistic, avaricious, mercenary, or sadistic. There is nothing ‘crazy’ about such abuse of power, in terms of ‘wisdom’. The traits previously described, are typical of cult leaders. We refer to available psychiatric information on Antisocial and Narcissistic Personality Disorders – and suggest that people draw their own conclusions. Cult leaders characteristically exemplify these disorders – and Sogyal Lakar, from all accounts given, fits the criteria.

Cult leaders behave predictably – but yeshé ’cholwa (crazy wisdom) is unclassifiable and undefinable. There is nothing unpredictable about: sexual abuse, sadism, financial exploitation, petulant histrionics, or physical assault. Yeshé ’cholwa is not stereotypical or clichéd. Sogyal Lakar’s behaviour should therefore not be described in terms of yeshé ’cholwa. The Nyingma Tradition is replete with examples of wonderful yeshé ’cholwa masters – but Sogyal Lakar is not one of them. Neither are we. What we communicate however, is self-evident – and requires no realisation on our part.

The 8 students who addressed Sogyal Lakar with an account of recognisable sociopathic behaviour have broken no vows. One cannot break vows made to a vow breaker. Sogyal Lakar broke his vows to Kyabjé Düd’jom Rinpoche in the late 1970s. He gave Ögyen Chöling to Düd’jom Rinpoche – but when advised to study and gain retreat experience before continuing as a teacher, he broke with his Lama, rescinded his offering, and changed his practice allegiance.

Some address Sogyal Lakar’s ‘disgrace’ by positing that the vajra master rôle is mediæval – but this does not consider the ‘principle and function’ of the rôle – and partially excuses the man by blaming Vajrayana. Our Lamas never behaved as mediæval theocrats and nor have the heads of the Nyingma Tradition. Vajra masters and feudal hierarchs may have superficial similarities – but any training undertaken in an extraordinary field will reveal similar correspondences: in the Arts or where risks are taken – such as climbing. Where one is determined to excel beyond average expectations, special circumstances and trust will be required. Obedience to an instructor on a sheer cliff is reasonable – but obedience to a sexual predator, is unreasonable; especially when the explanations for it are dubious in terms of Vajrayana.

Sexuality is a valid mode of transmission – but did Sogyal Lakar ever make such ‘transmissions’ available to portly or elderly women? Whatever the case, such transmissions are rare – and the recipients require nondual experience which would be lacking without years of practice and retreat. ‘Recognising’ slim, conventionally beautiful, young women as dakinis was merely Sogyal Lakar’s depraved seduction ploy.

Sogyal Lakar is not universally accepted as an incarnation of gTértön Sogyal. Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche and Künzang Dorje Rinpoche both held it to be impossible. They quoted many other Lamas including Düd’jom Rinpoche, Chatral Rinpoche, and the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa as holding this view. We would not draw attention to this question of legitimacy if Sogyal Lakar was a kindly gentleman who served the Nyingma Tradition unselfishly – but this would appear to be far from the case.

Responses may be elicited in respect of our view – but we shall not enter into public debate. We leave that to those who disseminate our view. We are committed to supporting and encouraging anyone who has been abused by Sogyal Lakar. All Aro gTér teachers will be available to provide a listening ear, and support, to any Rigpa student – without obligation or recruitment agenda.

Ngak’chang Rinpoche and Khandro Déchen

Support independent coverage of Buddhism by joining a community of fellow learners/practitioners at Patreon.
‘Like’ American Buddhist Perspectives on facebook.

Previous Post

September 6, 2017

The Dalai Lama on Secular Ethics and the Toppling of "Rotten" Buddhist Institutions

Next Post

September 13, 2017 Tibetan Buddhist master Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche on Spiritual Bypassing

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz