Re: Report to the Boards of Trustees of Rigpa Fellowship UK,
Posted: Sat May 04, 2019 5:59 am
Findings
On the basis of the evidence available to me, it is clear that a number of senior individuals within Rigpa management have been aware of serious concerns about the behaviour of Sogyal Lakar since, at least, the mid-1990s.
Witness P appears to have had the most knowledge of the allegations of impropriety as Witness P handled the Janice Doe claim, attended the UK trustee meetings in the mid-90s, attended the meeting called by Witness B and was involved in the issues surrounding Student 27. It is also Witness P who was understood to have raised these issues with Sogyal, according to Witness N.
I conclude that Witness P’s devotion to Sogyal Lakar has resulted in Witness P refusing to accept the possibility that anything Sogyal had done might have been wrong. In my view, it appears that Witness P has made no meaningful efforts to establish whether or not the allegations are true. I believe that this reaction arises out of his view that students who are unhappy should simply leave quietly – Witness P was not really concerned about whether these things happened, but seems to have been prepared to accept that Sogyal intended no harm, regardless of what happened.
I asked Witness P whether Witness P thought a guru could ever be bad, to which Witness P responded “if it [I] said never you would think I have been brainwashed”. Witness P agreed that mistakes may have been made “due to cultural differences”, but I was not able to understand what Witness P understood those cultural differences to be.
Witness P’s letter to Witness D was, in my view, designed to manipulate Witness D into dropping his concerns about Student 27. I believe this demonstrates a proactive cover-up, not just a failure to deal with things adequately. I also find Witness P is responsible for telling others that complainants should not be believed, for example, those of Janice Doe and Student 27.
Witness O went to some length to deny holding any management responsibility that could cause Witness O to be responsible for anything that has happened, yet Witness O was clearly heavily involved in the issues raised during the 1990s – it was Witness O who was tasked with investigating them and devising the relevant policy documents to protect against these concerns. Witness O was involved in relation to denying what had happened to Student 27 and Witness O had a pivotal role in the “representing Rigpa” training.
Witness O said to me “there has been a lot of rumour and innuendo, a lot of people talking on behalf of people, a lot of exaggeration and gossip – we can’t act on that as an organisation. Why in the space of forty years hasn’t anyone complained?” I found this to be an extraordinary statement from someone who was aware of Janice Doe and Student 27, as well as the complaints brought to their attention by Witness B, which I do not believe can reasonably be dismissed as mere gossip or rumour.
At the start of my meeting with Witness O, Witness O said [about the letter writers] “I’m not blaming them, [Vajrayana] is subtle and complex, but what they say shows something fundamentally hasn’t clicked … there are grains of truth in [the Complaint] but they are exaggerated and distorted”. But Witness O later said to me “we don’t believe that [Sogyal] abuses people, it’s not the [letter writers’] understanding either – it’s a mystery for me why in this letter they have changed their mind”. Witness O also described it as “pretty heart-breaking to see these friends turn against everything; I don’t believe [Sogyal] has been harming people like this”.
In my opinion, Witness O is not prepared to accept that Sogyal has done wrong; I believe that has always been the case and this seems to be why Witness O has not been prepared to take any complaints seriously over the years. In my view, Witness O’s mind is closed even to the outcome of Rigpa’s own investigation.
I remain somewhat perplexed as to Witness N’s role. Many witnesses who spoke to me were adamant that Witness N would have known about all of the abuse that was going on, but when pressed were not able to provide me with clear evidence to demonstrate this. It is apparent that Witness N attended the meeting with Witness B in 1994, but it seems Witness N was not involved in the follow-up to that meeting involving the Charity Commission and Inform. I am concerned, however, that Witness N did not tell me about this meeting, which I think would be hard to forget in this context, notwithstanding the passage of time.
I received evidence from some witnesses that Witness N had provided real and valuable help to some individuals; Witness F felt that Witness N was supportive when Witness F left Rigpa, and Witness E understood that Student 5 considers that she would have “gone under” if it wasn’t for Witness N’s help. During our interview, Witness N was prepared to acknowledge the experience of the letter writers – for example, Witness N said:
On balance, I believe that Witness N knew that some people were being harmed by their involvement with Sogyal Lakar. I conclude that Witness N did not take sufficient action to stop this or prevent future harm being caused, but did made some efforts to intervene to help specific individuals.
There are other individuals who held management positions and, it is alleged, had knowledge of the allegations against Sogyal. This includes, for example, Student 21, Student 22, Student 23 and Student 24. I recommend that their knowledge should be investigated further if they are to retain management roles or positions of influence in future.
I am satisfied that the organisation had several opportunities to realise and address the extent of the harm that was being caused, but failed to take these. The efforts made to investigate these issues and protect students in future were, in my assessment, entirely inadequate and, in some cases, there is evidence that proactive steps have been taken to discredit those raising concerns.
That said, I recognise that a number of the witnesses I spoke to and who have now left Rigpa had also seen things that they knew were wrong but had felt unable to speak up for a long time. It is clear that, by speaking out, these individuals feel that they have to leave behind the ‘Rigpa family’ and their support networks. In addition, they have had to lose their relationship with their teacher and, to a degree, their beliefs. Speaking out appears to require a willingness to ‘step off the path to enlightenment’, and many are not ready to do that. It should not, therefore, be overlooked, that the Rigpa management witnesses referred to above are also students of Sogyal and will have likely faced huge difficulties in speaking out against him, assuming that they felt that there was a need to do so.
As a final note, several of the witnesses expressed their unhappiness at the way Rigpa had responded to the Complaint. As this issue strictly falls outside the scope of this investigation, I will not address this further in this report but it is right to acknowledge their concerns.
On the basis of the evidence available to me, it is clear that a number of senior individuals within Rigpa management have been aware of serious concerns about the behaviour of Sogyal Lakar since, at least, the mid-1990s.
Witness P appears to have had the most knowledge of the allegations of impropriety as Witness P handled the Janice Doe claim, attended the UK trustee meetings in the mid-90s, attended the meeting called by Witness B and was involved in the issues surrounding Student 27. It is also Witness P who was understood to have raised these issues with Sogyal, according to Witness N.
I conclude that Witness P’s devotion to Sogyal Lakar has resulted in Witness P refusing to accept the possibility that anything Sogyal had done might have been wrong. In my view, it appears that Witness P has made no meaningful efforts to establish whether or not the allegations are true. I believe that this reaction arises out of his view that students who are unhappy should simply leave quietly – Witness P was not really concerned about whether these things happened, but seems to have been prepared to accept that Sogyal intended no harm, regardless of what happened.
I asked Witness P whether Witness P thought a guru could ever be bad, to which Witness P responded “if it [I] said never you would think I have been brainwashed”. Witness P agreed that mistakes may have been made “due to cultural differences”, but I was not able to understand what Witness P understood those cultural differences to be.
Witness P’s letter to Witness D was, in my view, designed to manipulate Witness D into dropping his concerns about Student 27. I believe this demonstrates a proactive cover-up, not just a failure to deal with things adequately. I also find Witness P is responsible for telling others that complainants should not be believed, for example, those of Janice Doe and Student 27.
Witness O went to some length to deny holding any management responsibility that could cause Witness O to be responsible for anything that has happened, yet Witness O was clearly heavily involved in the issues raised during the 1990s – it was Witness O who was tasked with investigating them and devising the relevant policy documents to protect against these concerns. Witness O was involved in relation to denying what had happened to Student 27 and Witness O had a pivotal role in the “representing Rigpa” training.
Witness O said to me “there has been a lot of rumour and innuendo, a lot of people talking on behalf of people, a lot of exaggeration and gossip – we can’t act on that as an organisation. Why in the space of forty years hasn’t anyone complained?” I found this to be an extraordinary statement from someone who was aware of Janice Doe and Student 27, as well as the complaints brought to their attention by Witness B, which I do not believe can reasonably be dismissed as mere gossip or rumour.
At the start of my meeting with Witness O, Witness O said [about the letter writers] “I’m not blaming them, [Vajrayana] is subtle and complex, but what they say shows something fundamentally hasn’t clicked … there are grains of truth in [the Complaint] but they are exaggerated and distorted”. But Witness O later said to me “we don’t believe that [Sogyal] abuses people, it’s not the [letter writers’] understanding either – it’s a mystery for me why in this letter they have changed their mind”. Witness O also described it as “pretty heart-breaking to see these friends turn against everything; I don’t believe [Sogyal] has been harming people like this”.
In my opinion, Witness O is not prepared to accept that Sogyal has done wrong; I believe that has always been the case and this seems to be why Witness O has not been prepared to take any complaints seriously over the years. In my view, Witness O’s mind is closed even to the outcome of Rigpa’s own investigation.
I remain somewhat perplexed as to Witness N’s role. Many witnesses who spoke to me were adamant that Witness N would have known about all of the abuse that was going on, but when pressed were not able to provide me with clear evidence to demonstrate this. It is apparent that Witness N attended the meeting with Witness B in 1994, but it seems Witness N was not involved in the follow-up to that meeting involving the Charity Commission and Inform. I am concerned, however, that Witness N did not tell me about this meeting, which I think would be hard to forget in this context, notwithstanding the passage of time.
I received evidence from some witnesses that Witness N had provided real and valuable help to some individuals; Witness F felt that Witness N was supportive when Witness F left Rigpa, and Witness E understood that Student 5 considers that she would have “gone under” if it wasn’t for Witness N’s help. During our interview, Witness N was prepared to acknowledge the experience of the letter writers – for example, Witness N said:
“I was very shocked to read [Witness F]’s experience, I don’t want to say that [Witness F] didn’t experience this. [Witness F] is a very sincere person and evidently [Witness F] did. Something has gone awry”.
On balance, I believe that Witness N knew that some people were being harmed by their involvement with Sogyal Lakar. I conclude that Witness N did not take sufficient action to stop this or prevent future harm being caused, but did made some efforts to intervene to help specific individuals.
There are other individuals who held management positions and, it is alleged, had knowledge of the allegations against Sogyal. This includes, for example, Student 21, Student 22, Student 23 and Student 24. I recommend that their knowledge should be investigated further if they are to retain management roles or positions of influence in future.
I am satisfied that the organisation had several opportunities to realise and address the extent of the harm that was being caused, but failed to take these. The efforts made to investigate these issues and protect students in future were, in my assessment, entirely inadequate and, in some cases, there is evidence that proactive steps have been taken to discredit those raising concerns.
That said, I recognise that a number of the witnesses I spoke to and who have now left Rigpa had also seen things that they knew were wrong but had felt unable to speak up for a long time. It is clear that, by speaking out, these individuals feel that they have to leave behind the ‘Rigpa family’ and their support networks. In addition, they have had to lose their relationship with their teacher and, to a degree, their beliefs. Speaking out appears to require a willingness to ‘step off the path to enlightenment’, and many are not ready to do that. It should not, therefore, be overlooked, that the Rigpa management witnesses referred to above are also students of Sogyal and will have likely faced huge difficulties in speaking out against him, assuming that they felt that there was a need to do so.
As a final note, several of the witnesses expressed their unhappiness at the way Rigpa had responded to the Complaint. As this issue strictly falls outside the scope of this investigation, I will not address this further in this report but it is right to acknowledge their concerns.