November 1994: Janice DoeTowards the end of 1994, Sogyal Lakar and Rigpa were sued in the US by a complainant known as Janice Doe. I was able to obtain a copy of the claim (but should make clear that this did not come to me from Janice Doe or anyone involved in the litigation) which states:
“Plaintiff brings this action for reparations and to halt a pattern of physical, mental and sexual abuse by world famous Tibetan author and teacher, Sogyal Rinpoche…
Defendant Sogyal Rinpoche has used his position as an interpreter of Tibetan Buddhism to take sexual and other advantage of female students over a period of many years and has caused extreme injuries to many students, including Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is a student who sought out Sogyal Rinpoche and Rigpa Fellowship … at an especially vulnerable time in her life [following the death of her father] and met Sogyal Rinpoche [in 1993] … She was almost immediately subjected to systematic indoctrination designed to separate her from her normal support systems including family and friends …
A central aspect of this mental coercion was to lead plaintiff to believe that her only way to enlightenment, or salvation, was to serve her master, Sogyal Rinpoche, and that by pleasing him she would achieve enlightenment and relief of her suffering. The corollary to this was that to incur displeasure, or to refuse him in any way, could cause dire consequences to herself and her family. As a result of this pressure she was coerced into an intimate relationship with Sogyal Rinpoche that continued through November 1993, and included physical, mental and sexual abuse.
Simply put, under the guise of teachings of the Buddha, Sogyal Rinpoche took unfair advantage of plantiff’s and other students’ vulnerability for his own sexual and other gratification …
… defendant Sogyal wilfully, intentionally and maliciously assaulted and battered, and committed sexual assault upon plaintiff.”
Witness P confirmed to me that this claim was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
I asked Witness O about the Janice Doe case and Witness O confirmed being aware of it, but denied any direct involvement. Witness O said “there was a whole team of people behind her, supporting her. She was persuaded to do it by people who had been in Dharamasala and there were secret meetings to plan the law suit. [b]
It was part of an anti-Asian guru movement”. Witness O acknowledged having read the case at the time, so Witness O would have been aware in the 1990s that the claim alleged that there were a number of other victims, not just Janice Doe (even if Witness O had forgotten that detail now).
I asked Witness O what Sogyal’s response was to the allegations in the claim and the other issues raised in the Witness B meeting earlier that year. Witness O did not know but “would imagine that” Witness N or Witness P would have asked him. I asked Witness O whether Witness O had been told that Sogyal denied the allegations; to which Witness O replied “I’ve forgotten what he said”.
Witness O was “personally satisfied that he hadn’t behaved as alleged” and had never had cause for concern for anyone.
Witness O accepted that it was Witness O who was tasked with producing a grievance procedure and code of conduct for trustees following these issues. Witness O says that a grievance procedure was drafted but never adopted. In any event, I understand that the mechanism that was proposed was that anyone with concerns should talk to a senior instructor, member of management or trustee.
I asked Witness P to tell me about Janice Doe. Witness P said she was someone who had a relationship with Sogyal and had been his girlfriend for some time. Witness P said that Janice Doe had then “decided she had been taken advantage of … because the relationship had not met her expectations”. Witness P could not recall exactly what Janice Doe had alleged, but said it was sexual and physical abuse. Witness P understood the claim to be “an over dramatized description of the relationship”. Witness P accepted that Janice Doe’s father had died and said she was “fragile and had issues”.
Witness P went on to describe Janice Doe as “a pawn in the beginnings of a battle”, attributing her legal action to a group of Western Buddhist Teachers who were known to be hostile towards Sogyal Lakar and other Asian teachers in the west.I asked Witness P whether Sogyal had been asked for his response to the allegations against him. Witness P’s response was: “we must have talked to him, I can’t recall his take”.
I asked Witness N about the Janice Does law suit. Witness N confirmed that he was aware of it but that it had been handled by Witness P.
Witness N said that he was aware that Janice Doe had alleged sexual misconduct but that “the circumstances around her weakened her credibility”. Witness N did not, however, have any personal knowledge of these circumstances and relied on the accounts of others, specifically Witness P, who Witness N told me is trusted by Witness N implicitly.