I was a Tantric sex Slave
Mary Finnigan
Independent (10 feb 99) carried a long feature by Paul Vallely based on
a talk given by June Campbell at Sharpham Buddhist College on 2 Feb. It
erroneously reports that June was a celibate nun. It also gives a
distorted impression of the function of sexual yoga in Vajrayana
practice, based on June's interpretation of the male-female dynamics of
karma mudra. The headline *I was a Tantric sex slave* is also
misleading. June was never a *slave*. She was Kalu R's translator and a
willing participant in his lifestyle. The item mentions that June was in
a polyandrous relationship with another monk during the time that she
was Kalu R's consort. This is the person who could confirm or deny
June's allegations. So far he has chosen to remain silent.
Mary
Alex Wilding
Well spotted, Mary. You have closer knowledge of that affair than I do, and
have followed the details more closely. I don't suppose the article is
online anywhere? Have you got the time to clear some things up?
Have I got the sequence of events right? As I recall it:
Kalu Rinpoche died when? 89 or 90?
June Campbell first made her claims to have slept with him in her book which
came out about '96?
The claims became well known a little later, when Tricycle published an
interview with her in '97 or '98?
Someone who was on the scene at the time since claims that at the time she
said she was sleeping, not with Kalu Rinpoche, but with another monk.
She now (1999) says that the relationship was "polyandrous".
Is that accurate?
You say "erroneously reports that June was a celibate nun". Well we know
that she claims not to have been practising celibacy, but I had understood
that she had taken vows. I take it that is wrong?
You say "distorted impression of the function of sexual yoga in Vajrayana
practice, based on June's interpretation of the male-female dynamics of
karma mudra". What impression do they give, what is her interpretation, and
in what way is it wrong? (I wouldn't perhaps have to ask that, but I haven't
seen the article.)
You say that the other monk could confirm or deny the allegations. Is that
true? Does she say it was three-in-a-bed? That would be a *real* surprise!
Otherwise he could only confirm/deny what he and she were doing. Is it not
rather the case, that the allegation can not, in the nature of the case, be
proved either way, since nobody was chaperoning Rinpoche 24 hours a day
every day.
Does it not come down to a balance of believability? Personally, when the
allegation first gained currency, I found it hard to believe. But of course,
anything can happen (much worse things actually have!). If it turned out to
be true, my world would neither fall apart nor would I suffer any doubts
about the teachings I received from Kalu Rinpoche. I must admit that making
such allegations some years after the alleged partner died struck me as
cheap and nasty. If my outline of the course of events is correct, then her
story seems to be gaining flexibility, which does not enhance its
credibility.
Has she said anything to counter the suspicion that she was just acting like
a dharma-groupie? We know that there are plenty of them, and if her claim is
now one of partner swapping, the suspicion must arise. Of all the assertions
made in the world, the one to have had what I have heard described as a
celebrity f*** is, I suspect, one of those which is most often false.
I hope the above does not appear to be in bad taste, but by going (very)
public with allegations about a long-deceased man, which are essentially
neither provable nor unprovable, but which are surprising to many who knew
him, June is demanding that we examine her credentials and believability as
closely as we can.
BTW, I read here recently that Surya Das says that the allegation is true.
Does he have any information that we don't?
Looking forward to your comments,
________________________________
Alex Wilding, Translation (Ge->En)
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~wilding/
Tel +353 (0)87 2932734
Fax +353 (0)23 55616
Mary Finnigan
>On Saturday morning Mary Finnigan wrote in message ...
>>The Wednesday review section of the British broadsheet newspaper the
>>Independent (10 feb 99) carried a long feature by Paul Vallely based on
>>a talk given by June Campbell at Sharpham Buddhist College on 2 Feb. It
>>erroneously reports that June was a celibate nun. It also gives a
>>distorted impression of the function of sexual yoga in Vajrayana
>>practice, based on June's interpretation of the male-female dynamics of
>>karma mudra. The headline *I was a Tantric sex slave* is also
>>misleading. June was never a *slave*. She was Kalu R's translator and a
>>willing participant in his lifestyle. The item mentions that June was in
>>a polyandrous relationship with another monk during the time that she
>>was Kalu R's consort. This is the person who could confirm or deny
>>June's allegations. So far he has chosen to remain silent.
>
>
>Well spotted, Mary. You have closer knowledge of that affair than I do, and
>have followed the details more closely. I don't suppose the article is
>online anywhere?
>
>Have I got the sequence of events right? As I recall it:
>Kalu Rinpoche died when? 89 or 90?
>June Campbell first made her claims to have slept with him in her book which
>came out about '96?
>The claims became well known a little later, when Tricycle published an
>interview with her in '97 or '98?
>Someone who was on the scene at the time since claims that at the time she
>said she was sleeping, not with Kalu Rinpoche, but with another monk.
>She now (1999) says that the relationship was "polyandrous".
was also sleeping with his attendant, who is the only person who could
confirm or deny her claims. She also mentioned this during her talk at
Sharpham.
>
>
>You say "erroneously reports that June was a celibate nun". Well we know
>that she claims not to have been practising celibacy, but I had understood
>that she had taken vows. I take it that is wrong?
>
>You say "distorted impression of the function of sexual yoga in Vajrayana
>practice, based on June's interpretation of the male-female dynamics of
>karma mudra". What impression do they give, what is her interpretation, and
>in what way is it wrong? (I wouldn't perhaps have to ask that, but I haven't
>seen the article.)
process that exploits women and that women are merely tools for male
spiritual/yogic development.
>
>You say that the other monk could confirm or deny the allegations. Is that
>true?
such in the Indy article -- one of many factual inaccuracies.
> Does she say it was three-in-a-bed? That would be a *real* surprise!
>Otherwise he could only confirm/deny what he and she were doing. Is it not
>rather the case, that the allegation can not, in the nature of the case, be
>proved either way, since nobody was chaperoning Rinpoche 24 hours a day
>every day.
Kalu. She confirms this.
>
>Does it not come down to a balance of believability?
June is actively engaged in discrediting TB as a whole. I championed her
courage in speaking out about her experience, but since the Indy item I
feel that this may have been a mistake.
> Personally, when the
>allegation first gained currency, I found it hard to believe. But of course,
>anything can happen (much worse things actually have!). If it turned out to
>be true, my world would neither fall apart nor would I suffer any doubts
>about the teachings I received from Kalu Rinpoche.
consort was that he was an old man and in Tibetan culture, having sex
with a younger women is thought to prolong life. My take on the
situation is that Kalu held June in high regard and that he may have
offered her the attendant cos the latter was a young virile chap who
could perform.
> I must admit that making
>such allegations some years after the alleged partner died struck me as
>cheap and nasty.
> If my outline of the course of events is correct, then her
>story seems to be gaining flexibility, which does not enhance its
>credibility.
>Has she said anything to counter the suspicion that she was just acting like
>a dharma-groupie?
request.
> We know that there are plenty of them, and if her claim is
>now one of partner swapping, the suspicion must arise. Of all the assertions
>made in the world, the one to have had what I have heard described as a
>celebrity f*** is, I suspect, one of those which is most often false.
>
>I hope the above does not appear to be in bad taste, but by going (very)
>public with allegations about a long-deceased man, which are essentially
>neither provable nor unprovable, but which are surprising to many who knew
>him, June is demanding that we examine her credentials and believability as
>closely as we can.
the attendant, but I doubt very much even if I do, I will get a straight
answer.
>
>BTW, I read here recently that Surya Das says that the allegation is true.
>Does he have any information that we don't?
Mary
Chris Fynn
<ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Wilding writes
<SNIP>
> >Have I got the sequence of events right? As I recall it:
> >Kalu Rinpoche died when? 89 or 90?
> Not sure -- Chris Fynn would know the exact date.
Kalu Rinpoche passed away on May 10, 1989 at his monastery
in Sonada Darjeeling, India at the age of 86.
> >June Campbell first made her claims to have slept with him in her book which
> >came out about '96?
> Correct
> >The claims became well known a little later, when Tricycle published an
> >interview with her in '97 or '98?
> Correct.
> >Someone who was on the scene at the time since claims that at the time she
> >said she was sleeping, not with Kalu Rinpoche, but with another monk.
> >She now (1999) says that the relationship was "polyandrous".
> No. June told me that during the whole time she was Kalu's consort she
> was also sleeping with his attendant, who is the only person who could
> confirm or deny her claims. She also mentioned this during her talk at
> Sharpham.
I was 'on the scene' for much of the time concerned and never heard
June say that she was sleeping with any monk (or anyone else).
However a good friend of mine who knew June at the time but lived in
another monastery in Darjeeling told me several years ago that he
had met June again in Tibet, where they were both leading tour groups,
and at that on that occassion June had told him that while she was
living in Darjeeling she had had a sexual relationship with another
(named) tulku at Kalu Rinpoche's monastery. This was quite some time
before June's book was published. I have no reason to doubt my friends
account of his meeting with June in Tibet or his account of their
conversation. He was never a student of Kalu Rinpoche but knew
Rinpoche and the other tulku and so there is no real possibility that
he could have confused the names of the two in the story June told
him at that time. And I can see no conceivable reason why he should
have made up or changed his account of meeting June or their
converstion.
Now did June have sexual relations with one, two or three lamas
at Kalu Rinpoche's monastery or is she making the whole thing up
entirely?
> >You say "erroneously reports that June was a celibate nun". Well we know
> >that she claims not to have been practising celibacy, but I had understood
> >that she had taken vows. I take it that is wrong?
> She may have taken lay vows, but she was never a nun.
> >You say "distorted impression of the function of sexual yoga in Vajrayana
> >practice, based on June's interpretation of the male-female dynamics of
> >karma mudra". What impression do they give, what is her interpretation, and
> >in what way is it wrong? (I wouldn't perhaps have to ask that, but I haven't
> >seen the article.)
> It is filtered through June's radical feminist prism and emerges as a
> process that exploits women and that women are merely tools for male
> spiritual/yogic development.
> >You say that the other monk could confirm or deny the allegations. Is that
> >true?
> Chris Fynn tells me thah this person was not a monk. He is described as
> such in the Indy article -- one of many factual inaccuracies.
> > Does she say it was three-in-a-bed? That would be a *real* surprise!
> No, nothing like that.
> >Otherwise he could only confirm/deny what he and she were doing. Is it not
> >rather the case, that the allegation can not, in the nature of the case, be
> >proved either way, since nobody was chaperoning Rinpoche 24 hours a day
> >every day.
> The attendant would have known if June was spending time alone with
> Kalu. She confirms this.
AFAIK during the period concerned Kalu Rinpoche was rarely, if ever,
alone with any woman except his sister Ani Choga for more than a few
minutes at a time. Kalu Rinpoche's door was never locked and there
were always other Tibetans in his small house and compound. When a
Tibetan tulku of his generation went to the toilet one or two
attendants accompanied them - Unless they were in retreat they had
almost no real privacy.
However June acted not only as Kalu Rinpoche's interpreter
but as she was a qualified nurse she helped with his medical
treatment (Kalu Rinpoche suffered from a very bad case of T.B.
for many years.) - so it would not be surprising if she were
alone with him.
> >Does it not come down to a balance of believability?
> Yes. But on a more sinister note, I am coming round to the view that
> June is actively engaged in discrediting TB as a whole. I championed her
> courage in speaking out about her experience, but since the Indy item I
> feel that this may have been a mistake.
> > Personally, when the
> >allegation first gained currency, I found it hard to believe. But of course,
> >anything can happen (much worse things actually have!). If it turned out to
> >be true, my world would neither fall apart nor would I suffer any doubts
> >about the teachings I received from Kalu Rinpoche.
> Quite so. June told me that the reason she was asked to be Kalu's
> consort was that he was an old man and in Tibetan culture, having sex
> with a younger women is thought to prolong life. My take on the
> situation is that Kalu held June in high regard and that he may have
> offered her the attendant cos the latter was a young virile chap who
> could perform.
> > I must admit that making
> >such allegations some years after the alleged partner died struck me as
> >cheap and nasty.
> Agreed.
> > If my outline of the course of events is correct, then her
> >story seems to be gaining flexibility, which does not enhance its
> >credibility.
> No, as far as I can see she has stuck to the same factual account.
But as I recall it the third person concerned was not mentioned in her
book as another partner.
If June's original account published had been full and frank then it
might carry a bit more weight. It seems at least in public June is
adding to the story in dribs and drabs when it suits her. Of course
June was around Kalu Rinpoche for long enough that no-one can say the
opportunity for such a ting to take place was never there and she
knows enough about Tibetan customs to construct a detailed and
culturally believable story if she wants to. Only those who knew both
Kalu Rinpoche and June are in any kind of position to reasonably judge
the likelihood of her allegation.
The story might carry a bit more weight if even one of the many other
women who were close students of Kalu Rinpoche or the several women
other who translated for Kalu Rinpoche told a similar tale. If the
story is true was there absolutely no one around amongst Kalu
Rinpoche's many western students whom June confided in at the time?
> >Has she said anything to counter the suspicion that she was just acting like
> >a dharma-groupie?
> No. But I doubt this. I think it more likely that she acquiesced to a request.
This kind of presupposes June's story has a factual basis.
I doubt if anyone who knew June at the time would call her a "dharma
groupie" - but this only makes it more unlikely that she suffered an
abuse of power.
> > We know that there are plenty of them, and if her claim is
> >now one of partner swapping, the suspicion must arise. Of all the assertions
> >made in the world, the one to have had what I have heard described as a
> >celebrity f*** is, I suspect, one of those which is most often false.
> See above.
> >I hope the above does not appear to be in bad taste, but by going (very)
> >public with allegations about a long-deceased man, which are essentially
> >neither provable nor unprovable, but which are surprising to many who knew
> >him, June is demanding that we examine her credentials and believability as
> >closely as we can.
> Yes indeed. For this reason I am going to make an effort to track down
> the attendant, but I doubt very much even if I do, I will get a straight
> answer.
It seems to me just as likely that June became upset because she
didn't get appointed as a teacher by Kalu Rinpoche as many other
western students around at the time did; or maybe that she had an
affair with this attendant who decided to remain with Kalu Rinpoche
rather than stay with her or maybe she is changing the name of the
tulku she previously said she was involved with in order to avoid
a possible libel action or maybe that she has simply rejected Tibetan
Buddhism and is trying to give herself some kind of credibility in her
new career as a radical feminist critic of Tibetan Buddhist
patriarchy. Of course I don't know that any of these things are true,
and some of them may be unfair to June, but I think they are possible
motives for her to have made up what she wrote.
Mary, even if you manage to contact this attendant and he tells you
that June is making the whole thing, or parts of it, up - are you
going to believe him? I can't see how he or anyone else can offer
conclusive evidence that June is telling a lie. Even if June's
story is true, it's highly unlikely that anyone in his position would
ever confirm it to a journalist.
That said, isn't it the case that June is the one who has made the
unsupported and, in the opinion of most people who knew both Kalu
Rinpoche and June, unlikely allegation? In the absence of any material
evidence or reliable witnesses to support her story doesn't the burden
of proof rest entirely with her? The fact that some Tibetan lamas
have had sex with students and/or abused their positions does not
make all of them guilty by association. That would be like saying all
men are rapists or that all Catholic priests are child molesters.
If June made such an allegation about a well respected living teacher
with the kind of evidence or rather lack of evidence she has produced
do you think any publisher in the UK would ever print her story?
Unless and until June provides some real and substantiating
evidence even discussing her allegation in a public forum or
publication probably benefits no one except those keen to discredit
Tibetan Buddhism in general or Kalu Rinpoche in particular.
It seems to me that further discussion can only sow an insidious seed
of doubt in the minds of some of those who did not know Kalu Rinpoche
well and perhaps gives June a kind of renown or notoriety which for
some reason she seems keen to court.
The truth is that although Kalu Rinpoche was a very traditional
teacher he probably did more than any other Lama to raise the status
of women, particularly western women, in the Tibetan Dharma tradition.
Before any other teacher, Kalu Rinpoche started three-year three-month
retreat centers for western students including women and conferred
upon those who completed these retreats the title Lama and encouraged
them to teach - whether they were women or men.
Although this allegation which occupies just a few lines in her book
has attracted all the attention June does makes some other
understandable and sometimes fair criticisms of Tibetan Buddhism in
her book - though in my opinion she frequently overstates her
arguments and often uses very questionable evidence in support
them. In my opinion this is counterproductive and she actually
succeeds in undermining her own case. It's also rather strange that
someone who is supposed to be fluent in Tibetan uses no original
Tibetan source material and often relies on the most dated and
unreliable translations available.
- Chris
> >BTW, I read here recently that Surya Das says that the allegation is true.
> >Does he have any information that we don't?
> Dunno. Where did you read this? I would like to see the context.
> Mary
Sangye Khandro's letter which was posted to this news group by
rKup chen 'bar ba alleges that Surya Das "In other Dharma talks, after
referring to Kalu Rinpoche as his root Guru and someone that he
studied under for many years, he answers a question about consort
practice as follows, 'Kalu Rinpoche was screwing his translator and it
wasn't consort practice...'"
I really doubt that Surya Das has any more information than anyone
else.