Reply to Nicky Skye and CO.

93 views
Skip to first unread message

Evelyn Ruut

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
Dear Tsering,

Tsering Wangyal wrote,

His Holiness Sakya Trizin <wang...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.127df273a...@news.vsnl.net.in...
> This is a reply and clarification to all the people who have read and
> contributed to the discussion thread that has been going on for the last
> few months on this message board. It was very perturbing for me to come
> to know and to read such fabricated and malicious stories about His
> Holiness Sakya Trizin who is not only my root guru and but also the one
> whom I have a very precious opportunity to serve as a secretary, is
> circulated on the Internet.

It was just as disappointing to many of us here to hear of this too.
Please do not think for one minute that ANYONE rejoices when one hears of
such things, I certainly do not and was deeply saddened to hear of yet
another Lama whose name has been brought up in association with this kind of
behavior.

>It is indeed very sad to learn that instead
> of using this very good means of communication for better and speedier
> exchange of good and fruitful views on Dharma, some people are using it
> for harmful purposes and generation of bad karma.

THAT, is an assumption, simply because you do not LIKE what you have read
and heard.

It is my opinion that all things being karmic, remaining silent when one
persons misbehavior jeopardizes someone else, can makes one part and party
to the action, and therefore karmically JUST as accountable as the person
committing the act. First of all we should not see people harmed and
remain silent. Yes it is a tough call, but we have our own consciences to
answer to.

> It was shocking to learn that someone has accused His Holiness of such an
> unthinkable act. Many of us who know His Holiness will not only be deeply
> shocked but also be highly overwhelmed with the atrociousness of this
> preposterous accusation.


Dear man, can you not see that the words atrocious and preposterous can also
be applied to the actions that HH has been accused of?

> I feel pity and compassion for Nicky Skye if she is mentally unstable.
> There are many who are that way and dream up various fantastic stories
> and live in them. If she is one of them then we must not take these
> allegations seriously and feel pity for her and have compassion for her.
> I have myself met many people like her during my tenure as a secretary
> here. A lot of people who have unstable mind are recommended for His
> Holiness' advice and help by many high lamas, both foreigners and Indians
> alike.

I confess I feel pity and compassion for Nicky myself, but for quite
different reasons.
she did not impress me as unstable or a liar at all.


> But, if she is in the correct frame of mind, then I must indeed warn her
> of the bad karma generated by the malicious and false accusations that
> she has made and publicized. She must be aware that this false allegation
> would not only hurt the feelings and belief of many sincere followers of
> His Holiness and Dharma but also dishearten the master whose compassion
> has been boundless and efforts for Dharma beyond human comprehension.

If I am assuming Nicky's honesty, you are likewise assuming her dishonesty.
Both may possibly be incorrect assumptions. It is a judgement call.


> This is probably why I have decided not to present these discussions to
> His Holiness after I came to know of it through Ngawang Geleg as it would
> not only disturb him a great deal but also dishearten him from his Dharma
> work. So I would deem it best if this rumor and false allegation stops
> after this message. In fact there would be no more need to hover over
> this matter then when truth is told.

Do you really think that he would admit to such a human failing? Do you
really think he would be disheartened from his work from having been found
out? If that were truly the case, perhaps his faith and committment to his
work is not as deep as you think. If it is a true allegation, he may be
sorry, and he may be truly re-committed and re-dedicated. Many people have
made errors in their lives and come back better for it. Maybe you
underestimate him.


> It will be very easy to refute the false charge that Nicky Skye has made.
> But before it all, I would very much like to ask how people like Evelyn
> Ruut who do not even know His Holiness, have reached a conclusion that
> Nicky Skye is telling the truth? By talking over the phone with her? And
> because it was a woman-to-woman conversation!!!!

It would be very hard to lie that completely and that thoroughly, and if you
knew the person, she is not looking for publicity, Nicky Skye is not her
real name, and she is simply a normal, kind, business woman, who thinks that
maybe some of what happened between her and HH is not quite right. I will
not deny that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that I have been
duped. But I don't think so.

> Madam, it is often easy to believe things as they seem and are told,
> though the truth may be miles away.

Don't call me "madam".... I am just one of the "girls"....... and I am no
gullible young thing, I am a mature lady, who felt deeply sorry for the
woman, and what she suffered.

I have no proof, nor really does she (unless she, like some other person,
has a stained blue dress as a keepsake someplace in the back of her closet).
Her original intention was to let it pass. NOT to make a stink, NOT to
upset the man's loyal students and followers like yourself. Later on she
felt she had been mistaken for doing that and that others may end up
suffering the same situation, and not wishing that to happen, she spoke up.
I think it was hard for her to dredge it up again. She felt bad and she
felt guilty and she felt sad that it happened. She kept quiet for all this
time, because she wished it had not happened and just wanted it to go away.


It is very important for a person who
> reaches a decision that before doing so and saying that it is true one
> should check it out with the other person too and also look on one's own
> before making a judgment and publishing it. Every man should have a
> chance to defend himself. Do you know Nicky Skye and Mary Finnigan
> personally?

That is not a very accurate way to judge. How much does ANYONE know
another person? Have you never been deceived even by someone you thought
you knew well? Can a person you know only a little be telling you the
truth and another you know very well perhaps lie? You know the answer to
those questions is yes.


> Have you checked their antecedents?

As a matter of fact, Nicky has some very prominent people in her
background.... is that also a way to judge? I don't think so. I know
plenty of people from good families who are bums, and likewise people who
came from "trash" who are fine and honest and upstanding and decent.


>Are they both people with
> reliable characters? How do these two people know each other? How do we
> know that they are not conspirators trying not only to dent the image of
> His Holiness but also Dharma in general? In fact, how is news reader to
> believe that all three of you are party to the same plot unless they are
> so gullible as you?

I am not going to say that I have never been gullible, but I will swear
solemnly that I would not in any way wish to harm HH or the Dharma or
anyone. I did not mention or publicize Sakya Trizins name, Nicky herself
did so through Mary. I merely said that Nicky seemed pretty honest to me.
I would like to think I am not so easily lied to, but it is not an
impossibility.

If you ask me if I believe her, yes, I still think she is telling the truth,
but that is a personal judgement call. I think she would have to be a
master liar to have invented what she told me. But no, I was not present,
and she did not have a video tape of the incident or witnesses or DNA
evidence or anything like that. It is hearsay.

> In fact, I am posting this message only because it is people like Evelyn
> whom I am very worried about. It is gullible people like her who are
> aimed at when such vicious allegations are circulated. And it is they who
> then pass it on to large number of people believing it to be true.


I did not bring Sakya Trizins name up, but I did indeed say that Nicky Skye
seemed to me to be telling the truth in my conversations with her. If I
were on a jury, sworn to make a judgement on it, I would have believed her
and voted accordingly. This is not a court of law, and yes, many people
have spoken here, and some have rightfully mentioned that "trial by
internet" does not necessarily constitute a fair trial. I would tend to
agree with that.

If you ask me, I think that this does NOT mean the man should be assumed
guilty, but simply that one should regard that someone once made an
allegation about the person, and that it may or may not be true, and "buyer
beware" should apply.


> Otherwise as in this case, for those of us who hold His Holiness as our
> root guru and know him very well, this is just a ludicrous story from a
> woman with unstable mind or evil intent to which we would turn a blind
> eye.

If it makes you feel better to do that, go right ahead, but maybe you are
being as gullible as you assume I am.


> I will not make any mention or reference to other allegation made in the
> message towards other lamas, as they are no business of mine. They do not
> by or large matter much to me. I will write only thing that I know and
> know well enough to be true.

You really are missing the WHOLE point of this.....

***we want to know how these kinds of situations should be dealt with.

***We want to know if it is a cultural clash, and if we western women are
giving off "available" kinds of vibes, that perhaps may clash with Tibetan
general morality and body language etc.

***We want to know what to do in case of genuine mis-conduct.

***We want to clear the air.

***We want to warn others that sometimes Lamas who we think are beyond
reproach can sometimes be lecherous just like ministers and priests and boy
scout leaders and little league coaches and be led by their physical needs.

*** We want to know if we send our daughters and friends to study the dharma
they are going to be safe from lecherous actions and not seduced by those
who would teach them.

WHAT could possibly be wrong with that?

Do you allege that this has NEVER happened to ANYONE ever? Or do you
allege that only YOUR teacher never did it? Perhaps dear Tsering, you are
the gullible one. I find it extremely laudable that you are so loyal, but
sad that you cannot even consider that maybe, just maybe........Nicky might
not be lying.


> If we read very well from the very first letter s posted by her or her
> friend Mary, from it itself we can very much learn that either she is
> psychologically unstable or is telling us a very badly construed tale.

That may be. There has been no trial and no conviction, and as far as I
know Nicky Skye is the only one I have heard of that mentioned your teacher.
An allegation is an allegation, not a conviction. I repeat, that if Nicky
Skye is lying she did a very good job of it. Either that, or she is not
lying. THEN WHAT? Could you face that possibility?


> · The first thing I would like to make clear is that I have been
> private secretary to His Holiness Sakya Trizin for almost the last three
> years.
>
> · During these years, I have never ever heard of or seen either
> Nicky Skye or Mary Finnigan.

The alleged incident occurred prior to three years ago. If I am not
mistaken it was quite a long while ago according to Nicky Skye.

> · I haven't even heard their names mentioned by anyone in our circle
> of people or other Dharma fellows.

Are you surprised that a woman who has felt wronged in some way would have
disappeared from the environs of the person she felt wronged her?


> · There are no apartments or whatsoever near the Phodrang where the
> accuser Nicky Skye purports that this incident took place.

(Tsering I am snipping a large block of your prior posting here because I
have no idea about the individual particulars which you mention about HH
scheduling or the locations you mention. There is no way for me to know
any of that.)

> · The message makes many references to other lamas or lama with whom
> she says she has had negative experiences and abusive relationship. It is
> and would be very silly of her if she wants us to believe that we are so
> gullible that we will believe that she is so innocent or stupid that
> after all the sadness she says she experienced with other lamas or lama,
> she will again jumps into the same pit.

I will admit that this particular issue bothered me too.

Not that I think she was lying, but I can tell you that there are some
people who seem to give off certain energies or certain vulnerabilities, or
subtle suggestions, where incidents that might not happen even once to one
person, might happen more than once to another.

Nicky told me that she had come from a very dysfunctional family situation
and felt that she had a weak sense of self. She has spent years coming to
grips with herself and her past. She did indeed wonder if it was
something about HER that made it happen to her. She blamed herself to some
degree. She felt she had been too vulnerable to this and agonized over it.
This is why she kept quiet for so long. It is only now that she is a
mature woman, she realized that no, it was NOT her fault, and YES something
went on that was not quite right. That is what she told me.


> · Again, it would be very big hearted of her when she purports that
> what some lamas to have done to her were nothing and it was what she says
> His Holiness did that destroyed her faith in Dharma.

Can you really NOT understand that someone in whom you have great trust and
respect, who in crossing that barrier of ones personal space, could harm
your faith and trust and sense of sacredness?

You seem not able to even face the very IDEA that it could have happened at
all, so attached to such ideas of trust and respect and sacredness, are you!
Imagine how you would feel if it happened to you and people called you a
liar and crazy?

> · And finally, how are we to believe that after all this we have to
> believe that she returned to Rajpur for the next four years!!!

Perhaps Nicky would be so kind as to make an explanation of this for you.


> Indeed it would either require gullible people like Evelyn to believe
> everything a fellow woman in the same age group to tells her or a very
> very stupid person.

Perhaps I am stupid and perhaps I am gullible. I will be the first to
admit that possibility, but I will tell you this much; if it were in a court
of law, and Nicky testified under oath, it could not have been more
convincing.

Plenty of people are in jail doing time from judgement calls, beliefs, and
our generally imperfect understanding and knowledge. If Nicky is lying she
has her karma to suffer for scheming to deceive.

If I believe her, it is honest belief, and not from any kind of dishonesty
on my own part.

If I have been mis-led, no doubt it would be very unfortunate, but since I
am not the only one who felt that way, and who believed her, I feel that I
have no reason to mistrust my impressions. I know there is no proof at
this time, but that cannot be helped now.

> At the end, I sincerely urge all Dharma brothers and sisters to turn a
> blind eye to these allegation or even better advise and discourage these
> people so that this thing ends. If any more clarification is needed do
> email me. I am at wang...@hotmail.com

And I urge no one to accept the allegations of either Nicky or yourself as
being absolutely true and without doubt, but to rely on their OWN
impressions.

If you go to this teacher he may be the finest man you have ever known, and
be completely honorable with you and lead you to full enlightenment.

But also be aware that one time, some individual said something that may or
may not be true, and if your experience parallels hers in any way, you had
better get the heck out of there and fast. You owe it to yourself not to
believe or disbelieve but to find out for yourself.

We are all different people TO different people. We can be an angel to one
and a devil to another. To swear we are all the same to everyone is sheer
folly.

Tsering, I am sorry if the allegations of Nicky Skye have hurt or
embarrassed or surprised you. But I am more sorry for you if you dismiss
them out of hand blindly.

One person does not always really know another person or see in their heart
even if they have been their secretary for three years. Just as you
suggest I am gullible, you could be guilty of the same. Think on that
please.

Also, I usually stay out of these kinds of things just for that very reason.

Evelyn

Tseten Wangchuk

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to

Oh really?

Evelyn Ruut wrote in message <7v0a9j$h78$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>Dear Tsering,

His Holiness Sakya Trizin

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
This is a reply and clarification to all the people who have read and
contributed to the discussion thread that has been going on for the last
few months on this message board. It was very perturbing for me to come
to know and to read such fabricated and malicious stories about His
Holiness Sakya Trizin who is not only my root guru and but also the one
whom I have a very precious opportunity to serve as a secretary, is
circulated on the Internet. It is indeed very sad to learn that instead
of using this very good means of communication for better and speedier
exchange of good and fruitful views on Dharma, some people are using it
for harmful purposes and generation of bad karma.

It was shocking to learn that someone has accused His Holiness of such an

unthinkable act. Many of us who know His Holiness will not only be deeply
shocked but also be highly overwhelmed with the atrociousness of this
preposterous accusation.

I feel pity and compassion for Nicky Skye if she is mentally unstable.

There are many who are that way and dream up various fantastic stories
and live in them. If she is one of them then we must not take these
allegations seriously and feel pity for her and have compassion for her.
I have myself met many people like her during my tenure as a secretary
here. A lot of people who have unstable mind are recommended for His
Holiness' advice and help by many high lamas, both foreigners and Indians
alike.

But, if she is in the correct frame of mind, then I must indeed warn her

of the bad karma generated by the malicious and false accusations that
she has made and publicized. She must be aware that this false allegation
would not only hurt the feelings and belief of many sincere followers of
His Holiness and Dharma but also dishearten the master whose compassion
has been boundless and efforts for Dharma beyond human comprehension.

This is probably why I have decided not to present these discussions to

His Holiness after I came to know of it through Ngawang Geleg as it would
not only disturb him a great deal but also dishearten him from his Dharma
work. So I would deem it best if this rumor and false allegation stops
after this message. In fact there would be no more need to hover over
this matter then when truth is told.

It will be very easy to refute the false charge that Nicky Skye has made.

But before it all, I would very much like to ask how people like Evelyn
Ruut who do not even know His Holiness, have reached a conclusion that
Nicky Skye is telling the truth? By talking over the phone with her? And
because it was a woman-to-woman conversation!!!!

Madam, it is often easy to believe things as they seem and are told,
though the truth may be miles away. It is very important for a person who

reaches a decision that before doing so and saying that it is true one
should check it out with the other person too and also look on one's own
before making a judgment and publishing it. Every man should have a
chance to defend himself. Do you know Nicky Skye and Mary Finnigan

personally? Have you checked their antecedents? Are they both people with

reliable characters? How do these two people know each other? How do we
know that they are not conspirators trying not only to dent the image of
His Holiness but also Dharma in general? In fact, how is news reader to
believe that all three of you are party to the same plot unless they are
so gullible as you?

In fact, I am posting this message only because it is people like Evelyn

whom I am very worried about. It is gullible people like her who are
aimed at when such vicious allegations are circulated. And it is they who
then pass it on to large number of people believing it to be true.

Otherwise as in this case, for those of us who hold His Holiness as our
root guru and know him very well, this is just a ludicrous story from a
woman with unstable mind or evil intent to which we would turn a blind
eye.

I will not make any mention or reference to other allegation made in the

message towards other lamas, as they are no business of mine. They do not
by or large matter much to me. I will write only thing that I know and
know well enough to be true.

If we read very well from the very first letter s posted by her or her

friend Mary, from it itself we can very much learn that either she is
psychologically unstable or is telling us a very badly construed tale.

· The first thing I would like to make clear is that I have been

private secretary to His Holiness Sakya Trizin for almost the last three
years.

· During these years, I have never ever heard of or seen either
Nicky Skye or Mary Finnigan.

· I haven't even heard their names mentioned by anyone in our circle

of people or other Dharma fellows.

· There are no apartments or whatsoever near the Phodrang where the

accuser Nicky Skye purports that this incident took place.

· The nearest place where a disciple of His Holiness could lodge is
some rooms at the Sai Temple, which is adjacent to the Sakya Center and a
place called Krishna Lodge, which is on the opposite direction.

· We have only one guest room at the Palace and in all the adjacent
three rooms attendants of His Holiness live.

· Moreover, if anyone who has been to and has stayed at His Holiness
residence would surely know that it is five o' clock in the morning when
His Holiness goes for his usual five or six rounds of the palace (after
which he has his breakfast) and not 9 o' Clock as Nicky says in her
allegation (and that too if the weather is good).

· And if anyone visits us at Rajpur, it would become very evident
that His Holiness has absolutely no time during the days when he is here
at the palace that someone could privately study and meditate with him as
Nicky says she has done.

· In fact, even those of us who life with him hardly have a few
moments with him each day as his prayers, meditation, daily audience from
10 - 12 a. m. and other religious duties take up so much of his time.

· It would also be very pleasant to note that only time His Holiness
goes out of the palace is when he goes to the Sakya Center to attend
ceremonies or when is on a tour or visit to other cities or towns. Once
in a blue moon he goes to the market to shop.

· And incidentally, it is around nine o'clock in the morning that
His Holiness almost finishes his morning session of prayers and
meditation and prepares to come down from his shrine room to the audience
room to grant audience to devotees.

· For a clever person, it is very obvious from the beginning that
her story is based on and is meant to grow on various other stories and
rumors that are floating in the Dharma world (whether they are true or
lies).

· The message makes many references to other lamas or lama with whom
she says she has had negative experiences and abusive relationship. It is
and would be very silly of her if she wants us to believe that we are so
gullible that we will believe that she is so innocent or stupid that
after all the sadness she says she experienced with other lamas or lama,
she will again jumps into the same pit.

· Again, it would be very big hearted of her when she purports that

what some lamas to have done to her were nothing and it was what she says
His Holiness did that destroyed her faith in Dharma.

· And finally, how are we to believe that after all this we have to

believe that she returned to Rajpur for the next four years!!!

Indeed it would either require gullible people like Evelyn to believe

everything a fellow woman in the same age group to tells her or a very
very stupid person.

At the end, I sincerely urge all Dharma brothers and sisters to turn a

blind eye to these allegation or even better advise and discourage these
people so that this thing ends. If any more clarification is needed do
email me. I am at wang...@hotmail.com

Tsering Wangyal

25th October, 99


chino...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
In article <MPG.127df273a...@news.vsnl.net.in>,
wang...@hotmail.com (His Holiness Sakya Trizin) wrote:

dear tsering wangyal:

whilst i (and, i am sure, many other people here) absorb and digest
what you have written here, may i make a minor suggestion? when i
opened this post, due to the screen name "His Holiness Sakya Trizin", i
assumed that these were the words of his holiness himself. however,
since you have not even relayed to his holiness the allegations made by
nicky skye, you clearly are speaking only in your own persoanl
capacity, rather than issuing a formal statement or response from his
holiness sakya trizin. in future, you may wish to remove the erroneous
screen name and use your own personal name, lest it look like you are
speaking with the full authority of his holiness himself.

as for your post itself, it will take some digestion, but thank you for
providing your personal view of the matter.

cheers,
chino


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
Tsering Wangyal, in reply to your lengthy, and somewhat incredulous post;

If any of Nicky Skye's allegations are not true, I doubt that your guru would
be upset to hear about it if he is as enlightened as you seem to think he is.
So why is it that you seem to feel the need to "protect" him?
If any of the allegations are true, he could either fess up, or give his own
account. If he is truly enlightened, any past transgressions he may have
committed are most certainly not going to affect his inner peace now that he
has "gone beyond." Your indignation does not give either side any credibility,
or lack thereof. We in the west are used to hearing accusations of "insanity
or madnes" when a woman tells her side of the truth. We are even used to
getting "cursed" or whatever. Of course anyone who would wish that (curses or
bad karma) on another human being is a very sick puppy...
In other words, we have learned not to jump off the bridge just because
somebody else says so.

chino...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
dear evelyn,

personally, i am still processing certain parts of the reply of hhst's
secretary, and also your own post somewhat, but i must say, on initial
read, i do think your response to be quite fair-minded and balanced. i
really welcome the secretary's reply, though, as a potential first step
in dialogue closer to hhst himself, though of course think he is
arguing *past* the actual points somewhat.

in that regard, i heartily agree with your formulation which follows:

> ***we want to know how these kinds of situations should be dealt with.
>
> ***We want to know if it is a cultural clash, and if we western women
are
> giving off "available" kinds of vibes, that perhaps may clash with
Tibetan
> general morality and body language etc.
>
> ***We want to know what to do in case of genuine mis-conduct.
>
> ***We want to clear the air.
>
> ***We want to warn others that sometimes Lamas who we think are beyond
> reproach can sometimes be lecherous just like ministers and priests
and boy
> scout leaders and little league coaches and be led by their physical
needs.
>
> *** We want to know if we send our daughters and friends to study the
dharma
> they are going to be safe from lecherous actions and not seduced by
those
> who would teach them.

thank you for formulating this important nutshell; i believe it quite
fairly covers all the major bases of concern of all posters who have
participated in this thread so far.

cheers,
chino

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
>in future, you may wish to remove the erroneous screen name and use your own
personal name, lest it look like you are
speaking with the full authority of his holiness himself.<

Right on, Chino!

Mary Finnigan

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to

>Tsering Wangyal, in reply to your lengthy, and somewhat incredulous post;
I missed this one too. Sorry -- don't know how it happened. have got
most of the original from the replies, but probably not all.
Clarifications:
* When Nicky Skye included Sakya T in her first post, I was not at all
happy about it. I asked her to tell me more about the circumstances via
e-mail. She did this comprehensively. She mentioned that a friend with
whom she is still in contact knew about her sexual encounter with ST at
the time and could confirm that it had happened.
* The encounter between ST and Nicky Skye did indeed take place many
years ago -- almost certainly during a period when ST led a less
structured life and had more freedom from observation by others in his
entourage.
*Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia. Nicky
replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details of
Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or any other
forum.
*I hold ST in deep respect. I have taken Vajrakilaya empowerment from
him and have no doubt whatsoever that he is a highly accomplished and
effective yogi. I must also say that Nicky's Skye's allegations are not
the first I have heard about ST's sex life.
* I first met Nicky Skye in 1995 when I was preparing a report for the
BBC on the Sogyal-Janice Doe lawsuit. I interviewed her down-the-line
from the UK and later spoke with her at length on the phone when I was
in New York City. She and I have several mutual friends and
acquaintances. She was annoyed with me because I forgot to send her a
tape of the programme after I had promised to do so. A few months ago
she logged into arbt and picked up on my posts. When she first
communicated via e-mail she did not remember me from 1995. We cleared up
our differences and are now on very good terms.
*As DT has pointed out on another thread, and Evelyn repeats with
awesome patience, the issues we are dealing with concerning sexual
misconduct are not a challenge to the principle of guru devotion. What
Nicky said about Sakya has not changed the way I relate to him at all.
It is not my intention, nor hers, to undermine the validity of Tibetan
Buddhism. Quite the contrary in fact. If the personal, social and
cultural problems that are now glaringly obvious are not addressed and
adjusted, TB will self-destruct. What could remain is a New Age mish
mash of half-baked interpretations. Skimmed milk dharma. Do any of you
who rage against the whistle blowers want this? Is your practice about
waking up? Or is it about floating in la-la land? Do you finish your
sadhana with the intention of carrying contemplative insight into all
aspects of daily life? Or is it just a feel-good technique?
Mary

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to

Mary Finnigan wrote:
>
> *Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia. Nicky
> replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details of
> Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or any other
> forum.

For your info, I am the one who pass the info to His Holiness Sakya
Trizin via Tsering Wangyal.


--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)

email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
<-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/cults.htm
<-: Buddhist Cults A - Z :->
URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/index.htm
<-: My Music Page :->

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
>For your info, I am the one who pass the info to His Holiness Sakya Trizin via
Tsering Wangyal.

Sounds like TW has no intent to pass anything along to HH. Interesting, no?

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to

LStev3234 wrote:
>
> Sounds like TW has no intent to pass anything along to HH. Interesting, no?

It doesn't matter as I have done my part. Have you?

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
>It doesn't matter as I have done my part. Have you?

What exactly is "your" or "my" part?

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to

LStev3234 wrote:
>
> >It doesn't matter as I have done my part. Have you?
>
> What exactly is "your" or "my" part?

As a disciple of His Holiness, I have the duty to inform His Holiness
about the false allegation. Thus, I have done my part.

This is his reply for not forwarding this matter to His Holiness:

"His Holiness is in very good health and sends you his blessings and
warm regards. I have not presented your email to him yet. I don't feel
it is necessary. I am personally writing an answer ot these false
allegations and I am sure it will be enough. The days in Manduwla are
really tiring His Holiness has be up by four or so in the morning and is
up till 10 or more every day. I can not even think of presenting this
pack of lies to him at all."

For your info, His Holiness is now having a long teaching tour at
Manduwla. He is bestowing the final set of teachings from 'The
Collection of Tantras' which has begun since 1988.

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
>I have not presented your email to him yet. I don't feel it is necessary.<

So what does "yet" mean?
Not feeling it "necessary" right now but will "present" it later on? Or just
dismissing it entirely, continuing to defend HH without any inquiry, and not
recognizing any of his(TW) own aversions or other gargabe in the process?

I don't really care what HH is doing at the moment, it is irrelevant to this
particualr issue. I am about to go to the bathroom, which is also irrelevant
to the issue. If HH is so "wonderful" then he does not need any of his
dedicated followers to protect him, he will handle the situation openly and not
be disturbed in the least, no matter what the outcome. I think some folks are
more concerned with protecting their own fantasys about their gurus at the
expense of truth, than they are with "holiness."
What IF (notice the big "if") HH said "Yes I did these things, I was wrong and
I don't do them anymore." Would you love HH less for having made some mistakes
and dashed your fantasy about how "perfect" he is? Or would you rather believe
a lie of your own making because you are afraid of the truth?
It appears that some folks are attempting to protect HH but in fact, they are
just protecing their own fantasys.
I realize, Henry, that you did forward the message to TW. I am asking if you
are open to hearing an unexpected reply and whether or not you can have
comapassion if the reply destroys any fantasy you might have about gurus, etc.

I will be interested to hear your reply.

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
Henry writes: >So what is your guess?<

I don't have a "guess" as I am wondering what "yet"and "necessary" means. I
honetly don't know what TW's intent is, that is why I am asking.

I don't care about "vows" Henry. Vows can be, and often are, broken. By lamas
and gurus and rinpoches and married folks and just about every human on this
planet. I am concerned with the truth, which has nothing to do with "vows".

>How can you be sure if some folks are writing not their own fantasy and
destorying the reputations of others?<

How can you be sure as well? Is it not better to investigate as fully as
possible? The only reson people don't want to investigate fully is either fear
or apathy.

>None of your questions are relevant to my feelings<

Ah, but they are, Henry. Your feelings are quite relevent to the entire issue
and how you yourself process information which comes your way.

margaret

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
I largely agree with the criticisms others made of Tsering Wangyal's post.
Tsering Wangyal, there is no more reason for us to believe you than there is
to believe "Nicky Skye" (whoever she is). It isn't entirely seemly, in my
view, to accuse someone you don't know of being "mentally unstable", or even
to suggest they are. Especially from someone in such a position of
authority as yourself. I don't *think* anyone made such accusations of HH
Sakya Trizin!

However, I do take a lot of this with a truckload of salt due to the
following doubts:

- How come "Nicky" doesn't write here herself? I seem to remember that
she can receive e-mail. If her e-mail works, then I find it hard to believe
she can't operate newsgroups. And even if she can't, what stops her from
popping into a cyber cafe, if this whole issue means so much to her? If I
was in her position, I would want to take advantage of the fact that here I
can even go to the *library* and access a computer. I can't believe access
is *less* wide in America. Even if I was to believe that she truly *can't*
write here, how come what we hear from her is hearsay from Mary and Evelyn?
How come she can't even dictate a message to post here? All this makes me
enormously skeptical about her.

- How come she doesn't use her real name? It hardly invites trust or
belief, to my mind. If she is innocent and her claim true, then what does
she fear? Does she imagine HHST is some kind of Mafia boss who'll gun her
down if she says boo to him? Please!

- How come that while it was a case of other, presumably less famous, lamas
she had no complaints, but that when it was (so she claims) a very famous
lama (which no one else has slated - "fresh" material is always so much more
interesting than an old scandal) she suddenly needs to bring it, rather
circuitously, to public attention?

- How come that she didn't tell her story earlier - it seems quite
interesting to me that she tells it "on the bandwagon" of other famous
scandals.

Therefore, I have no inclination on the basis of her story to believe her at
all. Having said that, I recognise that it is by no means impossible that
she is telling the truth. After all, when Kalu Rinpoche was carrying out
his liaison with June Campbell (if that story was true) only one other monk
knew what was going on.

I totally agree with Evelyn when she says that women have to speak out.
Also, to be fair, it is sadly not possible to say that Tibetan monks have a
stainless reputation for keeping their chastity vow. Look at Dzogchen
Rinpoche for instance, who still wears the robes of a monk although he is
very open about having a wife and a small child. Therefore people such as
Tsering Wangyal should not be that astounded when people cast doubts upon
lamas. Even the utterly saintly Ani Tenzin Palmo tells a story from before
she was a nun of Trungpa Rinpoche trying to feel her up under her skirt, and
having had a child by a Tibetan woman, by the time he was 13. Her quarrel
was not with the fact that he did these things, but with the fact that he
tried to put himself across as a pure monk. Even a friend of mine, who
seems to have bad luck with such things, told me of an elderly monk who,
hardly had she walked into the room to ask him a few questions, kissed her.
An extraordinary thing for an elderly Tibetan celibate monk to do to a young
girl - and sadly as a new Buddhist this didn't do much for her trust in the
ordained sangha.

If western women no longer take lamas' (in general, ie) purity as read this
can no longer be taken as amazing, nor criticised. I suggest it would be
wiser for people like yourself, Tsering Wangyal, to feel a little more
compassionate about this whole extremely distressing situation (I believe
that Tibetan lamas don't even begin to understand how very deeply
distressing it is to women) and to help western women to enter into a
dialogue with all lamas, to increase understanding and trust on both sides.

Margaret de Bethlen

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
MargaretdB, I think your questions will be answered as far as why Nicky isn't
posting herself, at the moment. As to the rest of your post, it was quite
erudite, I enjoyed it.
Also, cyber cafes aren't cheap nor are they a good place to do a lot of
difficult thinking and posting. I don't go to cyber cafe's because I can't
afford them and am somewhat confused by the different equipment, programs, etc.

If we are patient, all will be revealed. Or at least a lot more than has been
thus far.


Mary Finnigan

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
Dear Margaret,

>I largely agree with the criticisms others made of Tsering Wangyal's post.
>Tsering Wangyal, there is no more reason for us to believe you than there is
>to believe "Nicky Skye" (whoever she is). It isn't entirely seemly, in my
>view, to accuse someone you don't know of being "mentally unstable", or even
>to suggest they are. Especially from someone in such a position of
>authority as yourself. I don't *think* anyone made such accusations of HH
>Sakya Trizin!
From the style and content of TW's post it is clear that he does not
want anything even vaguely resembling the truth to emerge about his
boss. This is entirely natural. None of us want our precious life
support systems to be challenged and/or demolished. His reaction to
Nicky's story about her sexual encounter with ST (which was sent in an
e-mail to Henry Chia and never appeared on this or any other ng) is a
classic example of Kill the Messenger. This tactic and various other
red herrings have been tried and have failed many times here.
>
>However, I do take a lot of this with a truckload of salt due to the
>following doubts:
>
>- How come "Nicky" doesn't write here herself? I seem to remember that
>she can receive e-mail. If her e-mail works, then I find it hard to believe
>she can't operate newsgroups.
Hard perhaps, but true. She has an ancient PV which has now broken down
completely. She tells me that she tried many times to access Usenet, but
without success.

> And even if she can't, what stops her from
>popping into a cyber cafe, if this whole issue means so much to her? If I
>was in her position, I would want to take advantage of the fact that here I
>can even go to the *library* and access a computer. I can't believe access
>is *less* wide in America.
She has been to a cyber cafe, where she has caught up with some posts
here. She is under extreme life pressure at the moment -- many
difficulties, including a broken ankle. I have not heard from her for
more than a week now and nor has Evelyn. I left an urgent message on her
voice mail today.
> Even if I was to believe that she truly *can't*
>write here, how come what we hear from her is hearsay from Mary and Evelyn?
Not hearsay. I posted two items from her here, which she e-mailed to me.
She spoke at length on the phone with Evelyn, at my suggestion because
they both live in NY --Ev in state and Nicky in City.

>How come she can't even dictate a message to post here? All this makes me
>enormously skeptical about her.
Evelyn has suggested that she sends a new post to her by snail and she -
- Ev -- will key it in and post it here. I have asked NS to do this. It
may seem fishy and I can understand why you feel this way, but honest to
Buddha it is all above board. As I have already said, I have known NS
since 1995.

>
>- How come she doesn't use her real name? It hardly invites trust or
>belief, to my mind. If she is innocent and her claim true, then what does
>she fear? Does she imagine HHST is some kind of Mafia boss who'll gun her
>down if she says boo to him? Please!
I know her real name and so does Ev. NS received threats from TB
zealots, following her frank admissions about Sogyal in the US media in
1995.

>
>- How come that while it was a case of other, presumably less famous, lamas
>she had no complaints, but that when it was (so she claims) a very famous
>lama (which no one else has slated - "fresh" material is always so much more
>interesting than an old scandal)
As I have said already, it is not the first time I have heard
allegations about Sakya Trizin's sex life. See above -- I have several
cuttings from US papers, when NS went public about her sexual encounters
with Sogyal, in support of Janice Doe, who brought the lawsuit.

> she suddenly needs to bring it, rather
>circuitously, to public attention?
>
>- How come that she didn't tell her story earlier - it seems quite
>interesting to me that she tells it "on the bandwagon" of other famous
>scandals.
She has already said that it has taken her along time, and much painful
processing, to get to the point where she feels OK about telling this
stuff. Have you ever suffered sexual abuse Margaret? If so, you will
know how deeply it impacts on one's psycho-emotional circuitry -- and
how long it takes to reach acceptance.
>
>Therefore, I have no inclination on the basis of her story to believe her at
>all. Having said that, I recognise that it is by no means impossible that
>she is telling the truth. After all, when Kalu Rinpoche was carrying out
>his liaison with June Campbell (if that story was true) only one other monk
>knew what was going on.
I am convinced that she is telling the truth. And whatever doubts may be
cast on me by the Denial Gang, those who know me in a professional
capacity know that I am not easily convinced.

>
>I totally agree with Evelyn when she says that women have to speak out.
>Also, to be fair, it is sadly not possible to say that Tibetan monks have a
>stainless reputation for keeping their chastity vow. Look at Dzogchen
>Rinpoche for instance, who still wears the robes of a monk although he is
>very open about having a wife and a small child. Therefore people such as
>Tsering Wangyal should not be that astounded when people cast doubts upon
>lamas. Even the utterly saintly Ani Tenzin Palmo tells a story from before
>she was a nun of Trungpa Rinpoche trying to feel her up under her skirt, and
>having had a child by a Tibetan woman, by the time he was 13. Her quarrel
>was not with the fact that he did these things, but with the fact that he
>tried to put himself across as a pure monk. Even a friend of mine, who
>seems to have bad luck with such things, told me of an elderly monk who,
>hardly had she walked into the room to ask him a few questions, kissed her.
>An extraordinary thing for an elderly Tibetan celibate monk to do to a young
>girl - and sadly as a new Buddhist this didn't do much for her trust in the
>ordained sangha.
This is depressingly familiar. But -- it has more to do with cultural
misunderstanding than anything else. Trungpa WAS a lecherous womaniser.
He was also the most effective teacher this generation has known. What
to do? No way do I want to throw the Vidyadhara our with the bath water.
But equally, no way do I want carry on witnessing the procession of
hurt, bewildered, confused, angry women I have encountered over the past
30 years emerging from brief and mostly unsatisfactory sexual liaisons
with Tibetan lamas.
>
>If western women no longer take lamas' (in general, ie) purity as read this
>can no longer be taken as amazing, nor criticised. I suggest it would be
>wiser for people like yourself, Tsering Wangyal, to feel a little more
>compassionate about this whole extremely distressing situation (I believe
>that Tibetan lamas don't even begin to understand how very deeply
>distressing it is to women) and to help western women to enter into a
>dialogue with all lamas, to increase understanding and trust on both sides.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!
Much love
Mary

Mary Finnigan

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
Henry Chia writes

>
>
>Mary Finnigan wrote:
>>
>> *Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia. Nicky
>> replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details of
>> Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or any other
>> forum.
>
>For your info, I am the one who pass the info to His Holiness Sakya
>Trizin via Tsering Wangyal.
Stating the obvious Henry? Or dyslexic?
Mary

chino...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
In article <Qw55yBAB...@pema.demon.co.uk>,

Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Margaret,
> >I largely agree with the criticisms others made of Tsering Wangyal's
post.
> >Tsering Wangyal, there is no more reason for us to believe you than
there is
> >to believe "Nicky Skye" (whoever she is). It isn't entirely seemly,
in my
> >view, to accuse someone you don't know of being "mentally unstable",
or even
> >to suggest they are. Especially from someone in such a position of
> >authority as yourself. I don't *think* anyone made such accusations
of HH
> >Sakya Trizin!
> From the style and content of TW's post it is clear that he does not
> want anything even vaguely resembling the truth to emerge about his
> boss. This is entirely natural. None of us want our precious life
> support systems to be challenged and/or demolished.

i agree with the second 1/2, but i would not say TW is motivated by not
wanting "anything even vaguely resembling the truth to emerge about his
boss"; rather, i would say that out of genuine if overzealous devotion
to his root guru, he simply cannot even *conceive* that there might be
at least some degree of truth, and possibly complete truth, to the
allegations. hardly makes for effective dialogue or truth seeking; but
margaret and lstev have quite correctly observed, if hhst is indeed a
realised teacher, as even mary can support whilst still accepting the
allegations, then he could hardly be ruffled or disturbed by being
shown the allegations directly for response.

as mary points out, nicky did indeed forward to her previous messages
for posting here by mary.

> Evelyn has suggested that she sends a new post to her by snail and
she -
> - Ev -- will key it in and post it here. I have asked NS to do this.

it will be interesting to see her response to TW.

well this is certainly true; although it does not logically follow that
*all* stories brought forth years after alleged events are completely
accurate. there must still be some critical weighing of the merits and
likelihoods on each side.

> >Therefore, I have no inclination on the basis of her story to
believe her at
> >all. Having said that, I recognise that it is by no means
impossible that
> >she is telling the truth. After all, when Kalu Rinpoche was
carrying out
> >his liaison with June Campbell (if that story was true) only one
other monk
> >knew what was going on.
> I am convinced that she is telling the truth. And whatever doubts may
be
> cast on me by the Denial Gang, those who know me in a professional
> capacity know that I am not easily convinced.
> >
> >I totally agree with Evelyn when she says that women have to speak
out.
> >Also, to be fair, it is sadly not possible to say that Tibetan monks
have a
> >stainless reputation for keeping their chastity vow. Look at
Dzogchen
> >Rinpoche for instance, who still wears the robes of a monk although
he is
> >very open about having a wife and a small child.

margaret, are you certain of this? has he really not returned his
robes and taken householder status? i trust you are aware that the
wearing of the burgundy "zen" robes may be done by lay vowholders as
well as ordained vowholders; it is the wearing of the orange or yellow
shirt (and, if applicable, of the golden robe of ge-long ordination
reserved for more "formal" dharma occasions) that (as i understand it,
anyway) indicates ordained status - so if he's going about in burgundy
robes, it makes no claim as to monastic status. is he really wearing
orange/yellow with the burgundy?

indeed not! well put.

> But equally, no way do I want carry on witnessing the procession of
> hurt, bewildered, confused, angry women I have encountered over the
past
> 30 years emerging from brief and mostly unsatisfactory sexual liaisons
> with Tibetan lamas.

this is the point, yes. such suffering, however caused, simply *must*
be addressed.

> >If western women no longer take lamas' (in general, ie) purity as
read this
> >can no longer be taken as amazing, nor criticised. I suggest it
would be
> >wiser for people like yourself, Tsering Wangyal, to feel a little
more
> >compassionate about this whole extremely distressing situation (I
believe
> >that Tibetan lamas don't even begin to understand how very deeply
> >distressing it is to women) and to help western women to enter into a
> >dialogue with all lamas, to increase understanding and trust on both
sides.
> YES!!!!!!!!!!!
> Much love
> Mary

i second that emotion.

cheers,
chino

chino...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
In article <Mw0+iKA1...@pema.demon.co.uk>,

Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Henry Chia writes
> >
> >
> >Mary Finnigan wrote:
> >>
> >> *Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia.
Nicky
> >> replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details of
> >> Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or any
other
> >> forum.

i had been wondering about that.... as i seem to recall, all nicky had
originally written was that hhst had advised her to have sex with him
to benefit her vajrakilaya practice, and since that is all she said, i
assumed that she had not proceeded to do so. now it comes out that she
did in fact proceed?

> >For your info, I am the one who pass the info to His Holiness Sakya
> >Trizin via Tsering Wangyal.
> Stating the obvious Henry? Or dyslexic?

ouch! rather sharp, that.

those whose native language is english might occasionally remind
themselves that, perhaps, things which seem obvious to them in a text
may not necessarily be so readily apparent to those who have not been
immersed 24/7 in english since their very birth.

by way of contrast, it would be interesting to see how such native
english speakers might fare in trying to grasp perfectly a text written
in, say, spanish or chinese.

Erric Solomon

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
Dear Magaret,


margaret wrote:

> Also, to be fair, it is sadly not possible to say that Tibetan monks have a
> stainless reputation for keeping their chastity vow. Look at Dzogchen
> Rinpoche for instance, who still wears the robes of a monk although he is
> very open about having a wife and a small child.

Dzogchen Rinpoche most certainly does not dress like a monk since he stopped
being a monk. Most westerners don't know how to distinguish monk's robes from
other kinds of robes. He definitely did not break any vows! Please stop saying
this.

Thanks,
erric


sirius

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to

It is so tiresome to see the girls flock ´round the Lama trying to catch
his attention
- the boys do it some other way -
We should know that men have a hard time being decent - and even more in
cultures where roles (of men and women) are still quite unquestioned.
Should we not question our behaviour in the presence of the Lama? Us being
cute - being holy?
Best method to avoid love trouble in dharmaland is to remember that our
teachers are our teachers and that if there is a woman on board of a ship
there is always one that falls in love with the captain, even if he has bad
beath and bad manners.


Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

LStev3234 wrote:
>
> So what does "yet" mean?
> Not feeling it "necessary" right now but will "present" it later on? Or just
> dismissing it entirely, continuing to defend HH without any inquiry, and not
> recognizing any of his(TW) own aversions or other gargabe in the process?

So what is your guess?


>I don't really care what HH is doing at the moment, it is irrelevant to this
> particualr issue. I am about to go to the bathroom, which is also irrelevant
> to the issue. If HH is so "wonderful" then he does not need any of his
> dedicated followers to protect him, he will handle the situation openly and not
> be disturbed in the least, no matter what the outcome. I think some folks are
> more concerned with protecting their own fantasys about their gurus at the
> expense of truth, than they are with "holiness."

Do you know what is the first vow from the 14 tantric vows?

> What IF (notice the big "if") HH said "Yes I did these things, I was wrong and
> I don't do them anymore." Would you love HH less for having made some mistakes
> and dashed your fantasy about how "perfect" he is? Or would you rather believe
> a lie of your own making because you are afraid of the truth?
> It appears that some folks are attempting to protect HH but in fact, they are
> just protecing their own fantasys.

How can you be sure if some folks are writing not their own fantasy and


destorying the reputations of others?

> I realize, Henry, that you did forward the message to TW. I am asking if you


> are open to hearing an unexpected reply and whether or not you can have
> comapassion if the reply destroys any fantasy you might have about gurus, etc.

None of your questions are relevant to my feelings. Perhaps you should
read my writings from deja.com archives.



> I will be interested to hear your reply.

I would like to hear from you too.

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

"Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)" wrote:
>
> How can you be sure if some folks are writing not their own fantasy and
> destorying the reputations of others?

I'm so sorry. It is 12.00am now in Singapore. Too tired.

It should be read as 'if some folks are not writing their own fantasy
and destroying.....".

See-Toh WK

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
In article <38146468...@pacific.net.sg>,

ge...@pacific.net.sg wrote:
>
>
> Mary Finnigan wrote:
> >
> > *Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia. Nicky
> > replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details of
> > Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or
> > any other forum.

To reduce speculation, perhaps the info can be made public.

seetoh


> For your info, I am the one who pass the info to His Holiness Sakya
> Trizin via Tsering Wangyal.


>
> --
> Yours in Dharma,
> Henry Chia
> (Ngawang Geleg)
>
> email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
> URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
> <-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
> URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/cults.htm
> <-: Buddhist Cults A - Z :->
> URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/index.htm
> <-: My Music Page :->
>

--
seetoh

Christopher John Fynn

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

Erric Solomon <er...@synopsys.com> wrote in message
news:3814C8DD...@synopsys.com...

> Dear Magaret,


> margaret wrote:

Yes there are maroon half-chubas worn by lay practitioners which look very
much like a normal Tibetan monks lower robe (shantab) - While these half
chubas
can be worn by lay practitioners while the proper shantab should only be
worn
by someone who is celibate. Also the yellow or orange patched upper
robes of novice-monks and gelongs (chogu / namja) should only be worn
by those who hold those vows - the regular maroon upper robe that
Tibetan monks wear may also be worn by lay practitioners.

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

LStev3234 wrote:
>
> I don't have a "guess" as I am wondering what "yet"and "necessary" means. I
> honetly don't know what TW's intent is, that is why I am asking.

Since His Holiness is so busy with the teachings programme, Tsering
Wangyal doesn't want to bother him at this moment of time. That's why he
hasn't informed His Holiness regarding this issue. On the other hand, he
feels that there is a need to clarify this issue, so therefore, he
posted his comment in this newsgroup. Can't you figure out yourself?



> I don't care about "vows" Henry. Vows can be, and often are, broken. By lamas
> and gurus and rinpoches and married folks and just about every human on this
> planet. I am concerned with the truth, which has nothing to do with "vows".

Don't you know that when tantric samaya is broken, the result is even
greater than breaking the refuge vows and the 5 precepts?

> >How can you be sure if some folks are writing not their own fantasy and
> destorying the reputations of others?<
>

> How can you be sure as well? Is it not better to investigate as fully as
> possible? The only reson people don't want to investigate fully is either fear
> or apathy.

It is no possible due to the time and date given by Nicky. So how are
you be sure as well for you haven't investigate fully either?

> >None of your questions are relevant to my feelings<
>
> Ah, but they are, Henry. Your feelings are quite relevent to the entire issue
> and how you yourself process information which comes your way.

My feelings are regarding the issue of creating unnecessary results for
the one who writes such fantasy. Don't you know that even in Buddha's
time, someone claimed to have sex with the Buddha and bore a child?

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

Mary Finnigan wrote:
>
> Henry Chia writes


> >
> >
> >Mary Finnigan wrote:
> >>
> >> *Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia. Nicky
> >> replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details of
> >> Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or any other
> >> forum.
> >

> >For your info, I am the one who pass the info to His Holiness Sakya
> >Trizin via Tsering Wangyal.

> Stating the obvious Henry? Or dyslexic?

Sorry, I don't understand. Please use simple English.

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Henry, let me make this as clear as I possibly can:

1. It appears from your answer that TW does not intend, now or at any time, to
address this issue directly with HH. Kindly correct me if that is not the
message you intend to convey. Therefore I must assume that TW does not want to
investigate and would rather live a possible fantasy, and furthermore TW has
taken it upon himself to censor whatever goes to HH. How interesting....If I
found out my secretary was doing that kind of stuff, my secretary would be
unemployed. When I had a secretary, she never pulled that kind of crap because
she knew what would happen when I got wind of it. And believe me, I was a VERY
busy person, in charge of a lot of stuff, but I never distanced myself so far
from the troops as to be unavailable to get the latest news from home.

2. I don't give a rat's ass about tantric vows or any other vows if they stand
in the way of truth. All the vows and precepts in the entire world are not
going to erase anybody's karma if they won't fess up to their own stuff.
Further, if one feels so strongly about the absolute penalty of breaking vows,
then do not take any vows as it would appear that the entire idea of compassion
is nullifed with the first break.

3. Your feelings are predicated on a belief which you refuse to examine. You
refuse to fess up to your feelings, which means you don't want to deal with
them. So basically, you are refusing to entertain any possibility of any
misconduct and examine the issue from a place of wisdom rather than cheap
theatrics. I rather think that if HH is truly enlightened, he will forgive
overzealousness no matter what the outcome of the investigation. I doubt that
you are in a position to give that same forgeness to anybody else, including
yourself. Pity.

4. I don't care what 2500 years ago. Buddha is dead and so is his accusor.
HH and Nicky S. are not. If Buddha the woman were alive on this planet today,
I would ask him AND her. And get a DNA test, too. So stop with the fairy
tales and invoking Buddha's name to hide from the truth, whatever that may be.


5. Buddha had many consorts at the royal palace before he left to become
enlightened. His father offered him EVERYTHING a man could possibly want to
keep Buddha from leaving the palace. He may even have had consorts during the
time he wandered from master to master in his search for the truth. It is
quite possible that one of them had a child by him. I am open to the
possibility, which does not diminish anyone in any way. The story cannot be
proven nor disproven and it has absolutely no bearing on the subject of HH and
NS. It seems that some "followers" are not following the Buddha's example very
well if they are willing to believe or disbelieve something without checking it
out.

5. I have not said I believe NS nor do I disbelieve her as I have not had
enough opportunity to hear from both sides, or even fully hear from one side.
I am waiting for NS to post her story. I am also waiting for HH to post HIS
story, not his secretary's version nor your version. My mind is still open,
Henry, but yours has steadfastly remained closed.

See-Toh WK

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
In article <7v2k9l$qn7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Henry Chia writes
> > >
> > >
> > >Mary Finnigan wrote:
> > >>
> > >> *Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia.
> Nicky
> > >> replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details
of
> > >> Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or
any
> other
> > >> forum.
>
> i had been wondering about that..as i seem to recall, all nicky had

> originally written was that hhst had advised her to have sex with him
> to benefit her vajrakilaya practice, and since that is all she said, i
> assumed that she had not proceeded to do so. now it comes out that
> she did in fact proceed?

Perhaps Tseten Wangchuk can tell us whether it is true,
and if he can't, then he should approach Sakya Trizin for
confirmation, one way or another.

Tseten shouldn't sit on the issue and then claim that
it is a pack of lies.

> > >For your info, I am the one who pass the info to His Holiness Sakya
> > >Trizin via Tsering Wangyal.
> > Stating the obvious Henry? Or dyslexic?
>

> ouch! rather sharp, that.
>
> those whose native language is english might occasionally remind
> themselves that, perhaps, things which seem obvious to them in a text
> may not necessarily be so readily apparent to those who have not been
> immersed 24/7 in english since their very birth.
>
> by way of contrast, it would be interesting to see how such native
> english speakers might fare in trying to grasp perfectly a text
> written in, say, spanish or chinese.

I guess Henry will oblige if anyone needs a sutra in Chinese.

Sylva Simsova

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
In article <7v25as$ecr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, margaret <margaret@mdebet
hlen.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>women have to speak out.
I think that women have to speak out in situations where their vows
would be broken, instead of complaining afterwards.

>Also, to be fair, it is sadly not possible to say that Tibetan monks have a
>stainless reputation for keeping their chastity vow.

I also think that women have a responsibility in helping monks to keep
their chastity vow. In Theravada buddhism monks are allowed to speak to
women only in the presence of a male chaperon. I used to find this
strange, but the system has some advantages. Women learn to keep
distance from monks and the monks are protected from slipping.

If women take their responsibility seriously instead of imagining
themselves as victims of circumstances, they gain a purity of mind. An
impure mind stands in the way of understanding and enjoying, among other
things, the stories of the Divine Madman Drukpa Kunley.

And this is what worries me most about the present discussion. The
seriousness of the accusations and counter-accusations is bound to leave
impressions in people's minds which can affect their understanding of
some precious subtle truths.

>

--
Sylva Simsova

Mary Finnigan

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
<seetoh writes

>> >
>> > *Information about the encounter were requested by Henry Chia. Nicky
>> > replied to him in detail via e-mail. She cc'd it to me. Details of
>> > Nicky's encounter with ST have not been made public in this or
>> > any other forum.
>
>To reduce speculation, perhaps the info can be made public.
I am not in a position to do this -- and even If I were, I do not think
it a good idea to plaster intimate details of a lama's sex life all over
the internet. This thread was triggered by Henry Chia passing on a
private e-mail to ST's secretary, probably without making it clear that
the material in it was confidential and had not been made public. Henry
is the source of the confusion. Also NS, did not consult me before she
wrote about her experience to Henry. If she had, I would have advised
strongly against doing this. I am cc'ing this message to ST's sec.
Mary

Evelyn Ruut

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

Sylva Simsova <sim...@simsova.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N2MjhGAE...@simsova.demon.co.uk...


Dear Sylva,

As always you make excellent points.

It is for this reason I usually have taken the course of remaining out of
these kinds of discussions as much as possible.

But since it appears these things are not going to go away on their own, I
now think it is wise for us to confront the possibilities, just as we have
been doing in the situations involving Priests, Ministers, Little league
coaches, Boy Scout leaders, and others where abuses have been uncovered.

Better to air them out so that people know they exist and can beware of the
possibilities.

Regards,
Evelyn

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

See-Toh WK wrote:
>
> To reduce speculation, perhaps the info can be made public.

I think it is very good if "Nicky" comes into the newsgroup and
clarifies the matter with Sakya Dolma Phodrang.


--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)

email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
<-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/cults.htm
<-: Buddhist Cults A - Z :->
URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/index.htm
<-: My Music Page :->

p.s. May I know if your mum's name is Foo Ai Choo or something like
that?

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

Mary Finnigan wrote:
>
> I am not in a position to do this -- and even If I were, I do not think
> it a good idea to plaster intimate details of a lama's sex life all over
> the internet. This thread was triggered by Henry Chia passing on a
> private e-mail to ST's secretary, probably without making it clear that
> the material in it was confidential and had not been made public. Henry
> is the source of the confusion. Also NS, did not consult me before she
> wrote about her experience to Henry. If she had, I would have advised
> strongly against doing this. I am cc'ing this message to ST's sec.

Oh really? This is what you have forwarded earlier on:

'Subject: HHDL Petition
Date: 1999/09/13
Author: Mary Finnigan

I have been asked by Nicky Skye to post the message below on her behalf.
She has only recently acquired a computer. It is an old one and she does
not yet know in detail how to operate it. She has managed to access Deja
News and has been following this thread. She contacted me via e-mail.
After discussion with me and others, Nicky decided that the time is
right for her to make her experience public. Anyone who would like to
communicate with her can e-mail her at Nick...@aol.com Replies to the
material below will be read by her via Deja News. I hope that the
collaboration between Nicky, myself and others will be benefit Tibetan
Buddhism.

Nicky Skye writes:
I have spent 23 years thinking about how to stop sexual abuse by lamas
since I experienced an abusive relationship with Sogyal Rinpoche. I have
openly discussed Sogyal's abuse with other lamas. On one occasion, I was
publicly ridiculed and privately threatened I would go to Vajra Hell if
I discussed it again. When I discussed my feelings about Sogyal (who
called me his girlfriend to everybody while telling me he had a
girlfriend in London) and his behavior when I went to see my dying
father for 3 days (I was told by the the sangha he had slept with 2
other women in those 3 days), a prominent western follower of Tibetan
Buddhism said that the Vajrayana had a "higher morality" and having sex
with many partners was no big deal. He said the Vajrayana was not about
being puritanical. So I felt my opinion was meaningless in the eyes of
the Dharma community. When I told other disciples about a Gelugpa geshe
insisting on seeing my breasts, I was told that it was a privilege and
that I must be a dakini. The final straw was when I told an American
nun about Sakya Trizin saying my Dorje Phurba practice required me to
have sex with him, she said I was an idiot to be manipulated by a
lamas' sex urges. Not being abused was my responsibility, she said. I
told her my Dorje Phurba practice REQUIRED me to see my teacher as a
Buddha. All the texts said I should follow my Vajrayana teacher's word.
My teacher told me to have sex with him. If I didn't see his word as
holy and true,like a mantra, I could consider myself, in the light of
the Dharma, a selfish, ignorant, bad disciple, not practising my holy
bond (damtsig) with my Vajrayana guru. If I did respect my teacher's
word I was to be considered a naive, gullible, sucker with no common
sense. It was a double bind, no win situation. I was wrong either way. I
felt despair. I have never had any desire to speak with a lama since. I
have never felt part of a sangha since. I felt surely Trungpa Rinpoche
would sort out this mess. I adored Trungpa from his books and seminary
transcripts and had complete faith in his intelligence. I waited to hear
what the Boulder sangha would do to explain the sex with lamas thing. I
felt by now that I was an idiot and a sucker on the one hand and not
practising the dharma correctly on the other hand. I had strong feelings
of discomfort but I did not want to "hurt the dharma in any way" by
speaking publicly about sexual abuse by lamas. When I heard that Osel
Tenzin had infected his disciples with HIV by having sex with them when
he knew he had AIDS, disgust and outrage overwhelmed any loyalty I had
previously to any Tibetan Buddhists who were not actively seeking to end
this monstrous ignorance.

When I started researching the legal side of "breach of pastoral
counselling", calling up the National Organisation of Women, and talking
about these incidents in Survivors of Sexual Abuse meetings, all my
FEELINGS came to the surface. Finally I got clarity on the issue. My
feelings, long buried and ignored, bid me be more truthful about the
EFFECTS these sexual encounters had on me as a person. It was only then
that I understood the wrongness of the breach of trust, the betrayal of
my inner spiritual core, the lie that this sex was of any benefit to
anybody including the lamas. I understood that the lamas had fear and
guilt, they knew it was wrong and did it anyway, again and again like an
addiction. I think it is less important to get money together now to
fund a petition than it is to get a group of like minded people who can
actually disclose the abuses they have seen, heard about or experienced.
Name the lamas, name the occasions, describe the abuses in detail,
describe their feelings and effects of the abuses.I think it would be
wise to reveal the international laws that protect women from being
sexually abused by priests, from being abused by professionals in the
arena of the profession, the laws about fraudulent misrepresentation.

If there are threats to quiet the people who are speaking up against
these crimes, there are also laws that protect freedom of speech, laws
against intimidation and harassment. The word Dharma means "the
truth".It will be to the benefit of the spread of Buddhism if the truth
is spoken. The Dharma is a path to end suffering. Since sexual abuse by
spiritual teachers causes deep psychological suffering it isn't
appropriate. In fact it is a crime. I think that a petition will be
more effective at a later date. I have observed the discussions on Deja
News and they lack coherence. There are not enough people who can admit
they were abused. I believe that when more women know there is a safe
haven to talk about having been abused, the natural momentum will build
up into a DEMAND for no sexual abuse by lamas. I have written to the
heads of 3 lineages about sexual abuse by lamas. No reply. A petition
is a call for attention to be brought to the topic with the hope that it
can result in an administrative request that the lamas control
themselves. My point is that I would like more than a request for
permission not to be abused. The abuse needs to end. It is WE, the
sangha, who need to state what is unacceptable and why. More people who
can state why it is unacceptable need to come forward. This could result
in a directive, legally worded, that sexual abuse is unacceptable.
Perhaps a consensus can be reached by each sangha community not to
FINANCIALLY back lamas who commit sexual abuse. That would stop the
abuse dead in its tracks. Some supporters of Tibetan Buddhism do not
like females squawking about "consensual sex they've had with lamas as
grown women". They do not understand why it is abuse. The ABUSED need to
speak their minds and say why it is not just consensual sex and that it
is sexual abuse. When the abuse issue is clarified and shared among
those who have been abused, I believe it would be time to take action.'

It did mention the name 'Sakya Trizin'. Correct me if I am wrong. And
before I brought out this issue to His Holiness Sakya Trizin via Tsering
Wangyal, there are already debates on sexual abuses, sexual misconduct
and sexual boundaries in Tibetan Buddhism. Don't put the blame on me,
Mary. You are the one who forwards this and I have the right to clarify
with Nicky privately and to inform His Holiness Sakya Trizin regarding
this issue. Don't forget, the name 'Sakya Trizin' is mentioned in your
forwarded mail.

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

LStev3234 wrote:
>
> Henry, let me make this as clear as I possibly can:

Sure, I would like to hear from you.

> 1. It appears from your answer that TW does not intend, now or at any time, to
> address this issue directly with HH. Kindly correct me if that is not the
> message you intend to convey. Therefore I must assume that TW does not want to
> investigate and would rather live a possible fantasy, and furthermore TW has
> taken it upon himself to censor whatever goes to HH. How interesting....If I
> found out my secretary was doing that kind of stuff, my secretary would be
> unemployed. When I had a secretary, she never pulled that kind of crap because
> she knew what would happen when I got wind of it. And believe me, I was a VERY
> busy person, in charge of a lot of stuff, but I never distanced myself so far
> from the troops as to be unavailable to get the latest news from home.

No, I don't think so. Afterall His Holiness Sakya Trizin is busy with
the final set of teachings from 'The Collection of Tantra'. He has his
heart with His Holiness, thus doesn't want to bother him at this moment.
Don't forget, I have direct contact to Sakya Dolma Phodrang, so
therefore, he couldn't censor anything.



> 2. I don't give a rat's ass about tantric vows or any other vows if they stand
> in the way of truth. All the vows and precepts in the entire world are not
> going to erase anybody's karma if they won't fess up to their own stuff.
> Further, if one feels so strongly about the absolute penalty of breaking vows,
> then do not take any vows as it would appear that the entire idea of compassion
> is nullifed with the first break.

If you study Tibetan Buddhism carefully, tantric samaya and guru
devotion are indeed important to attain the stage of Vajradhara. Wonder
if you are a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner.

> 3. Your feelings are predicated on a belief which you refuse to examine. You
> refuse to fess up to your feelings, which means you don't want to deal with
> them. So basically, you are refusing to entertain any possibility of any
> misconduct and examine the issue from a place of wisdom rather than cheap
> theatrics. I rather think that if HH is truly enlightened, he will forgive
> overzealousness no matter what the outcome of the investigation. I doubt that
> you are in a position to give that same forgeness to anybody else, including
> yourself. Pity.

Remember when Dharmatroll made fun of the title 'Dalai Lama' in the
newsgroup, instead of screwing him up, I told him the consequence of
making fun a monk's title/name? My character is different from yours.

If I said that I refuse to entertain any possibility of any misconduct,
could I say that you are refused to entertain any making up story?

> 4. I don't care what 2500 years ago. Buddha is dead and so is his accusor.
> HH and Nicky S. are not. If Buddha the woman were alive on this planet today,
> I would ask him AND her. And get a DNA test, too. So stop with the fairy
> tales and invoking Buddha's name to hide from the truth, whatever that may be.

Buddha is dead? You remind me of a saying 'Christ is dead'. :D

If you believe that the Buddha's life story is a fairy tale or legend,
there is nothing which I can say with it. You and I are holding a
different belief and culture. I guess that you are not a Buddhist.

> 5. Buddha had many consorts at the royal palace before he left to become
> enlightened. His father offered him EVERYTHING a man could possibly want to
> keep Buddha from leaving the palace. He may even have had consorts during the
> time he wandered from master to master in his search for the truth. It is
> quite possible that one of them had a child by him. I am open to the
> possibility, which does not diminish anyone in any way. The story cannot be
> proven nor disproven and it has absolutely no bearing on the subject of HH and
> NS. It seems that some "followers" are not following the Buddha's example very
> well if they are willing to believe or disbelieve something without checking it
> out.

Oh well, I begin to wonder if you are a Buddhist. How can you slander
the Buddha? Since it is just speculation and without any solid proof,
please do not make such comment. It will harm you becoz you are allowing
your evil thoughts to run in your mind, and will finally, lose faith on
the Buddha.


> 5. I have not said I believe NS nor do I disbelieve her as I have not had
> enough opportunity to hear from both sides, or even fully hear from one side.
> I am waiting for NS to post her story. I am also waiting for HH to post HIS
> story, not his secretary's version nor your version. My mind is still open,
> Henry, but yours has steadfastly remained closed.

The point 5 repeats again. :)

This point is something I am totally agreed with you. Whether my mind
remains closed or not, please read my reply on your point 2,3,4 & 5.

--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)

email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
<-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/cults.htm
<-: Buddhist Cults A - Z :->
URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/index.htm
<-: My Music Page :->

p.s. If you msg is to voice out abt women facing helpless situation, I
agree with you. But if you are writing to discredit the Buddha, I will
not reply anymore. My experience is that no matter how I explain and
clarify using scripture source, it doesn't help. Why? It is like a cup
full of tea. No matter how I pour the new content, it will just
overflow.

Mary Finnigan

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
>Oh really? This is what you have forwarded earlier on:
Henry what IS the matter with you? Are you deliberately obtuse? I have
deleted the re-post of Nicky's original item, because everyone here has
seen it -- and will see it again from you. It clearly states that Sakya
*required her to have sex with him*. It does NOT state that sex
happened. The revelation that sex did happen became public knowledge
because you sent a private message from NS to you to ST's sec. and he
reacted here, probably thinking that the contents of the e-mail were in
the public domain, which, I repeat again, was NOT the case.
Mary

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to

Mary Finnigan wrote:
>
> >Oh really? This is what you have forwarded earlier on:
>

It is not possible to delete. It has been stored in the Deja.com
archives. So therefore, even you have deleted them, they can still read
them thru keyword search.

But anyway, please remember that the source of trigger doesn't begin
from me but from the original post from your side which leads to threads
like, 'Sexual Misconduct', 'Sexual Boundaries in Tibetan Buddhism' and
'Sexual abuse', and also other issues like the late Dudjom Rinpoche is a
bi and many other names, are being brought up in these threads.

Enough say. If you want to end the debate, it is best that you could
contact 'Nicky' to write directly in the newsgroup. Mary, would you
please contact her to write directly in the newsgroup to clarify this
issue?

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Henry, I think the problem goes WAY beyond whether or not I or anybody else is
"Buddhist" or "Tibetan Buddhist" or any other kind of practitioner.
While your head is stuck in the sand, the reality is all around you but you
don't want to see it. You hide behind Buddhism and misuse the intent of the
teachings in order to protect your "culture." You are no different than any
other religious practitioner who is so infatuated with the teacher they do not
want to look for the truth. Therefore they participate in their own inner lie,
and cannot tell a lie from the truth on the outside either.


margaret

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Thanks, Chris, that was very interesting indeed. From the photos I can see,
it appears that Dzogchen Rinpoche is in fact wearing things he shouldn't be.
Or am I wrong?

MdB

margaret

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
>Dzogchen Rinpoche most certainly does not dress like a monk since he
stopped
>being a monk. Most westerners don't know how to distinguish monk's robes
from
>other kinds of robes. He definitely did not break any vows! Please stop
saying
>this.


It's quite simple really - you don't have to believe *me*. Just take a look
at the back of Rigpa's "View" magazine, issue 9 (1997). There is a photo of
Dzogchen Rinpoche in robes, and one can just see a pale coloured shirt (the
photo is black & white). Back copies are quite easily obtained. Again
towards the back of that issue, see page 57 - a group photo showing not only
Dzogchen Rinpoche in what looks to me *exactly* like full monk's robes, but
also his wife and child.

I suppose that those who are deeply devoted to DR and attached to the idea
of him being a pure monk will decide that it is say a white shirt rather
than a yellow one. Good luck to them, I can fully understand that desire.
Certainly the talk on the ground in Nepal, if this elderly monk was anything
to go by, was that he has indeed broken his vows. Breaking vows I can
understand and forgive - it must be horribly hard to keep them - what I
don't have time for is people who still going around in monk's robes once
they have done it. There's no excuse for that, other than wanting to keep a
certain status.

MdB

margaret

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Hi Mary

I'd just like to say that your earlier questions to the effect of do we
really want to integrate practice fully into our lives or do we just want to
drift in a pleasant fantasy were FANTASTIC. So true. We do have to
decide - are we just messing around or do we have a 100% committment to
truth, no matter what the cost. Well done. I think you also recognised how
hard this will be for some people. Also true and must not be
underestimated. I would absolutely hate to be a devoted long term student
of any of the Rinpoches we have mentioned so far, right now. It must be
extraordinarily painful for them.

His reaction to
>Nicky's story about her sexual encounter with ST (which was sent in an
>e-mail to Henry Chia and never appeared on this or any other ng) is a
>classic example of Kill the Messenger.

Maybe, but lets not be too harsh to TW. If we want to maintain a dialogue
we will have to be as diplomatic as possible without compromising that
committment to truth. As I say elsewhere, it is a very rare opportunity we
have had, to dialogue with him. It already seems that he has been scared
off. I sent my post to his private e-mail at the same time as sending
here - let's see what happens.

>>- How come "Nicky" doesn't write here herself?

>Hard perhaps, but true. She has an ancient PV which has now broken down


>completely. She tells me that she tried many times to access Usenet, but
>without success.


OK..... but -

>> And even if she can't, what stops her from
>>popping into a cyber cafe, if this whole issue means so much to her?

>She has been to a cyber cafe, where she has caught up with some posts
>here. She is under extreme life pressure at the moment -- many
>difficulties, including a broken ankle.

with all due respect, that doesn't stop her typing a message out!

>I posted two items from her here, which she e-mailed to me.

Yep, that's the only point that keeps me from totally discounting her.

>Evelyn has suggested that she sends a new post to her by snail and she -
>- Ev -- will key it in and post it here. I have asked NS to do this.

Or she can e-mail it to one of you, who could post it here. It is very
strange that she has gone underground whilst the whole issue has really
hotted up here.

It
>may seem fishy and I can understand why you feel this way, but honest to
>Buddha it is all above board. As I have already said, I have known NS
>since 1995.


Well, I trust you Mary, so I would hesitate to distrust someone you say is
above board. But I am also a die hard skeptic, which I believe is no bad
thing. I'll watch developments with interest.

>I know her real name and so does Ev. NS received threats from TB
>zealots, following her frank admissions about Sogyal in the US media in
>1995.


Death threats? Threats of violence to her or her family? Have these been
brought to the attention of the police? However, if they were just "poison
pen" letters that's not reason enough to hide her true identity from us, to
my mind. You simply can't shoot down someone's reputation (I'm talking HHST
here - Sogyal R doesn't have much of a reputation to shoot down, so it
seems) and want to hide your identity at the same time, unless doing so
would put your life or those of your family members in definite danger. Not
if you want to be taken seriously.

>She has already said that it has taken her along time, and much painful
>processing, to get to the point where she feels OK about telling this
>stuff. Have you ever suffered sexual abuse Margaret? If so, you will
>know how deeply it impacts on one's psycho-emotional circuitry -- and
>how long it takes to reach acceptance.


I can understand it would take a long time for a *child* - but an adult? I
find it hard to believe. However thinking about it, I can imagine that if
it happened to her before all these other scandals came out, it must have
felt like there was no one to go to with her story.

It's been a real coup, this contact with TW. Many thanks to you for
fighting this issue, Mary, and also to Henry for taking it to TW.

Love

Margaret


margaret

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
he simply cannot even *conceive* that there might be
>at least some degree of truth, and possibly complete truth, to the
>allegations. hardly makes for effective dialogue or truth seeking;

I agree. It appears he has been "scared off" - if so, what an enormous
shame... in that it is/was quite an exceptional and rare opportunity we had
to make our views known to HHST's second in command. Perhaps there can
still be a dialogue, but it doesn't seem that way, what a shame. However, a
major step has been made. We know from all the people that wrote to the DL
(including me) that getting a response is usually unheard of. Here although
we didn't get a direct response, we clearly have made an impression, got
something moving - getting a reply from the Secretary of a high lama is
nearly as significant as a reply from the person themselves. Also, from
what I know of lamas, I would be enormously surprised if HHST has not come
to know *about* the dialogue we have had by now.

but
>margaret and lstev have quite correctly observed, if hhst is indeed a
>realised teacher, as even mary can support whilst still accepting the
>allegations, then he could hardly be ruffled or disturbed by being
>shown the allegations directly for response.


I have always thought this as a general point. Ie, someone truly
enlightened should not be fazed by anything that is said to them. I'm
keeping my fingers and toes crossed that we do get a more direct interchange
happening.

(re Dzogchen Rinpoche)


>margaret, are you certain of this? has he really not returned his
>robes and taken householder status?

According to the talk in Nepal, that's not what happened. I'm quite open to
finding out it was just gossip. Anyone got proof?

is he really wearing
>orange/yellow with the burgundy?


Like I said to Eric, take a look in Rigpa's View magazine Issue 9, 1997,
back page and page 57. Although the photos are black and white, he appears
to be wearing yellow shirts with his *full* robes (pg 57 with wife & baby in
tow). I will see if there is any colour "evidence" around. As I said to
Eric, I have all the sympathy in the world with people who end up tripping
over their humanity when they try for full vows - but absolutely none for
those who trip and then continue to wear the robes of a celibate monk.

MdB


Evelyn Ruut

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Update:

Mary Finnigan has told Nicky Skye that I am willing to post her replies to
this newsgroup if she can get an answer to me via snail mail and I promise
that I will do so as soon as and if I receive it.

I agree that it does not look good that she has gone underground just when
this issue is coming to the fore again. Questions are being posed that I
do not know the answers to, nor does Mary, and only Nicky can answer
herself. I am hoping that Nicky replies to either Mary or myself soon
with some of those answers for all of you out there whose curiosity is
burning holes in your heads.

Here is my take on it: As an analogy, please be aware that even in the
case of rape, most rapes go unreported. WHY?
..................................!!??

The reason for this is because the person is not necessarily ready to deal
with the spotlight, the questions, the hassles, the feelings of guilt, of
confusion and blame from others and even bits of self-blame. Nicky may be
disgusted with this whole thing, and feel she has gone on with her life and
is not in the mood to have herself skewered for our amusement here, (and
lets be honest, there have been some unkind comments and thoughts here,
which may have had a bit of a "blame the victim" as well as a "shoot the
messenger" attitude).

Sakya Trizin's pompous assed secretary was VERY quick to skewer me
PERSONALLY AND BY NAME several times in his letter for simply believing a
friend who spoke to me of what happened to her. He has not had the
courtesy to reply to my reply to his comments, or to the questions I posed
to him.

Mary has likewise heard enough critical comments. Never mind that we are
not the ones who are doing the complaining, but simply asking what people
want to do about this kind of thing!!!!!!

As for me?......... if I were Nicky Skye, I would REMAIN anonymous rather
than be fried, fricasseed, barbecued, and chewed up and spit out by the
vultures who are too in love with the IDEA of their teacher, rather than to
face the fact that teachers are real people with human feelings, desires,
faults and foibles, who pee, poop, have sex, sweat, bleed and sometimes make
all too human mistakes.

The utter hypocrisy of THAT is enough to turn one off of Tibetan Buddhism
almost.....

I might remind people of the old Zen saying "If you meet the buddha on the
road, kill him...." which is not meaning to kill anyone, but to kill your
illusions about your teachers.

Hey Mr. secretary......why don't you put THAT in your pipe and smoke it or
else come back here and reply like a real man, without blaming the victim or
the messengers.

Regards,
Evelyn

Erric Solomon

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Ok Margaret, I'll try to be as simple as possible. I know VERY FEW people who
can tell a monk by the clothes he wears, the differences are subtle. My current
house guest, who is a disciple of H.H. Dalai Lama, lives in Dharamsala and is
working on organizing teachings for HHDL in India, does not know Dzogchen
Rinpoche except by reputation. He told me that in Dharamsala, Dzogchen Rinpoche
is held in the highest regard, and that the rumor he heard that DR is wearing
the clothes he wears specifically at the request of HHDL. I have visited
Dzogchen Gompa and can report that he moved out of the monastery when he got
married, he lives in a house nearby. He is not pretending to be a monk, hence
the picture of him with sangyum and child. On the off chance your are indeed
wrong, and your expertise in monk identification is failing you in this
specific case, don't you think it might be better for you karmically to tone it
down a little?

See-Toh WK

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to
In article <3815BF6E...@pacific.net.sg>,

ge...@pacific.net.sg wrote:
>
>
> Mary Finnigan wrote:
> >
> > >Oh really? This is what you have forwarded earlier on:
> >
> > Henry what IS the matter with you? Are you deliberately obtuse? I
have
> > deleted the re-post of Nicky's original item, because everyone here
has
> > seen it -- and will see it again from you. It clearly states that
Sakya
> > *required her to have sex with him*. It does NOT state that sex
> > happened. The revelation that sex did happen became public knowledge
> > because you sent a private message from NS to you to ST's sec. and
he
> > reacted here, probably thinking that the contents of the e-mail
were in
> > the public domain, which, I repeat again, was NOT the case.
>
> It is not possible to delete. It has been stored in the Deja.com
> archives. So therefore, even you have deleted them, they can still
read
> them thru keyword search.

Deja news is only one of the archives, and even if you
deleted it from deja, the info will still be available
on the Net. As suggested by you below, it is far better
to clarify the issue than to hide it.

Perhaps Sakya Trizin's secretary can be persuaded to
bring this matter up to His Holiness so that we can
have an answer from THE SOURCE.

seetoh

> But anyway, please remember that the source of trigger doesn't begin
> from me but from the original post from your side which leads to
threads
> like, 'Sexual Misconduct', 'Sexual Boundaries in Tibetan Buddhism' and
> 'Sexual abuse', and also other issues like the late Dudjom Rinpoche
is a
> bi and many other names, are being brought up in these threads.
>
> Enough say. If you want to end the debate, it is best that you could
> contact 'Nicky' to write directly in the newsgroup. Mary, would you
> please contact her to write directly in the newsgroup to clarify this
> issue?
>

> --
> Yours in Dharma,
> Henry Chia
> (Ngawang Geleg)
>
> email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
> URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
> <-: Ngawang Geleg's Buddhist Home Page :->
> URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/cults.htm
> <-: Buddhist Cults A - Z :->
> URL: http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/geleg/index.htm
> <-: My Music Page :->
>

--

See-Toh WK

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to
In article <3815B5B2...@pacific.net.sg>,

ge...@pacific.net.sg wrote:
>
>
> See-Toh WK wrote:
> >
> > To reduce speculation, perhaps the info can be made public.
>
> I think it is very good if "Nicky" comes into the newsgroup and
> clarifies the matter with Sakya Dolma Phodrang.

Who is Sakya Dolma Phodrang?

> p.s. May I know if your mum's name is Foo Ai Choo or something like
> that?

No.

See-Toh WK

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to
In article <N2MjhGAE...@simsova.demon.co.uk>,

Sylva Simsova <sim...@simsova.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7v25as$ecr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, margaret
<margaret@mdebet
> hlen.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >women have to speak out.
> I think that women have to speak out in situations where their
> vows would be broken, instead of complaining afterwards.

I am not aware of a layperson's vow of not having sex with lamas.
Is that a standard vow?

> >Also, to be fair, it is sadly not possible to say that
> >Tibetan monks have a
> >stainless reputation for keeping their chastity vow.

It is possible if they have been stainless.

> I also think that women have a responsibility in helping monks
> to keep their chastity vow.

Basically, one is responsible for keeping one's own vows.
How can you blame somebody else if you break your vow?

> In Theravada buddhism monks are allowed to speak to
> women only in the presence of a male chaperon.

Is there really such a rule?
I have seen lots of instances where Theravada monks
speak to women in the absence of males.

> I used to find this strange, but the system has some advantages.
> Women learn to keep distance from monks and the monks are
> protected from slipping.

Again, it is unfair to place the burden on women.

> If women take their responsibility seriously instead of
> imagining themselves as victims of circumstances, they
> gain a purity of mind.

What "responsibility" are you talking about?
Are they responsible if a monk's hormones drive him
to break his vows?

> An impure mind stands in the way of understanding and
> enjoying, among other things, the stories of the Divine
> Madman Drukpa Kunley.

Where is the relationship?

> And this is what worries me most about the present discussion.
> The seriousness of the accusations and counter-accusations
> is bound to leave impressions in people's minds which can
> affect their understanding of
> some precious subtle truths.

The alternative is to sweep everything under the bedsheet,
and leave the female newcomers to the tender mercies of
the lascivious lamas. The result will be the destruction
of Tibetan Buddhism in the West.

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to

As I have said, you do not know abt the Tibetan Buddhism. Ask yourself
this question, why do we need to practice Guru Yoga?

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to
>As I have said, you do not know abt the Tibetan Buddhism. Ask yourself this
question, why do we need to practice Guru Yoga?>

<sigh> You will do anything to not look at yourself. It's your trip, Henry,
you are welcome to it.

Mary Finnigan

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to
Margaret writes:
>I'd just like to say that your earlier questions to the effect of do we
>really want to integrate practice fully into our lives or do we just want to
>drift in a pleasant fantasy were FANTASTIC. So true. We do have to
>decide - are we just messing around or do we have a 100% committment to
>truth, no matter what the cost. Well done. I think you also recognised how
>hard this will be for some people. Also true and must not be
>underestimated. I would absolutely hate to be a devoted long term student
>of any of the Rinpoches we have mentioned so far, right now. It must be
>extraordinarily painful for them.
Thank you -- and yes, it is painful for all of us. I have tried to
express this. Some of the teachers I respect most deeply have been under
scrutiny, going back to June Campbell on Kalu R. My own commitment to
Ch.NN has been publicly trashed.
>
>Maybe, but lets not be too harsh to TW. If we want to maintain a dialogue
>we will have to be as diplomatic as possible without compromising that
>committment to truth. As I say elsewhere, it is a very rare opportunity we
>have had, to dialogue with him. It already seems that he has been scared
>off. I sent my post to his private e-mail at the same time as sending
>here - let's see what happens.
I have to say that I doubt very much if anything substantive will come
of this. I have never yet come across a Tibetan, lama or otherwise, who
has crossed the *loss of face* boundary. Except for HHDL. All the
evidence I have indicates that this has never been an issue for him. And
aristocratic Sakyas? They are somewhat haughty by nature, so I think it
extremely unlikely we will find common ground.
>
>with all due respect, that doesn't stop her typing a message out!
I wish I knew what has happened to her. I left a voice mail message two
days ago. No response. Ev has not heard from her either.

>
>>I posted two items from her here, which she e-mailed to me.
>
>Yep, that's the only point that keeps me from totally discounting her.
I did mention that she stood up for Janice Doe during the lawsuit period
I think. That took some courage.
>t is very
>strange that she has gone underground whilst the whole issue has really
>hotted up here.
Yes. It is worrying.

>Death threats? Threats of violence to her or her family? Have these been
>brought to the attention of the police? However, if they were just "poison
>pen" letters that's not reason enough to hide her true identity from us, to
>my mind. You simply can't shoot down someone's reputation (I'm talking HHST
>here - Sogyal R doesn't have much of a reputation to shoot down, so it
>seems) and want to hide your identity at the same time, unless doing so
>would put your life or those of your family members in definite danger. Not
>if you want to be taken seriously.
I don't know the nature of the threats, but I do know that there are
fanatics around who can be extremely intimidating.

>
>I can understand it would take a long time for a *child* - but an adult? I
>find it hard to believe. However thinking about it, I can imagine that if
>it happened to her before all these other scandals came out, it must have
>felt like there was no one to go to with her story.
The victim is always under duress. Perhaps you have been lucky to avoid
sexual abuse. I will make a confession here that I have never addressed
before because I do not usually mix personal stuff with broad issues --
especially not in this bear garden! I risk all manner of destructive
feedback in doing this. I have never been sexually abused by a lama,
never even been propositioned, but I have experienced sexual abuse by a
member of my family. Believe me, no matter what time of your life it
occurs, it leaves VERY deep scars that never heal. All one can do is
learn acceptance and move on. With hindsight, it is clear to me now that
this personal damage was a contributing factor to my interest in
Buddhism. This applies for many people. Not all of us have the capacity
to resolve this type of problem. Some of us take it into our
relationship with our spiritual teachers. I did not do this, but I know
many who did/do. Tibetan lamas are not trained to deal with psycho-
emotional distress. The ones who clocked the western mind, adapted their
approach accordingly. Lama Thubten Yeshe, Akong R, Trungpa R for
example.
>
>It's been a real coup, this contact with TW. Many thanks to you for
>fighting this issue, Mary, and also to Henry for taking it to TW.
>
I am not sure that Henry's action was useful. I also think NS should
have been more circumspect about writing details of her encounter with
ST to Henry.
Love to you too,
Mary

Mary Finnigan

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to
Ev -- please forgive me if I embarrass you -- but I LOVE YOU TO PIECES.
Mary

--
Mary Finnigan

LStev3234

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to
>Believe me, no matter what time of your life it occurs, it leaves VERY deep
scars that never heal.<

Actually, the scars do heal, but it takes a LONG time and a LOT of work. The
memory does not go away, but we learn to see the abuse from a perspective other
than hate, fear, anger, contemp, etc etc. Knowledge is power. It is good that
we are discussing these things in the open so that others who have been victims
may become empowered, and those who are perpetrators will learn to stop the
perpetuauion of various myths which only cause more suffering for themselves
and others.

margaret

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to

Sylva Simsova wrote in message ...

>In article <7v25as$ecr$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, margaret <margaret@mdebet
>hlen.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>women have to speak out.
>I think that women have to speak out in situations where their vows
>would be broken, instead of complaining afterwards.


Ideally, of course - but I don't see why they shouldn't do later as well,
though the longer the elapsing time the more weakened their story.

>>Also, to be fair, it is sadly not possible to say that Tibetan monks have
a
>>stainless reputation for keeping their chastity vow.

>I also think that women have a responsibility in helping monks to keep
>their chastity vow. In Theravada buddhism monks are allowed to speak to
>women only in the presence of a male chaperon. I used to find this


>strange, but the system has some advantages. Women learn to keep
>distance from monks and the monks are protected from slipping.

Hmmm... I disagree that women have a responsibility to help someone else
keep a vow that that person has taken. That would be like saying we have a
responsibility to help politicians stay (or be!) honest. Each person's vows
are purely their own responsibility, to my mind, same as anything else.
However, I do think that everyone (not just women - after all, there *are*
homosexuals out there as well!) has a responsibility not help someone
*break* their vow, and of course not to *encourage* someone to break their
vow. Also, how worth-while *is* a vow if it needs that much back up? If I
vow never to watch a cinema film again, but demand all the cinemas in the
world to close down, just how much does that vow mean.... not much, I would
say! If the only way I can maintain my vow not to watch a film again is by
demanding all cinemas to close, then I reckon one should see the obvious,
and scrap the vow!

>If women take their responsibility seriously instead of imagining
>themselves as victims of circumstances, they gain a purity of mind.

I think I understand you, but still I say that even the purest of minds can
become the victim of someone else's unsavoury circumstance. My friend who
was kissed by the randy old monk, for instance : Her only intention in
asking for an interview was to ask certain practice questions, none other.
His pass came out of the blue for her.

An
>impure mind stands in the way of understanding and enjoying, among other
>things, the stories of the Divine Madman Drukpa Kunley.


This I agree with totally. It is like the story of White Buffalo Woman.
Those with the impure minds will only take in the lechery.

>And this is what worries me most about the present discussion. The
>seriousness of the accusations and counter-accusations is bound to leave
>impressions in people's minds which can affect their understanding of
>some precious subtle truths.


Do you mean that people might be put off Tibetan Buddhism? If that happens,
I wonder how strong their belief was in the first place?

MdB

margaret

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99
to

>As for me?......... if I were Nicky Skye, I would REMAIN anonymous rather
>than be fried, fricasseed, barbecued, and chewed up and spit out by the
>vultures who are too in love with the IDEA of their teacher, rather than to
>face the fact that teachers are real people with human feelings, desires,
>faults and foibles, who pee, poop, have sex, sweat, bleed and sometimes
make
>all too human mistakes.
>
>The utter hypocrisy of THAT is enough to turn one off of Tibetan Buddhism
>almost.....


Hi Evelyn

You mean that the opinions of some misguided people are enough to nearly
shake your beliefs? I can't believe it! However, if that's true then they
were pretty weak beliefs and doubtfully worth saving...

Or maybe you mean the beliefs of other people. I feel it's the other way
around. People seem to be far more drawn to pretty masks, even when they
know that masks they must be, than to real people, when it comes to
spiritual paths.

MdB

Evelyn Ruut

unread,
Oct 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/27/99